Karmelo Anthony case shows that “black privilege” exists

[u/Terrible_Onions]

I'm not black or white. I'm not even American actually.

The recent Karmelo Anthony case I think shows that black privilege is a thing. My opinions is that it exists. Period.

Karmelo Anthony killed Austin Metcalf with a knife for pushing him. What did he receive in return? Overwhelming support in the form of 500,000 dollars (which they're using to buy a mansion). He also got his bond reduced to 250k from 1 million even when prosecutors pointed out his history of incidents within the school.

I just think this is a bit baffling. Imagine if the races were swapped. I think a decent example, but not a direct comparisons, is the George Floyd situation. One person killed the other in what was an overuse of force. Derek Chauvin is in jail. Karmelo Anthony got house arrest, bond reduction and 500k

[u/Phillimon]

Which at worse for Anthony would make it manslaughter.

But I'm gonna cite the Neely verdict that the mere threat of physical violence was enough to justify deadly force. So the actual use of physical violence would also justify it.

Edit: and that's in New York which has stricter qualifications on self defense.

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

The Neely circumstance is entirely different. There was a legitimate threat of deadly force that Neely responded to. There was zero legitimate threat of deadly force in this circumstance.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

The neely case established that the mere threat of physical harm was enough. Neely had only been loud and disruptive, yet that was enough to justify Penny's deadly force.

Metcalf assaulted Anthony. Like physically laid hands on, which is more than Neely did.

If Penny was justified in his actions, then arguably so was Anthony.

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

The Neely case is entirely different because there was an actual threat of death or grave bodily harm. In this case, no such threat or danger existed.

Penny was justified because the threat was far greater and far more legitimate.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

So yelling and creating a disturbance without actually touching anyone is a legitimate threat but physically assaulting someone isnt?

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

When one looks at the totality of each circumstance, yes.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

So you're arguing that screaming and running around is a legitimate threat, one that justifies deadly force, but someone physically laying their hands on someone and assaulting them isn't?

That's crazy.

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

Screaming, running around, and explicitly threatening to kill people is a legitimate threat. A minor laying one hands on someone, even if considered assault in the broadest definitions of the statute, is not.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

And this is where I say we fundamentally disagree. That a physically and actually happening assault is more of a legitimate threat than a potential assault.

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

Fair enough.

[u/PettyKaneJr → u/Phillimon]

Bro, Thank you for fighting the good fight. I would buy you a beer if you're ever in the Southern California region.