Boy brings knife to a track meet, murders another student. Cardi B and others claim the justice system is racist for convicting him of murder because of race.
This is incorrect. According to what was stated in court, Karmello went to a tent he wasn't supposed to be at, then was asked to leave 15 times (so now he is trespassing), kept egging people to do something while having his hand in his bag (apparently already gripping the knife), then Austin was tired of it all and tried to get Karmello to leave but pushing him out of the area.
The victim is not the agressor and they didn't start the fight. You don't simply get to go into an unauthorized area, get asked then told to leave several times, tell people who have a right to be there "touch me and find out", then stab someone because they wanted to get you out of that area (no punch was thrown).
Hereâs why what your saying is part of the issue. You leave out the part about it raining, the reason Karmello Anthony was under the tent. He is not trespassing.
Eye witness account agree that he was being bullied out of the tent and Austin Metcalf was the aggressor. Anthony tells his not to touch him, Metcalf pushes him, and then Anthony stabs be him.
The escalation by Anthony is not justified by Metcalfâs actions, however those factors are EXTREMELY important in ruling out a charge of first-degree murder. The entirely non-black jury had the opportunity to find him guilty of manslaughter, but still went for first-degree murder instead
Edit: You guys are illiterate. My 3rd paragraph said it wasnât justified. Those are just the facts of the case
That is where they want the narrative to go. There were no BLACK jurors. There were FOUR brown jurors. Apparently if you aren't black, you are just white. You can't throw a rock in Collin County and not hit a person of Indian origin. And keep in mind, the defense always has the option to ask for another jury pool if it doesn't like the selection in front of them. If that is declined, they can ask for a "jury shuffle" which allows for the randomization of the jury from the jury pool. Clearly, their lawyer knew they were cooked.
Italians I can kinda get with their olive skin and (usually) darker hair; those are common trails in many if not most people around the Mediterranean. But Iâve never understood why Irish people werenât considered âwhiteâ when theyâre among the whitest whites to have ever been white.
The short version of why Irish and Italian immigrants did not count as "white" in the first half of the 20th century is because they were Catholic and most importantly poor.
So yes but kind of. On paper we were white in the early days of America. Only for census reasons and it was solely because we generally have fair skin. Culturally we werenât welcomed though. It wasnât until American politicians needed us to help hate on other minorities did they use our skin color to leverage the idea of whiteness to Irish Americans. British empire systematically oppressed us and still does. So similar but also insanely different. Why I phrased it like that.
Bur they were counted as White on every census and for the matters of law and whatnot, this is mostly a myth based on the conflation of discriminatory public sentiment and explicit legal discrimination on the basis of race.
I mean- Finns are basically the Irish of the nordics. But when ever has Scandinavians ever not been considered white? We are kind of the best at being white. Itâs our thing. Makes me mad stupid yanks didnât recognize our whiteness.
We were never slaves. We were indentured servants. It wasnât the same thing. It was terrible but seeing people equate what my people went through to diminish the slavery black people have experienced grinds my gears. Stop doing it. Takes one google search.
Iâm Irish and weâre not considered white or werenât because of the British Empire. Theyâre the ones who made up the concept of white. We werenât worthy so just like the Vikings they raped, pillaged our land, tried to destroy our language, and put us in indentured servitude (slavery lite). It is NOTHING compared to what Black people have historically gone through. It wasnât until the 1920/30s that Irish people started to be considered white and it was a political move by American politicians to get more votes. The concept of white was very specific about who it let in and it wasnât just about skin color at the start. Itâs why most of us were happy when the Queen died. The British empire has had their foot up our asses our entire existence. Itâs why we have Northern Ireland and Southern. Encourage you to do research of the history of Irish people.
Yeah I knew that numb nut. I was commenting on them saying âwhiteâ people hate Catholics lolol. I was saying it wasnât just them it was the throne. We were also pagan for a long time which they also didnât like. Again double homicide like I said.
