- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 101105
@AThousandYoung saidNo he wasn't. He was intentionally in the wrong tent. With a knife and told evryone there he would not leave after being asked 15 times. he then said " make me and see what happens". He was in the wrong, he was the aggressor and he will hopefully rot in jail.
Karmelo was assaulted.
@boonon saidUntruths. He was in a tent talking to a friend who at least one witness said told him to come over.
No he wasn't. He was intentionally in the wrong tent. With a knife and told evryone there he would not leave after being asked 15 times. he then said " make me and see what happens". He was in the wrong, he was the aggressor and he will hopefully rot in jail.
A witness said a bully told him to leave or he'd "beat his a**" and he then said "touch me and see what happens". The bully had no authority to order him out of anywhere and the people who didn't like his presence there declined to go get a coach who was only 20 feet away according to testimony.
The person who puts his hands on another person is the "aggressor" and that is what Austin Metcalf did even having to go up multiple levels of bleacher seats to get to where Anthony was seated.
@boonon saidI think the court erred in allowing the jury to consider whether Anthony "provoked" Metcalf's assault. According to Texas law:
No he wasn't. He was intentionally in the wrong tent. With a knife and told evryone there he would not leave after being asked 15 times. he then said " make me and see what happens". He was in the wrong, he was the aggressor and he will hopefully rot in jail.
"The State is not entitled to a jury charge on provocation precluding the assertion of self-defense unless there is sufficient evidence that:
1) the defendant did some act or used some words that provoked the attack on him;
2) such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack; and
3) the act was done or words were used for the purpose of and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other.
An instruction on provocation should be given only when there is evidence from which a rational jury could find all three of the provocation elements beyond a reasonable doubt."
https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/provoking-the-difficulty-a-limitation-on-the-right-to-self-defense/
I do not think that a rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt mind you, the words "touch me and you'll find out" as "reasonably calculated to provoke the attack" (they seem to be doing the opposite i.e. discouraging one) or done "with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other. "
Yet not only was this jury instruction given, but the prosecutor repeatedly asked the Memorial student witnesses whether Anthony had "provoked" the incident. This is improper in having lay witnesses give their opinions on ultimate issues that are supposed to rest with the jury.
The more I read on this case concerning both the facts and the law the more I am convinced a grave injustice occurred which I hope is remedied at the appellate level.
@no1marauder saidA jury heard all the evidence and decided you are dead wrong 🤡
I think the court erred in allowing the jury to consider whether Anthony "provoked" Metcalf's assault. According to Texas law:
"The State is not entitled to a jury charge on provocation precluding the assertion of self-defense unless there is sufficient evidence that:
1) the defendant did some act or used some words that provoked the attack on him;
2) such act or wor ...[text shortened]... the more I am convinced a grave injustice occurred which I hope is remedied at the appellate level.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidAny one of the multiple legal errors I have described have been found sufficient in prior cases to invalidate convictions.
A jury heard all the evidence and decided you are dead wrong 🤡
@AThousandYoung saidHe didn’t have a mark on him, except Austin’s blood on his finger.
Karmelo was assaulted.
@mike69 said"Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 22.01. Assault
He didn’t have a mark on him, except Austin’s blood on his finger.
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by Findlaw Staff
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-22-01/
That's a Class A Misdemeanor:
"In Texas, Class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both jail time and a fine".
https://mac.harriscountytx.gov/about-texas-misdemeanors
Austin Metcalf was a criminal as soon as he put his hands on Anthony.
@no1marauder saidThe force used must be proportionate to the threat in Texas.
"Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 22.01. Assault
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by Findlaw Staff
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spous ...[text shortened]... ov/about-texas-misdemeanors
Austin Metcalf was a criminal as soon as he put his hands on Anthony.
@no1marauder saidUtterly stupid to think touching someone gives you reason to kill them…you are a 🤡
"Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 22.01. Assault
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by Findlaw Staff
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spous ...[text shortened]... ov/about-texas-misdemeanors
Austin Metcalf was a criminal as soon as he put his hands on Anthony.
@no1marauder
Let’s say someone calls your wife a flea ridden whore and she slaps them. Is it ok for that person to instantly without hesitation pull a knife and stab her in the heart killing her, is this justified by your own standards.
Or if you pushed them.
@no1marauder saidIs that your only point? Or do you also think his stabber was justified?
"Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 22.01. Assault
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by Findlaw Staff
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spous ...[text shortened]... ov/about-texas-misdemeanors
Austin Metcalf was a criminal as soon as he put his hands on Anthony.
@mike69 saidI thought I already explained this to you:
@no1marauder
Let’s say someone calls your wife a flea ridden whore and she slaps them. Is it ok for that person to instantly without hesitation pull a knife and stab her in the heart killing her, is this justified by your own standards.
Or if you pushed them.
""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 would fear death or serious bodily injury. In the eyes of the law, that overwhelming advantage acts as a weapon.
"In one Texas case, a man lawfully used deadly force while trapped in his car as a stronger attacker punched him through the window. The court ruled his use of force was justified due to his inability to escape or fight back effectively."
https://www.2afirearmsacademy.com/disparity-of-force/
A guy shot an unarmed assailant who punched him and it was found to be self-defense. Do you think it wouldn't have been self-defense if he stabbed him instead?"
You didn't answer that question instead choosing to go on a tangent that Metcalf and Anthony were about the same size which the evidence shows is clearly false.
2 edits
@Sleepyguy saidI think it should have been treated as manslaughter, not murder. Anthony didn't go to that tent intending to kill anybody and if Metcalf had kept his hands to himself, nothing would have happened.
Is that your only point? Or do you also think his stabber was justified?
The best resolution would be the appellate courts will toss the conviction due to the multiple legal errors I have pointed out and then Anthony plead to a manslaughter and get a sentence something like, maybe a little less, than Caysen Allison did. https://www.kxxv.com/news/local-news/in-your-neighborhood/judge-sentences-teen-to-10-years-in-prison-for-deadly-school-stabbing
EDIT: A bit more background on the Allison case: https://www.crimeonline.com/2025/04/21/caysen-allison-murder-trial-accused-killer-said-he-wanted-slain-texas-teen-on-life-support-before-fatal-stabbing-witness-says/#google_vignette