schwack schwack said:

---

Can you give an explanation of "provoking the difficulty", please?

---

Provocation. A person who starts a violent encounter loses right to self defense. There are circumstances wherein they can walk away, disengage and if after that the person comes back at them posing an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, they can legally defend themselves.

The jury heard from witness after witness that Anthony was repeatedly asked to leave the tent. He not only refused, he dared people to make him leave. That is an escalation which is another factor in provocation.

Texas just uses different language for the same principle.

Would I be wrong to presume the defense councils objection there was essentially checking a box for adequate defense to prevent appeal?

TAMUallen said:

---

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

---

And poor little Karmelo had no right to stab a boy in the heart.

---

That's what I keep going back to. Regardless of what KA was under the tent, regardless of why he had the knife, regardless of of her was sitting or standing, these people seem to be saying lethal action is an acceptable response to a push. If that were truly the case, can you imagine what the end really would be everyday in a middle and high school? Crowded concerts? Black Friday shopping? Sporting events?

Troy91 said:

---

The defense has to fight that definition. It eliminates the self defense.

Under Texas law, you are not allowed to provoke a situation, get attacked by the person you provoked and then claim self defense.

If the claim is that the D sitting in the tent provoked the situation, there is no valid claim for self defense.

---

I think the damning part of the provoking deal is KA repeatedly saying, "touch me and find out". Like if you were trying to teach a course in what not to do to provoke, you would use this as an exact example of what not to do.

Then he was so in fear of his life he threw the knife away. I know the Stand Your Ground rule, but if he was in such fear for his life, why was he able to run away from the situation 10 seconds after the stabbing but not 10 seconds before the stabbing? After he was told 10 times to leave. It seems like it was pretty easy to leave and not be in fear for his life. Instead he decided to have a knife fight when he was outnumbered 30 to 1. And then he stopped after one guy and then ran. Almost like his mindset was to flea the crime.

It's like this guy broke every rule for claiming self defense. But I guess he had no other way to go to try to stay out of prison. It is just crazy and surreal how this guy just threw away his life.

aggiehawg said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

Can you give an explanation of "provoking the difficulty", please?

---

Provocation. A person who starts a violent encounter loses right to self defense. There are circumstances wherein they can walk away, disengage and if after that the person comes back at them posing an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, they can legally defend themselves.

The jury heard from witness after witness that Anthony was repeatedly asked to leave the tent. He not only refused, he dared people to make him leave. That is an escalation which is another factor in provocation.

Texas just uses different language for the same principle.

---

I also think that lay people underestimate the importance of the jury charge.

It is the single most important event in any case and it largely happens off camera with attorneys fighting over obscure definitions.

All of the fun Perry Mason moments don't matter if the jury charge is poorly constructed or does not have the correct questions to be answered.

We were trained to draft a jury charge before we drafted the petition. You want to build your entire case around what you plan to present, prove and persuade to the jury. The entire trial is a performance built around the charge.

Hopefully, some other attorneys can chime in here on a very underrated part of a trial.

They're telling you they're tired of listening to "white people." They believe anything they do is justified in any circumstance because history. It's why the Knockout game exists and why they don't raise an eyebrow to it. They're immoral reprobates.

*to be clear, I am not generalizing about a race of people. I am speaking specifically of the people who are defending KA's actions. Own them.

You are correct
If KA is found guilty of manslaughter, that is a huge win for the defense.
And if guilty of only Manslaughter, not only is he eligible for probation, but the maximum punishment is just 20 years.

And with his age, assuming he does not get into trouble while in prison, he will be paroled in less than 10 years.

Thank you, aggiehawg. Considering all of the reports from testimony during trial, I was wondering why it was something the defense would even try to exclude - that I must have been missing something.

On a side note, as a trial watcher, I was really disappointed to see Toby Shook on defense. I get that everybody is allowed to try to mount a good defense - and he can certainly do just that, but this case? Surprised he jumped into the fray.

Got a Natty! said:

---

You are correct
If KA is found guilty of manslaughter, that is a huge win for the defense.
And if guilty of only Manslaughter, not only is he eligible for probation, but the maximum punishment is just 20 years.

And with his age, assuming he does not get into trouble while in prison, he will be paroled in less than 10 years.

---

I put the odds of him staying out of trouble in prison at a pretty low number.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

---

And poor little Karmelo had no right to stab a boy in the heart.

