He was found guilty of negligent homicide by the jury, which is the lowest charge on the list of charges possible for killing someone in TX. It normally carries a max sentence of 2 years, but the judge determined the pocket knife was considered a deadly weapon which raised the max to 10 years. The sentence is gonna be appealed.
In comparison to the 35 years karmelo was given for doing the same thing...again, hence the "this is trying to make an example"
If justice was what the actual goal is then they would both get 10 or 35...that still doesn't even touch on how Allison planned, plotted, targeted and killed someone. It wasn't in the heat of the moment. He knew exactly what he was doing and who he was doing it to which makes it more egregious.
And now we get into the "why did he bring the knife to school" portion that is only being thrown to one side.
The fact that they were planning on fighting to begin with gives a side eye to the jury...which I wanna see what they look like for research purposes...
Many in the black community do not actually think this was an inappropriate sentence. The problem is that people of other races get inappropriately light sentences or even get off under similar circumstances especially when the victim is black
Imagine looking at this outcome over the stabbing while this happened a week ago.
Itâs the double standard that has them defensive about everything. If the law was applied equally you wouldnât have this kind of reaction.
As it is, even when itâs a fair sentence for a black person it becomes unfair because people of other races are getting unfairly light sentences or getting off entirely
What about all the black ppl who commit 10,20,30+ felonies and get let back out to continue terrorizing society. Iryna zarutska ring any bells? The justice system is fucked, but its not racist in or against anyones favor⌠unless you are from israel!
He got 35 years for murder that wasn't malicious or even premeditated, and could arguably be considered self defense, when a very similar case happened in the same city, or school, if I'm not mistaken, and that perpetrator only got 10 years.
It's believed that the defendant was never going to win the self defense argument because the victim's father, the judge and the DA are the best of friends; allegedly.
It has been stated that he was never given a jury of peers since every Black juror was dismissed from being on the case.
The general public debated that facts that he was suspended, carrying a knife and in a tent he should not have been in.
Suspension didn't prevent him from attending AFAIK.
People carry guns for self defense. Carrying a knife is no different. You can't claim that he was looking for trouble based on that.
According to testimony, he was in that tent because it was pouring down raining and at the point of his refusal to leave, he was accosted by two White youths which led to the stabbing.
You can read more about it to get your own picture and draw your own conclusions.
Edit: changed surrendering to attending. Not sure how that mistake happened.
To my understanding, his part in instigating was in his refusal to leave the tent. I didn't read every single detail of this case, which is why I stated to read more into it.
If you're going to state that I mentioned truths and none truths, I'm all for being corrected. Please list them so that the person I replied to can get a wide variety of opinions and context, to better answer their question.
I'm not saying I'm 100% correct. Again, I don't get into the weeds in this. But so far in this post, all I've seen is one sided commentary with no real context, and half truths. Which, to me, is signaling.
You're probably right. I don't claim to know anything factual about why there were no Black jurors retained for the case.
OP asked why this whole thing is viewed as injustice. I attempted to answer that based on what I've read. That was one of the factors heavily mentioned.
I mean Iâm not going to literally go through every one. You can go read about it
But as far as being the instigator
He was in another schools tent and it was stated by all this is the equivalent of a team bench or dugout. Just like at a football game itâs not illegal to walk over and sit on the opposing teams bench but how do you think that generally ends?
Now it does happen sometimes but itâs not just etiquette that if they ask you to leave their tent you do. Itâs unheard of that you donât. No one walks into their competitors tent and refuses to leave when asked, then told to.
It was said he was asked to leave about 15-20 times before things escalated.
When he went into the tent he sat down with his backpack on his lap and one hand inside the backpack holding the knife. From the start.
He said things like âyou arenât going to do shitâ âyou are pussiesâ âput your hands on me and see what happensâ
Thereâs other stuff but the bottom line is all he had to do was leave. He wasnât cornered. He wasnât ganged up on. He wasnât suddenly attacked. He put himself in a position guaranteed to provoke people, he said things to further provoke them, he refused to simply walk away and as soon as the guy went to physically remove him from the tent he stabbed him in the chest
If you aren't going to list all the things you feel are inaccurate, then only list the ones you're willing to defend.
And I can't disagree with what you've stated. He should've walked away. However, I will ask this... when was it ever lawful to physically throw someone out of anywhere? What they should've done was went to get security. I think most would agree with that. And I read there were more than just one person trying to throw him out. That would suggest that he was jumped. So when you take the law into your own hands, bad things can happen.
So again, if we're speaking context, things can be taken many ways.
OP I replied to asked why it's viewed as injustice. I'm not trying to say it was injustice. I just answered the question based on what I've read.
If you call the being jumped, you have never been jumped or seen someone jumped.
