@no1marauder saidNever happen, just lies. He’s a murderer that got less than half the max sentence, now with nothing to stand on with everything that was just released.
That was up to the jury though it seems quite possible the verdict will be overturned for legal errors, some of whom I have already mentioned.
What "false claims"?
@no1marauder saidFrom page 4, the first part never happened, and your last point we have the castle law here where your car is like your home in self defense cases.
I guarantee you I can find cases where a smaller person assaulted by a larger one was acquitted even though they used lethal force or simply in a disadvantageous position (as Anthony was):
"Disparity of force refers to a situation where your attacker, although unarmed, has such a significant physical or tactical advantage that a reasonable person in your position woul ...[text shortened]... ility to escape or fight back effectively."
https://www.2afirearmsacademy.com/disparity-of-force/
@no1marauder saidNo law requires a black person, there were five whites and the rest were Mexican and Asian. Yes one said they wouldn’t feel right sending a young black man to jail and the other two were teachers and could cause conflict. Tell who all chooses these people?
That's BS. One gave an eliminating answer; three others were struck because they were "educators" or at least that's the excuse the prosecutor gave.
You really don't seem to know virtually anything about the case.
@mike69 saidInteresting fairy tale.
None of this happened though, they were also both in shape same age football players at larger schools. Karmelo kept getting smaller and smaller during the trial finally down to 5’8” 140pounds to help create this story. They don’t look to be that extreme in size difference like you are trying to creat here. Austin never hit karmelo either or any kind of beatdown by a group to fear for his life are you joking. It was just cold blooded murder.
@mike69 saidI'd explain Batson to you, but you seem too aggressively stupid to even try to understand it.
No law requires a black person, there were five whites and the rest were Mexican and Asian. Yes one said they wouldn’t feel right sending a young black man to jail and the other two were teachers and could cause conflict. Tell who all chooses these people?
The bottom line is a prosecutor can't use his challenges to exclude every potential black juror unless there is a non-pretextual reason to do so. They were "educators" doesn't seem like such a reason esp. when another educator was allowed on the jury:
"As FOX 4 noted, the defense raised concerns during the second round of strikes after prosecutors dismissed three potential jurors, all of whom were Black, despite them being "similarly situated" to a white woman who remained in the pool. Assistant District Attorney Dewey Mitchell pushed back on the idea that race played any role. Instead, he insisted they didn't want educators seated on the jury since the alleged incident took place at a school-related function with high school-aged children.
The prosecution did, however, keep one educator, who's actually an esthetician at a trade school rather than a traditional K-12 environment."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/did-eligible-black-jurors-dismissed-160439566.html
@mike69 saidThere was at least a 40 lb difference in weight, Metcalf was standing above the seated Anthony and no one denies he pushed Anthony with his own brother admitting he did it to get the latter out of the tent. And according to a statement made to police by one of Metcalf's fellow Memorial students, Austin had threatened to "beat his a**".
It’s true.
@no1marauder saidIs having a desired race a law? Do both sides have challenges equally the same? So you agree about the reasons and it wasn’t racist except the black woman not wanting to convict because of race?
I'd explain Batson to you, but you seem too aggressively stupid to even try to understand it.
The bottom line is a prosecutor can't use his challenges to exclude every potential black juror unless there is a non-pretextual reason to do so. They were "educators" doesn't seem like such a reason esp. when another educator was allowed on the jury:
"As FOX 4 noted ...[text shortened]... nment."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/did-eligible-black-jurors-dismissed-160439566.html
@mike69 saidI explained the law. You can read the SCOTUS case if you want:
Is having a desired race a law? Do both sides have challenges equally the same? So you agree about the reasons and it wasn’t racist except the black woman not wanting to convict because of race?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/
"However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors. By denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror. "
@no1marauder saidI think you mix bs with truth like most activist. We are all bigger or smalller than someone else, but there was no attack to warrant killing someone, just ghetto rules.
There was at least a 40 lb difference in weight, Metcalf was standing above the seated Anthony and no one denies he pushed Anthony with his own brother admitting he did it to get the latter out of the tent. And according to a statement made to police by one of Metcalf's fellow Memorial students, Austin had threatened to "beat his a**".
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNo one did that, except the black woman racist, it was agreed by all also on the other two being educators also. So it’s not a law to have a certain race on the jury.
I explained the law. You can read the SCOTUS case if you want:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/
"However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as juro ...[text shortened]... n account of his race, the State also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror. "
Did you see the black woman outside the courthouse say she would still let karmelo off even if he is guilty with a twirl of her head like she really said something intelligent?
@no1marauder saidDefense: "Do you remember telling the detective, 'You need to move before I beat your a--'?"
The same witness:
"The witness recalled telling investigators that Anthony said to Metcalf: "Nobody has a problem with me being here, but you." He also told investigators last year in an interview that Metcalf said something to the effect of "I'll beat your ass" in a moderate tone."
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/frisco-murder-trial/frisco-track-meet ...[text shortened]... o-anthony-austin-metcalf-collin-county-texas/287-e6ca87e7-e367-4d75-b8fe-710f04f3daf7
At Day Five
Witness: "I don't recall saying that."
The defense approaches the witness with papers. The witness agrees that Austin said something like that, or something similar, about wanting to beat his a--.
All the testimony from that you shytweasle like left out
Defense: "Austin is standing up. Melo is still seated?"
Witness: "Yes."
Defense: "That's when Melo reached into his bag, after Austin mentioned something about wanting to beat his a-?"
Witness: "Yes."
@Mott-The-Hoople saidDid he make the statement to the police officer or not?
Defense: "Do you remember telling the detective, 'You need to move before I beat your a--'?"
Witness: "I don't recall saying that."
The defense approaches the witness with papers. The witness agrees that Austin said something like that, or something similar, about wanting to beat his a--.
All the testimony from that you shytweasle like left out
D ...[text shortened]... ed into his bag, after Austin mentioned something about wanting to beat his a-?"
Witness: "Yes."
He didn't want to admit it at trial (he was a hostile witness called by the defense) but when faced with the "papers" (undoubtedly his own statement), he had to:
"Defense: "That's when Melo reached into his bag, after Austin mentioned something about wanting to beat his a-?"
Witness: "Yes.""
@no1marauder saidIncident? My neighbor’s son was just knifed to death at the pee-wee football game,
Because he was a hostile witness, the defense was allowed to use leading questions. And he had already made a statement to police the day of the incident, so the defense was just getting him to validate his prior statement even though he had said he didn't want to be there (he was a Memorial student after all).
Guess you were wrong (no surprise).
He was incensed when I referred to it as an incident. I said don’t blame me, that is what marauder says to call it.
🙂😳🙂😳🙂😳🙂😳🙂
I considered inviting him to join the forum, but thought better of it!!!!😀😳😀😆😆