Agree. Claiming self defense means he is admitting to the killing. The burden of proof now falls to him to show his life was in danger. The deceased had no weapon, was in his own tent and was threatened by the assailant. The person on trial is the one who brought a weapon to a track meet and initiated the entire incident by entering and refusing to leave another team tent. It will be nearly impossible for him to prove that it was his life in danger.
Is that the legal standard in Texas?
It feels like its different state by state. What makes George Zimmerman or that subway guy innocent because they felt threatened, but this kid guilty?
Its not ablut describing how you felt. Its about proving beyond a reasonable doubt you were threatened. Zimmerman was able tk do that because he was being chased and had the 911 call. The subway guy had all the witnesses stating the deceased was threatening to kill them and acting accordingly. Its possible he may be able to do that in this case, but highly unlikely given the facts we know. No witnesses indicating he was being threatened and he was the aggressor with a weapon. Much harder case to prove then the two scenarios you asked about where there was clear evidence of a threat beyond a reasonable doubt.
It feels like its different state by state. What makes George Zimmerman or that subway guy innocent because they felt threatened, but this kid guilty?
Its not ablut describing how you felt. Its about proving beyond a reasonable doubt you were threatened. Zimmerman was able tk do that because he was being chased and had the 911 call. The subway guy had all the witnesses stating the deceased was threatening to kill them and acting accordingly. Its possible he may be able to do that in this case, but highly unlikely given the facts we know. No witnesses indicating he was being threatened and he was the aggressor with a weapon. Much harder case to prove then the two scenarios you asked about where there was clear evidence of a threat beyond a reasonable doubt.
You don't think that someone could feel threatened after another person literally puts hands on them? Zimmerman got chased, the subway guy was verbally threatened, and this incident got physical.
I actually don't have much of a dog in this fight for what it's worth, but I don't really agree with the narrative on here that the victim or his brother were angelic choir boys who have zero role in what happened.
It’s not ablut describing how you felt. It’s about proving beyond a reasonable doubt you were threatened. Zimmerman was able tk do that because he was being chased and had the 911 call. The subway guy had all the witnesses stating the deceased was threatening to kill them and acting accordingly. It’s possible he may be able to do that in this case, but highly unlikely given the facts we know. No witnesses indicating he was being threatened and he was the aggressor with a weapon. Much harder case to prove then the two scenarios you asked about where there was clear evidence of a threat beyond a reasonable doubt.
We need more details on what happened. Here is what you have to prove in Texas:
Texas is a "Stand Your Ground" state, meaning you have no legal duty to retreat before using force or deadly force in self-defense. This applies anywhere you are legally allowed to be, provided you did not provoke the attacker and are not engaged in criminal activity.
The Core Requirements
Under Texas Penal Code § 9.31 and Texas Penal Code § 9.32, a person is legally justified in using force or deadly force if:
Reasonable Belief: You genuinely and reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another’s unlawful force, imminent death, or serious bodily injury.
No Retreat: You were in a location where you had a legal right to be.
Not the Aggressor: You did not provoke the altercation.
Law-Abiding: You were not engaged in criminal activity at the time.
When Force Is Not Justified
Verbal Provocation: You cannot use force simply because someone insulted or verbally threatened you.
Excessive Force: The force you use must be proportionate to the threat.
Its not ablut describing how you felt. Its about proving beyond a reasonable doubt you were threatened. Zimmerman was able tk do that because he was being chased and had the 911 call. The subway guy had all the witnesses stating the deceased was threatening to kill them and acting accordingly. Its possible he may be able to do that in this case, but highly unlikely given the facts we know. No witnesses indicating he was being threatened and he was the aggressor with a weapon. Much harder case to prove then the two scenarios you asked about where there was clear evidence of a threat beyond a reasonable doubt.
You don't think that someone could feel threatened after another person literally puts hands on them? Zimmerman got chased, the subway guy was verbally threatened, and this incident got physical.
I actually don't have much of a dog in this fight for what it's worth, but I don't really agree with the narrative on here that the victim or his brother were angelic choir boys who have zero role in what happened.
You dont have to be an angelic choir boy in order not to be murdered. Even if he was talking trash or demanding he leave the tent, that isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt he could harm the killer. The kid could have been a horrible human being (not saying he was at all) ajd it doesnt change the fact that the killer was the only one with a weapon at a track meet who initiated and escalated the entire event. Will be very tough to prove he was in danger with no video or witness accounts to validate that
You dont have to be an angelic choir boy in order not to be murdered. Even if he was talking trash or demanding he leave the tent, that isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt he could harm the killer. The kid could have been a horrible human being (not saying he was at all) ajd it doesnt change the fact that the killer was the only one with a weapon at a track meet who initiated and escalated the entire event. Will be very tough to prove he was in danger with no video or witness accounts to validate that
I agree with what you are saying. Funny that the Trayvon Martin thread was about 40 pages of posters mentioning the fact that Trayvon listened to rap music, used swear words, was over 6 ft tall and wore a hoodie. Oh and how the real crime was how the left-wing media was painting him as an angel.