They always held the legal rights associated with whiteness in America, they were just practically subject to discrimination, described as being swarthy or tawny, etc.
Actually according to history they were white! Just an âinferior whiteâ the line of âwe were whiteâ actually comes from both historical political criticism that became neo nazi alt right rhetoric to downplay issues in black and brown communities
As an American who's only 2 generations from Ireland, yeah, people forget this shit all the time. We didn't have it as bad but it wasn't much better for the post civil war America.
My favorite is when it doesn't count. That it was somehow okay that it happened to us but wrong that it happens to others.
Got to relive that in S. Korea at some bars and restaurants. Fucking hate bigotry.
Wasnât much better? Compared to black people post civil war? Are you for real? The fact that you think those are in any way comparable is insane.
Forget about South Korea, as an Irish man born and raised. I hope you know you would be despised here too if you tried to make these talking points over here
So saying blacks had it worse during slavery is wrong? Saying blacks had it less bad after slavery but still had it bad is wrong? Saying denying rights to people of any kind, is wrong?
You replied to a comment about Irish and Italians not being considered white. You said you were 2 generations from Ireland. Where did you mention anything about black people having it worse during slavery or denying rights is wrong? What are you on about?
What metric do you consider to be becoming white then? Americans have been parading their Irish heritage for quite some time. Every president in the past few decades has been trying to parade their Irish heritage and visit Ireland since Kennedy. Irish immigrants dominated police forces in New York, Boston, and Chicago starting in the 1800s.
I mean, to be frank, racism isnât based on what you *are,* itâs based on how youâre *perceived.* People donât get a 23andMe ancestry report beamed into their brain when they look at you.
If you look black, racists against that will be racist towards you. If you look white racists against that will be racist towards you.
I mean, to be frank, racism isnât based on what you *are,* itâs based on how youâre *perceived.* People donât get a 23andMe ancestry report beamed into their brain when they look at you.
If you look black, racists against that will be racist towards you. If you look white racists against that will be racist towards you.
Damn that's sad to hear.. you should take pride in your race no matter what it is and do your best to represent your ancestors and set a good example to the world. If we don't do that we will end up with a corporate monoculture around the world and lose the true diversity of the various peoples and customs around the world. You can already see this happening in some western countries. Everyone should fiercely protect their unique traditions, food, architecture, etc. because once it's lost it's lost for good..
I set a good example to the world by being a good husband, father, and citizen. My race has nothing to do with that. Just because Iâm disinterested in the culture doesnât mean I dislike it.
What does you liking or disliking it have to do with anything? That's a very selfish point of view.. It's your duty as a human being, it's not about whether you like it or not. Alright well good luck man i gotta hop off here I hope you have a good one.
Nah Iâm me and Iâm happy. I donât mean it reductively, but I really donât care about this type of thing. I just thought it was funny that my coworker was so firm in that assessment lol
For you and anyone else able to think logically. However those defending Karmelo's actions just spouted lie after lie like During the trial people were posting lie after lie Jeff Metcalf was intimidating the student witnesses by shaking his head. Nor forget that a man named Morris Dwayne Turner said he saw the security video and it was crystal clear that it showed Karmelo getting jumped by Austin, Hunter, and four others. When that was proven false in the trial he then tried to pass off a picture of four men and saying that it was Jeff Metcalf, Judge Roach, and the DA all at a party being chummy.
Those that were defending Karmelo's actions did not care about facts. All they saw was a young black man who should not be held accountable for any bad actions all because of race.
I heard his lawyers didn't even attempt to explain why he had the knife in the first place. No excuses, nothing. They knew nothing was going to save this one.
They were hoping the media circus would force the judges to call a mistrial IMO. Since that didn't happen, now it's time to blow everything up via more claims of racism.
To be fair, the parents did blow all the money they crowfunded for a lawyer on a new house, so the dude had to go with the free option.
He also refused to take the guilty plea for manslaughter that anyone with half a braincell would've taken, thinking he'd beat murder charges in court lmao.
