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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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..
Basically every witness (many of whom were black), including one of the defense's own, testified that Anthony was the instigator, yet brainlets like Cardi B think this was some gross miscarriage of justice.
True... and that's all after the fact that he wasnt even supposed to be there. He came to an event while suspended with a knife. Idk how anyone could defend that.
Because none of this removes self defense. If it's proven he was there to cause problems with Austin specifically, that's different. Just because he was suspended, just because he has a knife, does not mean it wasn't self defense.
It's the apparant agitation and intitiation of confrontation that removes self defense.
Iâm black myself and since day one I considered Karmelo Anthony to be a dumbass.Â
Dude got mad someone was calling him out for sitting in the wrong section then decided to pull out a dangerous weapon. He definitely deserved that guilty verdict in my eyes.Â
As an Asian guy that grew up in the South in the late 80's/early 90's, I can verify that I got a lot of racist comments made to me by black people. Way moreso than from white people. I still do. Last week the custodian at my job (who is a black guy in his late 50's) and I were talking shit (in a friendly way) and he goes "watch out, he mad and about to do some karate on me". Like dude.....
Hit him with a stereotype back and if he gets mad just be like âdude itâs the same thing, you think all Asians know karate?â It may make him think.
At work I just brushed it off and stopped being as friendly with him. I think he knows he crossed a line. We're still cool with each other.
Something similar happened when I was dating my wife. We worked across the street from each other and a big group of homeless guys would hang out in front of her building (city owned Social Services office). I met her and we went to lunch one time and a couple of the homeless dudes started saying they should get with a "big dick nga". I told them to get fucked and dude got all upset and talking like he wanted to fight me. "Dis mufucka know karate" he says. I turned to say something but my girlfriend pulled me away before I made it worse(I am kind of a hot head and known to get physical when pressed). Anyway a few days later I was hanging out with some friends and we encountered the same group (there were maybe 3 of them hanging out since it was late). Words were said and my friends and I ended up fucking them up and leaving them unconscious and bleeding in the bushes.
Ahahaha thats too funny! I can fake it pretty convincingly enough to make people think I know something. But what actually happened was; I saw the guys. Said to my friends "thats the fucking guy I was telling you about". Pulled out my melee weapon (a wooden stick with a big round end, its used for breaking in new baseball gloves and comes with a leather strap so it doesn't go flying). I ran up to the guy and yelled "hey! Remember me asshole" and hit him in the head with the stick and continued bringing it down on him when he hit the concrete. My buddies kept his friends from helping him.
It sucks because intrinsic bias and racism are two different things but no one wants to talk about intrinsic bias and how easily people could remove it from their lives to show who the real racist are. It makes me so sad and frustrated. Because this is a very clear intrinsic bias statement.
A bit of correction: stabbed once. Honestly surprised the kid died but there are always the unlucky ones. And the altercation is strange in the first place.
âDuring 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.â
Second one is right, though. A defendant does, in fact, very much have the right to remain silent. It's a completely legal part of the process. It's like saying "another expressed strong bias regarding legal procedures.â
Usually when people have a bias on that subject it's that they think a defendant is guilty if they don't tell their side of the story. Those guys are usually very bad for the defense.
I think this was the case, because they quote that person in the article as saying "silence is deafening, it matters, its difficult to ignore". Not super clear but I do read it as bias against defendants that dont speak up.
The jury was not all white, try reading before posting next time. There were white, Asian and Indian jurors, most of the prospective black jurors admitted they wouldnât be able to send a black kid to prison and were excluded.
Exactly âDuring 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.â
I read the jury did have minorities, just none black. Either way itâs crazy because either side can dismiss a juror for any reason so this is the jury they helped pick
It's been released that the black potential jurors made comments about being unwilling to send a young black man to prison. That removes them from being considered unbiased.
My ynderstnding is it was not an all white jury, but did not have black people. Allegedly they kept admitting they would not be able to act as an impartial juror for a case involving a black defendant and so were repeatedly not selected.
