Karmelo Anthony is going to get Murder 1 prepare for the riots

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

See, this is what I mean. You simply cannot come up with any point to make.

The evidence of what? 

That there was a stabbing? A killing? Sure. That was never in question at all. 

But I defy you to tell me why he didn't have a right to "stand his ground" and self defense?

He was in someone else's tent, so he didn't have a right to the "stand your ground" there.

If you set up a shade-tent in a public park with your family (Texas), can someone can stand in it, and then shoot you if you try to push them out?

If a white kid goes into a "blacks only sanctuary space" at his university (they have those), does he get to stab people who try to kick him out? It's just a school rule that the space is reserved for racists, right? And he can claim that he pays as much tuition as the other kids, so he should have access to 100% of student spaces, right?

FYI the stand your ground law isn't a "take over someone else's space" law. 

 

It's sad that kid is going to jail, but he killed someone that he realistically never needed to kill. 

We both know that divisive racists like you are gonna try to gin up riots & hate & blame and be losers in general, regardless of what happens, so this debate is all moot.

Edited June 10 by WestCanMan

[Hodad]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I didn't say ""upidy" black kid".

I said color is irrelevant. 

But thanks for lyin' for us again. Pookie.

You've used racial slurs multiple times here. Nobody believes that you think skin color is irrelevant. 

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

I know that Canucks are NOT trained in US LAW let along practicing here. GPS.

Talk about your expertise in US law, counselor. 

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You've used racial slurs multiple times here. Nobody believes that you think skin color is irrelevant. 

None of your bullshit changes the fact that you think blacks have licenses to kill. 

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

He was in someone else's tent, so he didn't have a right to the "stand your ground" there.

If you set up a shade-tent in a public park with your family (Texas), can someone can stand in it, and then shoot you if you try to push them out?

If a white kid goes into a "blacks only sanctuary space" at his university (they have those), does he get to stab people who try to kick him out? It's just a school rule that the space is reserved for racists, right? And he can claim that he pays as much tuition as the other kids, so he should have access to 100% of student spaces, right?

FYI the stand your ground law isn't a "take over someone else's space" law. 

 

It's sad that kid is going to jail, but he killed someone that he realistically never needed to kill. 

We both know that divisive racists like you are gonna try to gin up riots & hate & blame and be losers in general, regardless of what happens, so this debate is all moot.

False. There are no property rights for a team tent at sporting event. He did have a right to SYG. -- He was sheltering from the rain and went in to say hi to a friend. The other team got territorial. 

There are no property rights or personal entitlements associated with a team canopy at a track meet. It's common, in fact for athletes to mingle.  Nice try though.-- In fact, if the home team were decent hosts they'd be happy to let a visiting athlete shelter from the rain with them. It's called sportsmanship. But teen boys are often a-holes. 

The scenario you describe is several levels more provocative than the Anthony case, but if someone were to assault the interloper, he may well have a claim on SYG. The correct answer is not for students to assault people, but to call security. 

Agreed that Metcalf probably didn't need to be killed. Almost certainly so. But SYG makes people feel entitled to exactly that escalation. They don't behave rationally because they are aware that they can escalate to deadly force without serious repercussion. Many of them--the concealed carry crowd especially-- are actively hoping for an excuse to use their weapons. Rittenhouse and Zimmerman, for example. They deliberately put themselves into situations of confrontation because they are emboldened--or eager by the option to escalate to the weapons they brought. 

This was a Black kid doing the exact same thing. But the usual suspects aren't lining up to cheer him on. Wonder why?

 

 

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Looks like someone else has no idea what stand your ground laws mean. 

In normal societies, people have a duty to retreat and avoid lethal escalation. Not so under stand your ground laws. The whole point is that you don't have a duty to retreat. If you have reasonable fear for your safety (outmatched, outnumbered and physically assaulted) rather than exiting the situation, you have a right to escalate to deadly force. Period. 

Do you wanna revisit your stance on the Trayvon Martin shooting? Is that what you're doing?

I think that you feel like Trayvon really shouldn't have attacked that guy, and you're realizing that the stand your ground law actually should apply to someone who is actually attacked, and realistically defending themselves, so you're going overboard in defence of "stand your ground" laws. 

If you know right from wrong, you know that Karmelo is a murderer. 

If you know right from wrong, you know that Zimmerman had a right to shoot someone who physically jumped him. 