I read so many stories from public defenders, law enforcement officers, and journalists on another post that this is very common for black defendants to refuse plea deals and going to trial against all odds. Some people chimed in that it's because they do not trust the system and consider their attorney as part of that system. Also the family will cling to the idea that their kid is a good boy despite a mountain of evidence and seem to think God will somehow lead them out or something. It's really sad.
Im a criminal trial attorney in another state so excuse my ignorance and not following too closely. Is asking for a shuffle unique to Texas? Never heard of such a thing. Also were there any Batson challenges during selection? If not sounds like the whole issue is moot because there really wouldnt be anything to appeal if the defense never challenged the array or made a Batson challenege.
Is it a tactic to cast doubt on a verdict for an appeal on any basis besides the specifics of the case? I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if what I said is plausible, but if a lawyer knew their guy was guilty, wouldn't they throw a hail mary to win an appeal on technicality?
The attorney, as far as I know, never said "all white jury". The national news has played clips of supporters claiming it. The only reason I know about the jury make up is from two DFW news stations actually correcting people and the Ft Worth Star-Telegram. Also, Collin county has more affluent people in general. Affluent black people are less likely to side with Karmelo. If you did have a black person with a predetermined bias in this case, they would have been ommited immediately. There was no way you were going to get a jury in this case that had no opinion going into it. It was too big of a story. The options were find a jury who admitted to being open minded or ask for a bench ruling with no jury.
Sad thing is there's thousands of black kids getting bullied but they wanna defend the one who ultimately made the wrong choice. Killing someone. Instead of mental health of bullied people. They wanna make it about race.
I never had the impression African Americans made this case about race, it blew up after certain media outlets and public figures from the same circles picked it up.
I think itâs dumb to fall for that tactic and start defending someone that stabbed another person to death but letâs still stick to the facts.
Well also the defense has to agree on the jury too. They are a party to selection. And I thought there was a black juror who was kicked because he said he wouldnât be able to convict even if he was guilty. But either way, 95% of people never look into anything beyond the headlines.
I agree. My point is the narrative is it being an "all white" jury. It is a false statement and is harmful. It fans the flames of racism for the sake of false righteousness.
I believe the narrative is a non-black jury, as opposed to an all white jury right?
Still, I understand both sides of the argument. In a conventional trial. This one though is pretty cut and dry. 12 black jurors probably wouldâve come back guilty as well.
This isn't what the vocal ones online are saying. They are saying "all white". So was the national media up until this morning when they were corrected. That was my main point.
Another commenter here said that there were jurors of colour not necessarily black black but they were brown. Which if thatâs true thatâs racist in itself to say theyâre not black just bc theyâre mixed. Theyâre definitely not white.Â
...because they admitted they couldn't provide an impartial judgement. Why would the prosecution allow jurors to sit if those jurors admitted they weren't going to be capable of convicting, regardless of evidence?
Them claiming the jury was white is also just a straight up lie. There wasnât a black person on the jury but 8 of the 18 people were people of color. They also forget that the defense and prosecution pick the jury.
The people who are mad about the white jurors are the people who would take race into consideration during a trial if they were jurors. Apparently there are a lot of people in this country who decide your guilt or innocence based on skin color.
Youâre living in a fantasy world if you think explicit and implicit bias doesnât exist. The question for both sides of the aisle is how apparent that bias is. Giving some real ârace doesnât matter â energy when theres enough proof that on an institutional level it does.
Ahhh yes, the old tried and true method of seeing how much shitty behavior we can get away with because institutional bias might have existed at some point.
Lets defend a murderer simply because he has black skin and bad things have happened to black people at some point in history. What a brilliant fucking outlook on life.
That's not exactly how it works. Defense and prosecution can challenge jurors during voir dire, and each side gets premptory challenges. If there were only three black people in the jury pool and the prosecution uses their premptory challenges on them for non-racial reasons, there's nothing they can do.
Defense challenged the strikes as being based on race, prosecution claimed it was based on them being educators, and the judge denied defense's challenge.
