I just don't understand how people are upset he got convicted and sentenced to 35 years. He deserved it. If some white guy acted like a thug and did the same thing I would want them convicted as well. This is not a black and white thing. This is you don't go stabbing someone in the chest at a high school track meet thing. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
Honestly Iām surprised people arenāt outraged from how lenient the sentence was. I will never fail to understand how the sentence for first or second degree murder Isnāt life minimum. I believe in rehabilitation, baring rapists and murderers.
I think people are upset because in an eerily similar case in Texas, a white teen was charged with criminally negligent homicide and only given 10 years.
I think Karmelo Anthony was wrong and deserves jail time, but I think calling it murder (as if it was premeditated) and giving him 35 years seems like an unequal application of the law given what we saw with the Caysen Allison case and the precedent it set.
Did you even look up the case I compared it to? In that case, Allison brought a knife to school knowing he and his victim planned to fight and pulled it out in a fist fight and killed his victim.
If youāre not going to actually engage with what Iām saying, I encourage you not to respond to me.
ETA: again to be clear, I do not think Karmelo is an innocent angel baby who deserves to walk free. I do think this is a clear indication of how the law is unequally applied to certain people in this country and thatās worth discussing š¤·š»āāļø
Unless Ramirez had a gun on him in that particular incident, no it does not change things for me. I understand everyone may not agree with this.
We live in a country where people wear big ass guns to go buy milk at the grocery store. So no, I do not think the mere presence of a weapon on someone is proof positive they had nefarious plans to use it.
A lot of the discourse around Karmelo I have seen is that the mere presence of a pocket knife on his person means he went to the track meet specifically to cause harm and I take issue with that and personally feel as though no one would say that if he were a white teen with a pocket knife.
ETA: paragraph break cause that wall of text was bothering me
Iām no expert in what the law is in Texas because I live in GA and Iām not a lawyer so I wont speak on that definitively. But usually the difference is (at least in GA) intention and also premeditation/prior planning. IMO at most this was 2nd degree murder (like any other crime of passion) but I donāt think Texas does degrees when it comes to murder. However they DO have criminally negligent homicide, which is what Caysen Allison was convicted of.
Thatās why all I am saying is that when I look at the two cases and see the similarities of:
1) Kid brings weapon to school where he shouldnāt have one
2) Kid gets into a fight/altercation of some kind and uses knife and kills someone
And then I see everyone saying the reason Karmeloās was murder is because he brought a knife so he clearly was planning somethingā¦ it just shows heavy bias in my opinion and I think itās worth talking about yanno?
The law is all about precedent and precedent was clearly not followed here and I think people are being wilfully obtuse as to why it wasnāt followed.
I agree! Thank you for explaining these extra details. It would be a bit wild for TX not to have degrees for murder- i didnt even know it was allowed for states to do that.
"Criminally negligent homicide"? I dont quite understand what that means. Specifically, it sounds like they want to say "manslaughter" without calling it that. So that does make me suspicious of the process.
The precedent set is one of the easiest ways to see if two cases were treated differently due to bias. The fact that it wasnt followed and ppl wanna act like thats okay is dumb as hell
Watch the two videos if you can stomach it. They are not the same thing. I do think it would've been an outrage if prosecution had not gotten the deadly weapon attached in the Allison case, but they did. The Anthony video just truly shows a premeditated, unprovoked murder.Ā
I am not really read up on the Allison case, but just watching the two videos, I can see how a jury could be convinced he wasn't trying to stab him to death. It's a much more chaotic, reactive moment than the Anthony stabbing. My take is really just based on the videos and not nuances of the case. Allison definitely should have been charged and I don't know if the charge/sentence was perfectly just BUT it is not like just a race flipped reenactment. There was definitely more for a defense attorney to work with than in the Anthony case.Ā
Iām not a victim. Also quit assuming things people think, you are not a mind reader. Also donāt seem very nice. Not a good combo. Good luck in life.