The problem is that you see skin colour instead of morality, and reasonable conduct, because you're a hateful little racist. 😉

[Hodad]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you wanna revisit your stance on the Trayvon Martin shooting? Is that what you're doing?

I think that you feel like Trayvon really shouldn't have attacked that guy, and you're realizing that the stand your ground law actually should apply to someone who is actually attacked, and realistically defending themselves, so you're going overboard in defence of "stand your ground" laws. 

If you know right from wrong, you know that Karmelo is a murderer. 

If you know right from wrong, you know that Zimmerman had a right to shoot someone who physically jumped him. 

The problem is that you see skin colour instead of morality, and reasonable conduct, because you're a hateful little racist. 😉

Trayvon Martin was a kid hunted relentlessly through the dark of night by a stranger--like something from a damn horror movie. He had literally every reason to be afraid for his life. Another case where he had a reasonable right to defend himself against the man hunting him. But he too happened to be Black, so again Republicans made a hero out of Zimmerman, who was armed and actively seeking out a conflict. Hunting a kid through the dark simply for being Black. That's farked up behavior, but he's a hero on the right.

 

And in case you haven't been paying attention, again, I'm NOT defending SYG laws. I'm condemning them. But as long as they exist, Black citizens should have an equal right to that option. 

Edited June 10 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

44 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You've used racial slurs multiple times here. Nobody believes that you think skin color is irrelevant. 

Correction.

YOU dont believe me. But the facts and truth bear me out...not your racist perception.

Meh...must be more broken family syndrome. 

Edited June 10 by Nationalist

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

"Proved" it? Lol. You didn't even try. 

Tell me, what condition of stand your ground was not met? 

It was not proportional reaction and he was the aggressor. 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Was he committing a crime? No.

Did he have a legal right to be there? Yes 

Did he escalate to violence? No. Did he warn his attacker not to touch him? Yes. 

Actual facts: https://share.google/aimode/rc7XSYUrS6uVAtl1F

KA was the aggressor. KA created the situation. KA brought the weapon where it was not allowed. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

^This DRIVEL has nothing to do with my post. Congrats on that. LMAO

Your post WAS drivel, so it seems connected somehow

[Nationalist]

35 years.

Have a nice life Anthony. BTW...what is your dad sorry about? Did he happen to work you into a violent frenzy and set you loose?

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Fixed it for ya. 

Wasn't broken, A-Hole

 

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's just a weird comment.

I's say that you're having an aneurism, but you'd need a brain for that.

^Pretending you don't post baby talk routinely. Smart to try to deny that, but nobody is buying it. LMAO

[Hodad]

8 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It was not proportional reaction and he was the aggressor. 

He clearly was not the aggressor. That's a plain fact. Metcalf assaulted him (battery, actually) after being warned multiple times not to. 

You can have the opinion that it was not a proportional response, but it's certainly not a fact. Texas law considered (as do most jurisdictions) disparity of force when evaluating reasonableness. If a much smaller person is attacked by a much larger person, as in this case, it becomes more reasonable to defend oneself with escalated force. If a person is outnumbered by a crowd, as in this case, it becomes more reasonable to defend oneself with escalated force. 

In effect, a person who is facing overwhelming odds has a much lower threshold for reasonable escalation because they face a much higher risk of serious harm if they don't defend themselves. 

The jury here are people forming opinions. They clearly found the prosecutions characterization more convincing. Because the truth is that most of them are reasonable people, and reasonable people would leave a hostile situation. Because nothing about that situation--on either side--was important. 

But a stand your ground law doesn't say you have to be reasonable about removing yourself from a bad situation. They just that you have to be legal. SYG laws don't just allow for unreasonable escalations, they cause them. 

And in addition to being bad laws, we see over and over again that there is massive racial disparity in terms of protection under those laws. Extensive and well documented. 

 

 

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

False. There are no property rights for a team tent at sporting event. He did have a right to SYG. -- He was sheltering from the rain and went in to say hi to a friend. The other team got territorial. 

There are no property rights or personal entitlements associated with a team canopy at a track meet. It's common, in fact for athletes to mingle.  Nice try though.-- In fact, if the home team were decent hosts they'd be happy to let a visiting athlete shelter from the rain with them. It's called sportsmanship. But teen boys are often a-holes. 