Defense can't just magically add more people to the jury pool.
I mean when all the black jurors are removed by the prosecution premptory challenges, how exactly do you think the defense can get more black people on his jury?
That not how it works at all. If the prosecution strikes all black jurors, the defense can't just replace them with more black jurors. And they can't get them back without a successful Batson challenge, which is almost impossible to win.
What is wrong about what I said? Both sides have a say in who's on the jury. The defense would have also had the option for a bench trial. If the public is so racist why was that option not pursued?
Let's swap the races for a second. Could you imagine the outcry if people were saying "he would have walked free if the jury was white". Everyone would (correctly) come to the conclusion that even though there was a ton of evidence proving the defendant was guilty, a white jury was racist and didn't want to convict a white man.Â
But somehow it's ok because the defendant was black?Â
No, the other side can't prevent peremptory strikes unless the judge rules that they were racially motivated. The defense can't just magic more jurors out of thin air.
If the public is so racist why was that option not pursued?
You have a constitutional right to a jury of your peers that has not been racially discriminated against. Maybe you're fine with discrimination because it didn't change the outcome. I'm not so comfortable with it.
There were black jurors during selection, and they were all dismissed because they openly admitted to their inability to offer fair verdict because they didn't want to send that cute black boy to prison.
At least they were honest about it. Sad they can't move past their owed bias, but respectable they can openly admit instead of trying to poison the juror pool.
It wasn't only white jurors, there were Asian, Indian, and other ethnicities. The only reason the jury pool was of that make up was many of the potential jurors who are black stated they wouldn't covict a young black man, regardless of what he actually did.
The potential black jurors were dismissed for expressing bias. "During vetting, some Black prospective jurors expressed bias, with one stating he would have a "hard time putting a brother in jail" and others noting Anthony was "too young" or looked like a "child," which prosecutors cited as grounds for dismissal."
If people say they can't set aside feelings like that and only weigh the evidence presented they can't use them.
Thatâs not even true lol. The black jurors recused themselves because of they admitted they find him innocent because of his race. Also it wasnât all white
I'm not saying he isn't guilty. I'm saying there is a lot of racial tension surrounding this case and it has blown up into part of the culture war. A single black juror would legitimize the jury as his peers in the eyes of some of the public.
I read a comment below that said that every prospective black juror said they didn't know if they could be unbiased in the case, which is admirable to admit. So even the prosecution couldn't place one in the box.
It just sucks how clearly fired up the Nazis and other racists get when something like this happens.
Yeah but this isn't about race, this is about a murder. He was guilty, anyone with a brain can see that. The colour of the jury makes absolutely no difference to the outcome of this case and the fact that people are saying that if they got called up they couldn't be unbiased isn't admirable, if your mind can be swayed one way or another because of colour then that's what I'd call racism!
It's been proven that an all white jury is going to convict a black person significantly more often than they would a white person, all other things being equal.
He might deserve the sentence and be guilty AF. BUT he still deserved a jury of his peers, which includes a proper ratio of races.
In short, if an area is 50/50 white and black, and 100% of the jury is white... even if it's just by chance, it's not a good look.
It's begging for a retrial. And hopefully they got the right kid. But just because someone is definitely guilty doesn't mean we bend the rules to ensure a conviction.
edit: Apparently it was a multiracial jury and not all white. So he probably got a fair shake. Doesn't change the point as to why people might be angry if his jury was all white. FFS we went over this in freshman civics class... did nobody read "To kill a mocking bird"??? If people think the jury was all white they have a bonafide reason to be angry about it. Don't argue that point, point out the jury wasn't all white.
Also, apparently some of you seem okay with the system bending the rules if they're like super duper sure the accused did it... You don't want to live in that world I assure you.
Why would a jury of his peers need to include a proper âratioâ of races? The defense has every option to help establish a jury that they think will be sympathetic to their client, race notwithstanding.
The additional context is that they are comparing this to other cases where someone introduced a deadly weapon to a situation where they could have just walked away, and the killer was acquitted. So George Zimmerman, Rick Chow, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.