---

That's what I keep going back to. Regardless of what KA was under the tent, regardless of why he had the knife, regardless of of her was sitting or standing, these people seem to be saying lethal action is an acceptable response to a push. If that were truly the case, can you imagine what the end really would be everyday in a middle and high school? Crowded concerts? Black Friday shopping? Sporting events?

---

To some authority is only gained through overwhelming physical prowess. It is not respected.

Most of us grew up being taught to respect authority, and generally speaking to recognize accepted traditional authority figures; parents, elders in general, teachers, police, etc. Trusting in turn that those in authority recognize that to whom much is given, much is in turn expected.

For others this is not the case. Authority is won only by power, and respect earned through display of power. Do you think KA truly respected the authority of his coach? He didn't respect the authority of other school administrators, as exampled by his behavioral record and suspension. He didn't respect generally accepted societal boundaries and norms (in this case team spaces). Being asked to leave, then told to leave, then physically touched, was a direct insult to his inflated sense of importance. It was a "diss"

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

---

You can't fix stupid.
My goodness.

Troy91 said:

---

We were trained to draft a jury charge before we drafted the petition.

---

Start with the end in mind. It's a good philosophy in all endevours.

In my technical discipline, I teach all young engineers to outline their final structural substantiation report first. It lays out the pattern they'll follow for all their work.

Troy91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

Can you give an explanation of "provoking the difficulty", please?

---

Provocation. A person who starts a violent encounter loses right to self defense. There are circumstances wherein they can walk away, disengage and if after that the person comes back at them posing an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, they can legally defend themselves.

The jury heard from witness after witness that Anthony was repeatedly asked to leave the tent. He not only refused, he dared people to make him leave. That is an escalation which is another factor in provocation.

Texas just uses different language for the same principle.

---

I also think that lay people underestimate the importance of the jury charge.

It is the single most important event in any case and it largely happens off camera with attorneys fighting over obscure definitions.

All of the fun Perry Mason moments don't matter if the jury charge is poorly constructed or does not have the correct questions to be answered.

We were trained to draft a jury charge before we drafted the petition. You want to build your entire case around what you plan to present, prove and persuade to the jury. The entire trial is a performance built around the charge.

Hopefully, some other attorneys can chime in here on a very underrated part of a trial.

---

Obviously you are an attorney who knows how to prepare a case for trial from the VERY beginning and how to try a case.

As I tell young attorneys, and LE when I teach writing search warrants, one cannot come up with the right answer unless you know what the right question is. Very applicable to jury charges, especially in civil cases.

deddog said:

---

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

---

You can't fix stupid.
My goodness.

---

Which is why genetic IQ differences deniers should be exiled

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

---

Weapons grade stupidity.

Troy91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

Can you give an explanation of "provoking the difficulty", please?

---

Provocation. A person who starts a violent encounter loses right to self defense. There are circumstances wherein they can walk away, disengage and if after that the person comes back at them posing an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, they can legally defend themselves.

The jury heard from witness after witness that Anthony was repeatedly asked to leave the tent. He not only refused, he dared people to make him leave. That is an escalation which is another factor in provocation.

Texas just uses different language for the same principle.

---

I also think that lay people underestimate the importance of the jury charge.

It is the single most important event in any case and it largely happens off camera with attorneys fighting over obscure definitions.

All of the fun Perry Mason moments don't matter if the jury charge is poorly constructed or does not have the correct questions to be answered.

We were trained to draft a jury charge before we drafted the petition. You want to build your entire case around what you plan to present, prove and persuade to the jury. The entire trial is a performance built around the charge.

Hopefully, some other attorneys can chime in here on a very underrated part of a trial.

---

Excellent point. My procedure was to write my closing first, then reverse engineer everything I needed to prove or at least have evidence related to the element (either way to prove or disprove)

And jury instructions are very, very important. A judge messes those up enough, there will be a reversal. Of course these days, jury instructions are largely promulgated, tried and tested by various appeals. Some tweaking might be needed to address certain fact patterns but the essential elements of the offence charged.

General rule is whether there was evidence adduced at trial presenting a fact question for the jury, as the trier of fact, to make a determination. If there was evidence presenting such a fact question on an element, the instruction should be given.

Here there is a fact question of whether Anthony instigated the events of that day which the jury has to decide. And if they find that he did instigate it, his right to self defense under the law is negated. Meaning the killing was not justified.