The scenario you describe is several levels more provocative than the Anthony case, but if someone were to assault the interloper, he may well have a claim on SYG. The correct answer is not for students to assault people, but to call security. 

Agreed that Metcalf probably didn't need to be killed. Almost certainly so. But SYG makes people feel entitled to exactly that escalation. They don't behave rationally because they are aware that they can escalate to deadly force without serious repercussion. Many of them--the concealed carry crowd especially-- are actively hoping for an excuse to use their weapons. Rittenhouse and Zimmerman, for example. They deliberately put themselves into situations of confrontation because they are emboldened--or eager by the option to escalate to the weapons they brought. 

This was a Black kid doing the exact same thing. But the usual suspects aren't lining up to cheer him on. Wonder why?

 

 

hodad will say anything to protect blacks, so nothing he says here, or anywhere else, can be taken seriously. 

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

Trayvon Martin was a kid

17 yr old.

My son doesn't turn 17 until Oct and he's almost 6'2. 

Quote

hunted relentlessly through the dark of night by a stranger--like something from a damn horror movie.

Whoa, that sounds realistic:

• "Martin's parents and their legal team enlisted the public relations services of The TASC Group to manage media attention around Martin's death and Zimmerman's subsequent trial." - wiki

Quote

Martin's parents and their legal team enlisted the public relations services of The TASC Group to manage media attention around Martin's death and Zimmerman's subsequent trial.

You're a hateful little bigot who makes shit up. Did I already mention that?

Quote

Hunting a kid through the dark simply for being Black.

You may not remember this, but I've said here many times that Obama's BS story about Trayvon Martin, back when he knew absolutely NOTHING about what happened that day, caused a lot of unnecessary racial division.

And you're the poster boy for that: a dumb RPOC (racist person of colour) who heard a story from Barack Obama, and instantly believes that he knows exactly what happened thousands of miles away in the dark where there were no witnesses with a clear view who saw the whole thing.

"BUT OBAMA KNOWS! HE SAID IT, SO HE MUST KNOW IT!!!!"

You got played by America's Divider-in Chief, dummy. 

He set you up to fall for the M Brown BS and the Brionna BS and the Rayshard BS and the G Floyd BS, and you gobbled it all up.

You need to think back to all of the hateful and stupid things that you said  between 2014 and 2021, and how much of it was all based on total BS and lies from known racial agitators.  

Quote

he's a hero on the right

Who said that, dummy?

I'd love to see it.

Quote

 I'm NOT defending SYG laws. I'm condemning them.

They sound pretty F'd up. I'm not a fan either. 

But the Martin/Zimmerman case at least has a guy who, by his version of the details, was actually in a situation where he may have been jumped and he feared for his life. 

Quote

But as long as they exist, Black citizens should have an equal right to that option

But nothing you said here has anything to do with that. 

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Wasn't broken, A-Hole

You broke your  a-hole? What?

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

17 yr old.

My son doesn't turn 17 until Oct and he's almost 6'2. 

Great. Sounds like he has a fighting chance to defend himself if an armed vigilante hunt him through the night for no reason. 

 

Quote

You may not remember this, but I've said here many times that Obama's BS story about Trayvon Martin, back when he knew absolutely NOTHING about what happened that day, caused a lot of unnecessary racial division.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. You simply don't seem to know the facts of that case either. 

Quote

Who said that, dummy?
I'd love to see it.

The people who sent him hundreds of thousands of dollars. The organizations and events who invite him to be a celebrity guest (though that seem to have dried up since he has continued to be a dirtbag and get in trouble). The creeps who bid on the murder weapon when he auctioned it off--sold for $250K. 

And frankly, the outpouring 

 

Quote

They sound pretty F'd up. I'm not a fan either. 

👍

Quote

But the Martin/Zimmerman case at least has a guy who, by his version of the details, was actually in a situation where he may have been jumped and he feared for his life. 

But nothing you said here has anything to do with that. 

I definitely buy that Zimmerman was afraid for his life after Martin turned on him. That's reasonable. But Martin also should have been afraid for his life. He was being hunted through the dark. That too is reasonable.

And in this case, Zimmerman absolutely engineered the conflict. He was not behaving reasonably. Martin was just "walking while Black." Zimmerman turned around to follow him by truck. He called the police. He chased him on foot. The dispatchers told him not to chase the kid. He did anyway. He kept chasing him and chasing him. Martin retreated and retreated and retreated -- for over 7 minutes. And when Martin finally stood his ground and fought his pursuer, Zimmerman shot the kid. 