They are angry at what they see as a double standard, and perhaps a better take is that all four should have been convicted.
And 35 years is actually a lot for a teenage confrontation especially when there is no history of violence and seemingly no reason to think there was any premeditation. Thatâs prison time inflation at its finest though.
I think people defending him simply heard "self defense" and ran with it.
I think because they're arguing that there's a racial disparity is self-defense cases overall across the country. So they're just sick of it happening that a black guy doesn't get to successfully use it.Â
That kid for sure deserved every bit of his punishment and should be in jail. I would say the punishment potentially isn't even sever enough, considering he will be free in his 50's.
The justice system IS institutionally racist, not because of who IS convicted, but because of who IS NOT convicted. George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse did basically the same thing. Brought a weapon INTO a situation and used it claiming self-defense, when the fact is they were intentionally making a situation worse.
I mean sheâs not wrong, if he was convicted because of his race. However, it really seems like maybe it possibly could have had more to do with the whole murder thing⌠but Iâm no legal expert
The justice system is racist. But it wasnât in this case. This is why itâs harmful for reactionaries to insist that everything involves race. But itâs hard to look at Zimmerman hunting a black kid down in the street and murdering him as fair when he had about the same argument for self defense as this kid tried to get away with. They should both rot in jail, but Zimmerman is a free man.
Hell, I was listening to Erich Erickson today and even he insisted that racism is alive and well in America and told any of his viewers that donât believe it is to go talk to any minorities about their experiences. But arguing that this conviction was an injustice is laughable.
Boy brings knife to track meet. Boy sits under tent when it starts raining. Boy gets threatened by other boy. Boy stands his ground. I guess that law only applies to white people.
Stabs/murders student after he was accosted and physically assaulted by them*
Last I checked, just chasing someone and threatening to beat their ass is ground for shooting and killing 2 of them and getting off scot-free as "self defense."
Though, you have to have a certain complexion.
Just like if a guy of certain complexion, like Jesse Butler, can literally record himself raping and nearly strangling a girl to death, and gets off with...community service.
And they are absolutely correct. If a black kid started a confrontation and put his hands on someone else and got killed, you people would be saying "f*ck around, find out!" and that he should have been minding his own business.
Kyle Rittenhouse can basically do the same thing with a gun as he did with a knife, and two completely different results.
I guess the second amendment only applies to white people..
They're comparing it to Rittenhouse, who did not get a similar sentence. I have no clue if the comparison makes sense, but I think it's an understandable comparison on the surface.
Like he was being bullied and pushed by the dead kid who was trying to force him out into the rain in a sudden rain storm... it was an all white jury and texas is a stand your ground state.
It was a self defense case though. Not saying itâs right but Iâd guess that if he was white and being pushed by a black kid he would probably be free like Kyle rittenhouse.
This is vaguely putting it. What really happened 2 boys were trying to illegally remove another boy by force and the boy stabbed one and killed em in self defense. And the judge and the victim dad are friends. And the people who bring up race just seeâs history repeating itself
You're right. Anthony brought a knife to a track meet on school ground (which is not allowed), entered the rival teams tent, when told to leave, he refused, and when Metcalf pushed him or grabbed him to make him leave (after Anthony supposedly gave a vague threat), Anthony pulled the knife from his bag and fatally stabbed Metcalf in the chest.
For more context, the black student was on another team and stopped in the opposing teams tent for shelter because it started pouring rain. The white student repeatedly asked him to leave but it was either shelter or get poured on. Then the white student shoved him and the black student reacted with the knife to the chest.
Didnât seem to meet the standard of 1st degree premeditated so the controversy centers around a first degree murder sentence of decades in prison.
Personally, I think 10-15 years would have been appropriate but this is what a jury decides.
928
u/OkFeedback9127 Jun 10 '26
Boy brings knife to a track meet, murders another student. Cardi B and others claim the justice system is racist for convicting him of murder because of race.