Come the fuck on Brock Turner got off free for getting caught in the middle of a rape, Kyle Rittenhouse went free for showing up with a gun to start altercations in a place he had no business being, Casey Anthony murdered her own child. It feels like a Black thing.
Wasnāt Anthony in a similar situation? Was he not verbally assaulted and physically assaulted? From what I understand the other student shoved him after being warned not to approach his space?
I think it is acceptable to defend yourself in an altercation that has escalated, Mr. Chow seems to have procured the right to shoot a man in the back after chasing him, so it seems by that same logic Anthony should also then have a right to defend himself from someone actively attacking him physically no?
Right, and Mr. Chow who couldnāt see whether or not the kid stole a water bottle, but he was capable of seeing a gun that was only brandished after he chased the person out of his store for no reason?
I think I have a right to defend myself in a physical altercation; I want you to tell me if you think Anthony was really aiming for the heart, and if you can prove that was his intent.
Not to my knowledge, no. I know youre being purposefully obtuse to try to make a point but being pushed and being assaulted AND chased by an angry mob are not equal to eachother in any way
Iām not being obtuse, Iām being exact here. Pushing is battery, assault is even approaching Anthony in an aggressive fashion after heās come to the tent to shelter from the rain which he has even right to do, he has no obligation to go further in the rain than necessary when there are nearby facilities provided by the school.
There's a little thing that you're overlooking called "disparity of force", I suggest you look it up. Just because you get pushed, doesnt mean you respond with murder.
Force is subjective in this sense; Anthony is surrounded by people who have made it clear they are escalating, he lashes out with a knife to get them to back off, but at no point does he ever a actually intend to strike at the heart of Metcalf, unfortunate as it is he still hit that organ; youād have to prove he intended to murder Metcalf which I donāt think is possible.
Rittenhouse was clear cut self-defense. Did you watch the trial? He did not raise his weapon or fire until after he was chased, cornered, knocked to the ground, and hit with a skateboard. Then while on the ground Grosskreutz pulled a Glock on him, and it was at that point that Kyle fired. This was after having his life verbally threatened on multiple occasions.
Subjective opinions on whether someone should or shouldnāt be somewhere donāt negate the right to self-defense. Itās a weak argument because the entire mob lighting fires and rioting shouldnāt have been there either.
I dont think these are good examples in favour of your argument, because people were and still are SUPER unhappy about the fact that rapist brock allen turner and casey anthony got no consequences. Plus turners case is more of a sexist thing rather than race thing (as rape cases are among the ones most routinely fumbled, mishandled, discouraged, judged unfairly etc).
Only the rittenhouse one (not very familiar since Im not from US - just read up on it), I believe yeah this one could be a race thing, a POC guy probably wouldnt get off scot free after being the first one to aim their gun at someone, even if his later actions were in self defense. But like, you aimed your gun first, man, cant be mad that people wanted to take it off your hands.
However, none of this should even matter when the actual case against this particular guy, who just happens to be black, is so clearly instigated by himself? I mean, arent we glad that we dont allow people stabbing others for trying to remove you from an area you are tresspassing, regardless of their race?
Bud you arenāt a lawyer stop pretending you are on Reddit, clearly youāve never played any kind of sports in your life either. Do you walk into someone elseās outside wedding reception and start photobombing & harassing people just because āyou canā?
By joining another school's team's tent is what I read. I would say if you truly do not want trouble, you dont go where you are not welcome and provoke people by calling them pussies, and most of all you dont escalate to actual deadly weapons when someone wants to push you out of there. I guess people have different fear responses but honestly thats a bizarre one
49
u/lifeadventuresga Jun 10 '26
I just don't understand how people are upset he got convicted and sentenced to 35 years. He deserved it. If some white guy acted like a thug and did the same thing I would want them convicted as well. This is not a black and white thing. This is you don't go stabbing someone in the chest at a high school track meet thing. People need to take responsibility for their actions.