We need more details on what happened. Here is what you have to prove in Texas:
Texas is a "Stand Your Ground" state, meaning you have no legal duty to retreat before using force or deadly force in self-defense. This applies anywhere you are legally allowed to be, provided you did not provoke the attacker and are not engaged in criminal activity.
The Core Requirements
Under Texas Penal Code § 9.31 and Texas Penal Code § 9.32, a person is legally justified in using force or deadly force if:
Reasonable Belief: You genuinely and reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another’s unlawful force, imminent death, or serious bodily injury.
No Retreat: You were in a location where you had a legal right to be.
Not the Aggressor: You did not provoke the altercation.
Law-Abiding: You were not engaged in criminal activity at the time.
When Force Is Not Justified
Verbal Provocation: You cannot use force simply because someone insulted or verbally threatened you.
Excessive Force: The force you use must be proportionate to the threat.
These could be issues.
He was engaged in criminal activity by having a weapon on school property.
He was legally allowed to be in the stadium but was he legally allowed to be under another team's tent? That is questionable, especially since he refused to leave when told to by the rightful owners of the tent.
Force is certainly not proportional; you can't use deadly force because someone gave you a small push. If he had been shoved to the ground and the pusher continued to go after him when in a defenseless position, maybe. But deadly force was not necessary here. If he would have simply pulled the knife and not used it, I am sure the pusher would have backed away.
Justice! My post was restored! A Virtue Signaler/Triggered one tried to report my post as "harassment/personal attack" and the Mods shut that down. W. My post is very fair. The anthony kid did wrong and needs to spend a lot of time in prison for what he did. Shame. Everybody gets a chance, what that kid did blew his chance and he needs to pay for taking that other boy's life. The whole situation was/is a disgrace. How about some self-control karmelo? Now consequences.........
I'm noticing how often the people that feel the need to label their own posts as "fact" or "the truth" are just the same old non-fact-based angry opinions about race or vaccines or whatever.
I went to the same high school that Karmelo went to and I still live close by. It’s pretty astounding to me how a few thousand people donated more than 500k for bail after a police report was established. Everything in the report says that Anthony killed Metcalf for barely any reason and that he wanted to hurt somebody
This post was edited 18 seconds after it was posted.
You dont have to be an angelic choir boy in order not to be murdered. Even if he was talking trash or demanding he leave the tent, that isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt he could harm the killer. The kid could have been a horrible human being (not saying he was at all) ajd it doesnt change the fact that the killer was the only one with a weapon at a track meet who initiated and escalated the entire event. Will be very tough to prove he was in danger with no video or witness accounts to validate that
We’ve all been in that situation where we feel embarassed by someone rude. Everything I remember about this day and the report, it was raining (I live in frisco), report says Anthony was not an athlete in the track meet and he went to sit down at another schools tent, fine, did he even know anybody ? He got rudely asked to leave , though it was raining and the tent was small , next thing “touch me and find out “ what kind of response is that ? Ready to use deadly force with a weapon over something he started . What is wrong with people who donated ?
You dont have to be an angelic choir boy in order not to be murdered. Even if he was talking trash or demanding he leave the tent, that isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt he could harm the killer. The kid could have been a horrible human being (not saying he was at all) ajd it doesnt change the fact that the killer was the only one with a weapon at a track meet who initiated and escalated the entire event. Will be very tough to prove he was in danger with no video or witness accounts to validate that
We’ve all been in that situation where we feel embarassed by someone rude. Everything I remember about this day and the report, it was raining (I live in frisco), report says Anthony was not an athlete in the track meet and he went to sit down at another schools tent, fine, did he even know anybody ? He got rudely asked to leave , though it was raining and the tent was small , next thing “touch me and find out “ what kind of response is that ? Ready to use deadly force with a weapon over something he started . What is wrong with people who donated ?
You don't think that someone could feel threatened after another person literally puts hands on them? Zimmerman got chased, the subway guy was verbally threatened, and this incident got physical.
I actually don't have much of a dog in this fight for what it's worth, but I don't really agree with the narrative on here that the victim or his brother were angelic choir boys who have zero role in what happened.
You dont have to be an angelic choir boy in order not to be murdered. Even if he was talking trash or demanding he leave the tent, that isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt he could harm the killer. The kid could have been a horrible human being (not saying he was at all) ajd it doesnt change the fact that the killer was the only one with a weapon at a track meet who initiated and escalated the entire event. Will be very tough to prove he was in danger with no video or witness accounts to validate that
Well yes, obviously. Saying they weren't angelic choir boys doesn't mean that they deserved to be murdered. Believe it or not, there's room for nuance here!
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume, even if I'm in some place I'm not supposed to be, that I am in danger if someone escalates a verbal confrontation to a physical one. This is not to say that Anthony isn't at the very least culpable for manslaughter and this isn't to say that there is any justification to the force involved, I'm saying that I disagree with the narrative presented here that there isn't a significant amount of nuance that is conveniently being ignored by posters here in search for a right-wing circle-jerk opportunity.
Still He was Arrested, even if he gets off he will have a Hardtime Gitting into schools like West Point , Aier Force and Naval Academy, Also will have trouble getting into law Enforcement Jobs and And job requiring a High security Clearance.