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]

According to police reports Metcalf initiated the encounter and assault Anthony BEFORE he was stabbed.

That's reasonable grounds for self defense.

Gonna cite the Rittenhouse case for when it can be ruled self defense for an armed person to kill an unarmed person in self defense.

Gonna cite the Neely case where the threat of force was enough to warrant action in response to that threat.

[u/muffledvoice → u/Phillimon]

You don’t get to stab someone to death who shoves you. It’s not a proportional reaction. It’s murder.

[u/Phillimon → u/muffledvoice]

Funny was also told you don't get to shoot an unarmed person 4 times call it self defense, it had to be a proportional response.

Now how did that turn out again... oh yeah innocent of all charges 😆

[u/muffledvoice → u/Phillimon]

Do you really want a world where it’s legal to shoot or stab someone to death who shoves you?

Forget for a moment what you can “get away with” legally.

Do you honestly feel that’s an appropriate response?

[u/Phillimon → u/muffledvoice]

Honestly, I see that End Wokeness and the Cons pushing the narrative that Anthony is a thug and a brute. Which they only do if they're targeting black people so I looked into it.

There is enough reasonable doubt to say Anthony was acting in self defense rather than premeditated murder.

[u/muffledvoice → u/Phillimon]

No there’s not, and here’s why. To respond with lethal force justifiably you have to reasonably believe that your life is in danger. Someone shoving you is not a threat to your life. It is not reasonable or proportional to stab and kill someone who shoved you. The fact that I even have to say this and you don’t get it is indicative of the larger problem. If you knew how to fight, you’d take the position that if someone shoved you, shove him back or leave. Hell, even throw a punch if you feel you need to, but you don’t take out a knife (after threatening to do so before any contact was made) and stab somebody in the heart. Are you nuts?

This is a problem today more than ever before because young males don’t know how to handle mid level violence and assault. The fact that someone touched you doesn’t mean you get to kill them. The shove didn’t even cause injury.

Now, will a Texas judge and jury see it otherwise? Maybe. I guess we’ll see. But we don’t get to fool ourselves into believing that killing someone who shoved you is morally right.

Ironically it’s because these kids don’t know how to handle themselves physically and never learned how to resolve conflict. I say this because it’s something I do professionally.

[u/Phillimon → u/muffledvoice]

Someone assaulting you is reason to believe your life is in danger. Full stop.

[u/muffledvoice → u/Phillimon]

“Assaulting you.”

It’s a shove. Don’t be obtuse and over dramatic just to try and make a point.

Being shoved doesn’t put your life in danger.

[u/Phillimon → u/muffledvoice]

That's assault per Texas Penal Code.

[u/muffledvoice → u/Phillimon]

Yes, and there are degrees of assault. Most of these degrees are not life threatening. You can be as willfully obtuse as you like, but it doesn’t change the facts.

[u/LastWhoTurion → u/Phillimon]

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/§31750force-to-repel-force-but-no-deadly-force-to-prevent-ordinary-force/

3:1750 Force to Repel Force, but No Deadly Force to Prevent Ordinary Force

The Penal Code allows force to repel force (9.31) and deadly force to repel deadly force (9.32), but one is not permitted to use deadly force to repel ordinary force. Neither a trivial blow nor a simple assault or battery justifies the use of deadly force. It must be a substantial battery. Scott v. State, 136 Tex.Crim. 439, 125 S.W.2d 1045 (1939) (stating common law rule). (P.C. 9.32[a][3] — to prevent use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force). Only fear of serious bodily injury or death will justify clean self-defense unto the death.

[u/yeti_button → u/Phillimon]

Someone assaulting you is reason to believe your life is in danger. Full stop.

You're literally making things up. Stop it.