Despite doing everything wrong, initiating the confrontation, pursuing for 7+ minutes, Zimmerman was able to claim self defense. He was the aggressor for 7+ minutes, and when the tables turned, he escalated to lethal force. And was acquitted. 

Imagine that. Compared to the Anthony case, the contrast is dramatic. Different jurisdictions. Different juries. But the same old story that the data tells us again and again: laws like this are not applied equally for Black defendants. 

 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Imagine that. Compared to the Anthony case, the contrast is dramatic. Different jurisdictions. Different juries. But the same old story that the data tells us again and again: laws like this are not applied equally for Black defendants. 

Esp in Southern states including FL and TX.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Esp in Southern states including FL and TX.

Then they can appeal  But the law was applied 

You're always the one who claims if a court has ruled then it must be so  Remember when people suggested trump couldn't get a fair trial in New York and you freaked out and said the law was equal everywhere?

[CdnFox]

And here's the democrats asking the essential question:  "It's not that he stabbed him, did he stab him ENOUGH?"  

Failed dem senator says she'd have stabbed him too

Jasmine Crockett suggests she also would have stabbed Austin Metcalf in stunning defense of Karmelo Anthony

[gatomontes99]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

He clearly was not the aggressor. That's a plain fact.

No. Read the testimony. Regardless of race, every single witness call KA the aggressor. You don't get to make shit up. 

I am not going beyond this. If you don't want to talk facts then what is the point? He was the aggressor. /End discussion. 

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. Read the testimony. Regardless of race, every single witness call KA the aggressor. You don't get to make shit up. 

I am not going beyond this. If you don't want to talk facts then what is the point? He was the aggressor. /End discussion. 

Sorry, but that's not true. In legal terms, the aggressor is the person who initiates physical violence. That was Metcalf. 

It is you who does not want to talk facts.  

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

False. There are no property rights for a team tent at sporting event. He did have a right to SYG. -- He was sheltering from the rain and went in to say hi to a friend. The other team got territorial.

No, you're wrong about that.

Metcalfe's response to Karmelo was fair and reasonable. 

You're correct to say that he didn't own that tent, but he had a reasonable claim to ask Anthony to leave, and he didn't behave in a manner that was out of order for that situation by shoving him. 

Anthony's response to the shove was not reasonable, necessary, justifiable, or especially proportional, and therein lies the rub: SYG laws don't give you the right to kill someone for a shove. 

You seem to think that SYG means that you can stand wherever you want and if anyone touches you or speaks to you with a scary tone, you can murder them, and it doesn't mean that at all.

What's alarming is that you seem to be trying really hard to understand these laws, and yet you have it all backwards. 

Think of it as "SYG from a serious threat, or unprovoked attack", not "act like an alligator at the edge of a pond."

In Texas, you don't have to run: when you're behaving reasonably and someone comes and flexes on you, intimidates you, and then makes a serious threat or attacks you with actual violence. At the point where a person feels like they're in real danger for their life, they can use lethal force. They can't "start shooting during a shoving match."

[Hodad]

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No, you're wrong about that.

Metcalfe's response to Karmelo was fair and reasonable. 

You're correct to say that he didn't own that tent, but he had a reasonable claim to ask Anthony to leave, and he didn't behave in a manner that was out of order for that situation by shoving him. 

Anthony's response to the shove was not reasonable, necessary, justifiable, or especially proportional, and therein lies the rub: SYG laws don't give you the right to kill someone for a shove. 

You seem to think that SYG means that you can stand wherever you want and if anyone touches you or speaks to you with a scary tone, you can murder them, and it doesn't mean that at all.

What's alarming is that you seem to be trying really hard to understand these laws, and yet you have it all backwards. 

Think of it as "SYG from a serious threat, or unprovoked attack", not "act like an alligator at the edge of a pond."

In Texas, you don't have to run: when you're behaving reasonably and someone comes and flexes on you, intimidates you, and then makes a serious threat or attacks you with actual violence. At the point where a person feels like they're in real danger for their life, they can use lethal force. They can't "start shooting during a shoving match."

I understand the laws quite well. I gave you the component parts of the law.

