Karmelo Anthony’s Family Spox Characterizes Upcoming Murder Trial as a ‘Fight Against White Supremacy’

[EvilCat Breath]

Why not, and where can I go to corroborate that fact?

It's pretty much everywhere. Each school had a tent. Karmelo was supposed to be in his school's tent. Instead he deliberately sat where he wasn't supposed to be.

The evidence is, Karmelo armed himself with a knife and deliberately sat where he wasn't supposed to be. He chose this tent because he saw a bunch of white guys sitting there. He was looking for a white to kill.

 

[Fang]

The whole stand your ground thing.

Was Karmelo preventing any of these?

• Imminent death
• Great bodily harm
• The commission of a forcible felony (e.g., robbery, burglary, carjacking)

I think we can agree the 3rd option does not apply and I find it hard to believe Karmelo was facing imminent death. So his only possible defense is “Great Bodily Harm”.

My own opinion based on what I‘ve heard to so far is his defense team will have a hard time proving great bodily harm. What have you heard to think stand your ground would apply here?

 

[MarcATL]

He wanted to start shit by sitting under the tent for the other school.
Now he can show how tough he is to all the other bros in prison, after he's convicted.
Try that “touch me and see what happens," in prison.
LOL!

So no link, just more of your precious feelings.

Got it.

As I understand it, he was there because it was the first tent he was close to to get away from the rain.

Were the twins already in that tent or did they go there to straighten Karmelo out?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So no link, just more of your precious feelings.

Got it.

As I understand it, he was there because it was the first tent he was close to to get away from the rain.

Were the twins already in that tent or did they go there to straighten Karmelo out?

Did he have a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to protect himself from imminent harm?

Or was he feelin' dissed?

The person using force cannot be the initial aggressor or have provoked the confrontation.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Did he have a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to protect himself from imminent harm?

Or was he feelin' dissed?

The person using force cannot be the initial aggressor or have provoked the confrontation.

He had the dissed feelz

 

[MarcATL]

Did he have a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to protect himself from imminent harm?

Or was he feelin' dissed?

The person using force cannot be the initial aggressor or have provoked the confrontation.

There's no reports stating that Karmelo was the initial aggressor.

The reports all say that, at least one of, the twins initially confronted him.

I note that you didn't answer any of my questions.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It wasn't self-defense.
Being dissed doesn't mean you're allowed to stab a white guy.

I don't know what it was at this point and neither do you.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I did a quick search.

“In Texas, deadly force is legally justifiable in self-defense when a person reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to protect themselves or another from imminent death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of certain felonies. This includes situations where someone is trying to commit arson, burglary, robbery,aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime. The force used must be proportionate to the threat, and the person using it must not be the initial aggressor or engaged in criminal activity at the time.”

Here you go. This is clearly not the time to use deadly force. If this is the hill you want to die on, go ahead. This guy is clearly guilty.

Well, I agree once I see all the evidence of what ACTUALLY happened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's no reports stating that Karmelo was the initial aggressor.

The reports all say that, at least one of, the twins initially confronted him.

I note that you didn't answer any of my questions.

There's no reports stating that Karmelo was the initial aggressor.

Besides being on the wrong turf and refusing to leave?

The reports all say that, at least one of, the twins initially confronted him.

Did they have a deadly weapon? Did they threaten him with deadly force?

I don't know when the twins got there.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Well, I agree once I see all the evidence of what ACTUALLY happened.

I’m just going off of what the details of the story have been.

Based on what we currently know, deadly force wasn’t warranted and he is guilty.

Do you agree?

 

[MarcATL]

There's no reports stating that Karmelo was the initial aggressor.

Besides being on the wrong turf and refusing to leave?

The reports all say that, at least one of, the twins initially confronted him.

Did they have a deadly weapon? Did they threaten him with deadly force?

I don't know when the twins got there.

You gotta start getting serious here...

1. Karmelo was not banned from those premises, he had as much right to be there as any other student athlete.

2. The second amendment grants everyone the right to carry arms. Karmelo isn't exempt from that right.

3. Karmelo is lawfully allowed to respond with deadly force if he fears his life is in danger. However, the twins had no right to put their hands on him without permission. They FAFO'd.

4. Don't you think confirming who did what first is a crucial bit of information?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You gotta start getting serious here...

1. Karmelo was not banned from those premises, he had as much right to be there as any other student athlete.

2. The second amendment grants everyone the right to carry arms. Karmelo isn't exempt from that right.

3. Karmelo is lawfully allowed to respond with deadly force if he fears his life is in danger. However, the twins had no right to put their hands on him without permission. They FAFO'd.

4. Don't you think confirming who did what first is a crucial bit of information?

Karmelo is lawfully allowed to respond with deadly force if he fears his life is in danger.

How was his life in danger?
He could have simply left and gone to the tent of his own school.
No one struck him or brandished a weapon. Except him.

It's not like he was pinned to the ground and was having his head bashed into concrete.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

4. Don't you think confirming who did what first is a crucial bit of information?

I agree, we have to look at all the evidence before he's convicted.

 

[AZrailwhale]

His family is right. And witnesses have said the two Matthews brothers were known bullies. He was defending himself just like Kyle Rittenhouse. But that doesn't matter because he's going to jail because there are separate systems for non-whites and whites. Had this been a white dude who stabbed a black kid in this situation, all of you would be taking about self defense. You are nothing but racist pieces of white trash.

Bullcrap. He pulled a knife on an unarmed boy who asked or told him to leave a privately erected shelter. He had no business bringing weapons to a track meet in a public venue that most likely banned weapons (most do). No one attacked him. Kyle Rittenhouse was a totally different situation, he had been threatened AND attacked by a mentally ill person, then set upon by a mob. And if the situation had been exactly reversed, we wouldn't be calling it self-defense.

 

[AZrailwhale]

People have grown tired of your racist BS. Time for you to leave....

He'll never leave, this place feeds his victimhood complex. He sees us all as white racists attacking him for no reason.

 

[AZrailwhale]

This racist wants to see the death penalty. But he was fine with Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse did nothing wrong. I don't know why you are so upset about him, none of his "victims" were black.

 

[MarcATL]

I agree, we have to look at all the evidence before he's convicted.

Yes, we know he was already guilty on your eyes.

However, justice will prevail.

 

[MarcATL]

Rittenhouse's white victims were proxies for Black people.

After all, if you can't kill an N-word, next best thing is an N-word lover.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they had a history of terrorizing or bullying the victim, sure, a just society would understand that.

How did they terrorize or bully a victim they did not even know, dumbass?

 

[Ret Old Man]

Actually it's not anything you say. Not all whites are supremacists, but it is the white victimhood mentality that has you making such an idiotic comment. White supremacists love trying to make this about all whites when it isn't. The fact is white supremacy exists, but in this case, it's probably Trumpism that made two big white Texas high school kids decide to tell a black kid to get out of a tent.

There are racists in both Black and White communities, we all know that and we know that racism is taught primarily in the homes and with peer groups. I have no use for racism, it is hateful and destructive and serves to divide this nation and certain groups/politicians push it to the extreme in order to obtain their positions and power and we know who they are but unfortunately certain segments of our society buy into their racist rants and they are reelected.
So, can you accept this or specific elements of this? We could all get along and help each other if we were of one accord.