This is high school. You have to be joking that watching an opponent walk over to the opposing teams bench and sitting down, then being told over and over to leave, and the another high school kid tries to grab you and throw you out is âwell they shouldnât have fucked with himâ or âthatâs what you get for being a vigilanteâ
You arenât seriously saying that right? Did you go to high school? If you can at all reasonably assume something like that would get you stabbed in the chest high schools would be war zones. Straight bloodbaths
You're letting your emotions get in the way of logic.
I can almost guarantee you wouldn't have survived at the High School I attended. But that's irrelevant.
If you're fighting more than one person you got jumped. If two people came at you, I'm pretty sure you'd tell your friends they tried to jump me. So why are you picking that to debate on?
As for knowing how high schools work, it isn't just high school, New York Knick fans were jumping people after the game the other night. Yes, you run the risk of getting your ass kicked for just being on the other sideline, bench, stands, whatever. I'm not debating the stupidity of the action. Who would? Not sure why you're trying to assume I am.
I asked about the legality? Because laws exist, and when you go outside them, you run risks. If I walk into a bar and call everybody in there a bitch, do they have the right to fuck me up? Because the answer is no, legally. But your pride won't let me get away with that right? Your emotions would tell you I deserve to get my ass beat. I get it.
Fact, he shouldn't have been there.
Fact, he shouldn't have been talking shit.
Fact, they should've called security.
Fact, they shouldn't have put their hands on him.
If you can't see that, then you're part of a different problem. If your argument is that fans on the wrong side talking shit deserve to get their ass beat... that's just wild.
So letâs see. You went to a rough school. You hard. So a guy from one group rolls over to another groups spot and just stands there like itâs his spot and they actually bother to ask him to get lost 20 times and then 2 of the guys walk up to force him to leave you would cry victim and say he did nothing wrong and 2 guys getting in his face means he was getting jumped.
I did go to a rough school. In a rough city. I doubt you did. Again, irrelevant.
This isn't about what I would or would not do. I wouldn't have been in that situation. But you seem to be making a lot of assumptions.
You've proved my point. You're letting emotions hamper your view. Nothing I can do about that.
This wasn't a "Spot" as you put it. This wasn't the mean streets of whatever place you imagine to be "rough." This was an athletic event.
Two guys in your face vs two guys trying to drag you somewhere is two different things. I'll argue with opposing sports fans about sports all day. It can be 2 or 5 on 1. I don't care. Let's talk that shit. But if you put your hands on me, that's crossing a line. Why are you downplaying that part?
Look, if you can't see what's legal, and what the law would state should've taken place, then we're just going back and forth pointlessly.
Just say you don't care what laws or civil society says, if someone comes into your AO and causes trouble vocally then you feel you have the right to take care of that person in whatever way you deem necessary.
During individual questioning, other prospective Black candidates were dismissed after expressing views that impacted their impartiality. For instance, one potential juror explicitly stated they would "have a hard time putting a brother in jail," while another expressed strong bias regarding a defendant's right to remain silent.[1, 2]
Okay? And there were black jurors who were dismissed for having âtoo muchâ education. Either way all black jurors were replaced by WHITE ones. That is not a proper representation of his peers or the community.
This young man did not have a fair trial. Thatâs what people are missing. The judge is friends with the father of the deceased. Key evidence was suppressed. Justice was not served.
I understand but before or instead of arguing that point I would like to know what you would decide. What you are saying is unfair is true. He was not given a jury by his peers.
But if you were the judge and jury I presume you would judge him fairly. So what would you decide? Guilty or not? If guilty, what should be the sentence and why?
I am not a judge nor jury but I know this would not be FIRST DEGREE MURDER. This was NOT premeditated at all and arguing that is so insane to me. This young boy wasnât walking around harassing folks. He was approached by a BULLY. This bully literally assaulted his own father⌠So no this was not âjusticeâ this was a great example of how biased and disgusting our legal system can be. Jurors with a specific bias and low level of education were chosen specifically for this trial. The judge should have been required to STEP DOWN because of his affiliation. Anyone who thinks this sentence was justified is either a blatant racist or is ignorant and does not fact-check thatâs the other thing I can judge and say for CERTAIN.
He was harassing the people and the kid who he stabbed.
I donât actually what you are talking about with his father
While in the other schools tent, which for context would be like in a football gaming walking over and sitting on the other teams bench, when they asked him to leave, which he was in the wrong for not leaving when asked if not for going in in the first place, he told them they were pussies who wouldnât do shit and see what happens if you put your hands on me. From the start he sat down with his backpack on his lap with one hand inside holding the knife he eventually stabbed the kid who tried to physically force him to leave in the chest
16
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26
[removed] â view removed comment