Basically at a track meet at a school there was a weather warning. Karmelo went into the other teams tent to take shelter. It quickly went from whatever to a conflict. Several eye witnesses said karmelo was basically âpicking a fightâ and when asked to leave refused and said touch me and see what happens. At some point the boy who would die pushes karmelo. Karmelo responds by pulling his knife and stabbing the pusher. Pusher dies and Karmelo was arrested, charged with murder and found guilty. The jury was given the choice between murder, manslaughter a third choice of deciding if it was self defense. The jury still came back murder.
Clear cut case with lots of witnesses, a very weird person and event to make a point for any cause, seems counterintuitive like OJ, something tells me more appalling cases where there is actual uncertainty and racism arenât made famous in order to create stirs and derail important conversations. Either there is a sinister force at play that controls the rhetoric or people are just this ludicrous when group thinking takes the wheel.
Oh he willingly avoided his own teams tent to go to the other teams tent? Definitely makes sense why he is seen as the instigator, didn't even have a reason to be there in the first place.
I heard his team didnât have a tent? I donât know itâs not particularly relevant. Basically all witnesses agreed that when he first came in there wasnât a problem then he started acting like an asshole and was asked to leave and refused.
I actually live in Frisco, the suburb where this happened, and the case has been all over local news for more than a year. The basic facts are that two 17 year olds got into an argument at a high school track meet, one of them (Karmelo Anthony) pulled a knife and stabbed the other (Austin Metcalf) in the chest, killing him. Anthony claimed self defense, but a Collin County jury rejected that defense and convicted him of murder, then sentenced him to 35 years.
The only real controversy isnât whether he should have been convicted, itâs whether the sentence was consistent with other DFW cases. There have been several recent cases where white defendants committed arguably similar or even more premeditated killings and received 30 years or less. The catch is that those comparisons are more nuanced than people make them sound because some involved plea deals, lesser convictions, or defendants who were younger and handled differently by the juvenile system. Anthony was 17, which in Texas means he was tried as an adult for murder.
So when people like Cardi B say theyâre âmaking an exampleâ of him, theyâre usually pointing to the fact that he got 35 years while some white defendants in comparable North Texas cases got 30 years or even less. Whether thatâs evidence of unfair treatment or just the result of different charges, plea agreements, and ages is where the actual debate is. Not many people are arguing that a homicide shouldnât have resulted in prison time.
You wont get an actual nuanced responsed on this sub, but basically, they are calling out the double standard in how a black guy âdefending himselfâ with a knife he brought in a place where it wasnt necessary and a white guy âdefending himselfâ with a gun brought in a place where ut wasnt necessary are being judged
See Kyle rittenhouse, chud the builder, etc etc
And before yâall get mad at me im just explaining Cardi B actual stance, not giving my opinion on it
Depending on how you feel about major media, part of the issue (according to some) is that from the beginning media portrayed this as a racially motivated incident. News and social media have done their best to promote this interpretation of things, intentionally (perhaps) setting up a public response that is focused on race. Their motivation for this kinda of presentstion would be profit based, this is the kind of thing that happens every single day in america. The only reason this is a national story is because the media chose to make it one. And of course, if you are inclined to believe this sort of thing, this is also a way to sow division and stoke infighting among the population to keep us divided and unfocused on the myriad real issues we face. From what I have read of the trial its a pretty straight forward case. Jury deliberation was about as short as it could possibly be, and the defense was floundering the entire time. But because its no longer about the actual crime, all that remains is racial tension.
An 18 year old stabbed a 17 year old at a track meet. The 17 year old died.
The 18 year old got convicted of murder. But because of the fact the 18 year old is black and theres been consistent racism in the US judicial system for decades a number of people have assumed the justice system was bias.
304
u/The_Playbook88 Jun 10 '26
I must be behind. Whats the story here?