In terms of location, you do not have a duty to retreat from or avoid conflict if you have a legal right to be there. Legally, Anthony was clear to exist under that canopy. 

And no, you are incorrect about Metcalf as well. It is not reasonable--or legal--to batter someone simply because you don't want them to be in a public place.

The reasonable response is just to ignore Anthony and get on with his own business. But kids are dumb. They think unimportant, truly petty things, are worth a physical flight. Especially big boys. Metcalf was probably used to getting his way, but he picked the wrong fight this time. And died over something as utterly pointless as someone he didn't like being under "his" canopy. Dumb.

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

Great. Sounds like he has a fighting chance to defend himself if an armed vigilante hunt him through the night for no reason. 

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. You simply don't seem to know the facts of that case either. 

The people who sent him hundreds of thousands of dollars. The organizations and events who invite him to be a celebrity guest (though that seem to have dried up since he has continued to be a dirtbag and get in trouble). The creeps who bid on the murder weapon when he auctioned it off--sold for $250K. 

And frankly, the outpouring 

 

👍

I definitely buy that Zimmerman was afraid for his life after Martin turned on him. That's reasonable. But Martin also should have been afraid for his life. He was being hunted through the dark. That too is reasonable.

And in this case, Zimmerman absolutely engineered the conflict. He was not behaving reasonably. Martin was just "walking while Black." Zimmerman turned around to follow him by truck. He called the police. He chased him on foot. The dispatchers told him not to chase the kid. He did anyway. He kept chasing him and chasing him. Martin retreated and retreated and retreated -- for over 7 minutes. And when Martin finally stood his ground and fought his pursuer, Zimmerman shot the kid. 

Despite doing everything wrong, initiating the confrontation, pursuing for 7+ minutes, Zimmerman was able to claim self defense. He was the aggressor for 7+ minutes, and when the tables turned, he escalated to lethal force. And was acquitted. 

Imagine that. Compared to the Anthony case, the contrast is dramatic. Different jurisdictions. Different juries. But the same old story that the data tells us again and again: laws like this are not applied equally for Black defendants. 

Hodad: you're being a bit of an acceptance filter for everything from the Martin/Karmelo POV and a total rejection filter from the Zimmerman/Metcalfe POV.

The stories weren't the same at all, yet you're trying to draw a 100% parallel.

1) Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon because of a light shove, he was (allegedly) surprise-attacked while he was walking back to his car. That's the only version of the story in existence, so a jury had no choice but to rule based on that (aka - the only) version of the story.

2) Karmelo had every opportunity in the world to choose a less murdery path, and his response to a shove was the exact opposite of proportional, or reasonable. If his standard became the rule, then people with concealed knives and guns could run rampant on society. Any kid that had two friends with him could say "Hodad shoved me", and if his witnesses agreed, they could get away with killing you. Your standard is just ridiculous.

 

Obama's quote: "When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." 

That's his quote. Verbatim. And it's what's known as a snuck premise. Only in this instance, it's more like a "diabolically divisive snuck premise that laid the groundwork for racial violence that was justified in advance by the president." 

Think about it: if Obama's version of the story was correct (which 99% of demonrats would assume) that means that if a younger version of himself was really just out buying Skittles, and then ran into Zimmerman while he was just humming politely to himself of the way home, he couldn't possibly have survived because he was black, and Zimmerman was out looking for a black to shoot. 

I don't buy it. I think that if a young Barack Obama was walking through that neighbourhood, minding his own business, he would have been fine. His risk of ending up being shot would have been zero. 

Was it safe for white people to walk around in the US after Obama's racially divided presidency?

• Four individuals were convicted and sentenced in 2017 and 2018 for the racially charged kidnapping and torture of an 18-year-old white man with special needs in Chicago. The January 2017 incident drew nationwide outrage after a 28-minute video of the abuse was broadcast on Facebook Live.

A 28-minute torture video. Think about that. Where did the justification [in their minds] come from? Do you think it had nothing to do with the BS M Brown narrative? Or Obama's assertion that Trayvon was just killed by a racist and white folk didn't care?

I think that's impossible, because "the BS M Brown narrative and Obama's assertion that Trayvon was just killed by a racist and white folk didn't care" caused years of violent racial riots, which were still going strong in the month that attack happened. And that's not a snuck premise, it's an undeniable fact.

Edited June 11 by WestCanMan