Closing arguments are 35 minutes each.
Prosecutor Bill Wirskye waived right to open so lead defense attorney Mike Howard is starting 

“Austin Metcalf had no legal right to use force to eject Karmelo Anthony from that tent”

“He had no legal right to put his hands on…

— J.D. Miles (@jdmiles11) June 9, 2026

Quote:

---

"Austin Metcalf had no legal right to use force to eject Karmelo Anthony from that tent"

"He had no legal right to put his hands on Karmelo…Karmelo is in a public place"

"We ask you this incredibly tough task which is to follow the law"

"The government wants to make this case about Melo could have just left"

"You heard that a track event is a social event, it was completely common for kids to be milling about and go by and say hi, stop into the tent"

"We know that it was raining, i don't know why we had to have this argument about whether it was raining"

"We know how Texas weather is, so it's easy to think, boy i better get out of this rain"

He says a witness testified "we had no problem with him under the tent while it was raining"

"You have to put yourself in his (Karmelo's) shoes, so you start under that tent, you want to get out of the rain"

"Sure enough one of the people at Memorial says, yea, come on over"

"Then all of the sudden Hunter Metcalf, or Austin say who are you? You need to leave?"

"These guys are much bigger than you, do you turn your back and walk away and take a chance that these teenage boys with their raging hormones"

"Austin and Hunter had the right to tell Melo to leave but they did have the right to use deadly force to make him leave"

"Melo had an absolute right to defend himself against that"

"How do you know in a split second of chaos when it's too late"

"Because if you wait too late to defend yourself self defense is meaningless"

---

11m ago
Defense begins closing arguments: Metcalf "had no legal right to put his hands on Karmelo"
Prosecutor Bill Wirskye waived right to begin closing arguments, so lead defense attorney Mike Howard was the first to address the jury.
Leaning into the self defense argument, Howard said that "Austin Metcalf had no legal right to use force to eject Karmelo Anthony from that tent."
"He had no legal right to put his hands on Karmelo," Howard said. "Karmelo is in a public place."
Howard asked the jury to put themselves in Anthony's shoes, reminding them that it was raining.
"You want to get out of the rain ... Sure enough, one of the people at Memorial says, 'yeah, come on over.'"
"Then all of the sudden Hunter Metcalf, or Austin, say 'Who are you? You need to leave.' ... These guys are much bigger than you. Do you turn your back and walk away and take a chance with these teenage boys with their raging hormones?" Howard said.
"Austin and Hunter had the right to tell Melo to leave, but they did not have the right to use deadly force to make him leave," Howard said. "Melo had an absolute right to defense himself against that."
"How do you know in a split second of chaos when it's too late? ... Because if you wait too late to defend yourself, self defense is meaningless," he said.
By J.D. Miles, Steven Rosenbaum


What is the thought process and strategy for the prosecution waiving the right to begin closing arguments?

Reporting on the Karmelo Anthony Case from CBS News:

Prosecutor Bill Wirskye waived right to begin closing arguments, so lead defense attorney Mike Howard was the first to address the jury.

Leaning into the self defense argument, Howard said that "Austin Metcalf had no legal…

— Son of A Teamster (@sonofteamster) June 9, 2026

Quote:

---

Reporting on the Karmelo Anthony Case from CBS News:

Prosecutor Bill Wirskye waived right to begin closing arguments, so lead defense attorney Mike Howard was the first to address the jury.

Leaning into the self defense argument, Howard said that "Austin Metcalf had no legal right to use force to eject Karmelo Anthony from that tent."

"He had no legal right to put his hands on Karmelo," Howard said. "Karmelo is in a public place."

Howard asked the jury to put themselves in Anthony's shoes, reminding them that it was raining.

"You want to get out of the rain ... Sure enough, one of the people at Memorial says, 'yeah, come on over.'"

"Then all of the sudden Hunter Metcalf, or Austin, say 'Who are you? You need to leave.' ... These guys are much bigger than you. Do you turn your back and walk away and take a chance with these teenage boys with their raging hormones?" Howard said.

"Austin and Hunter had the right to tell Melo to leave, but they did not have the right to use deadly force to make him leave," Howard said. "Melo had an absolute right to defense himself against that."

"How do you know in a split second of chaos when it's too late? ... Because if you wait too late to defend yourself, self defense is meaningless," he said.

---

What a weak argument.

“We heard a lot of differing accounts from the kids who were under that tent, i know its obvious but let me just say it, every single one was a Memorial kid, we should be on guard for having a bias because of course they would, Austin was their leader”

“So we heard a very…

— J.D. Miles (@jdmiles11) June 9, 2026

Quote:

---

"We heard a lot of differing accounts from the kids who were under that tent, i know its obvious but let me just say it, every single one was a Memorial kid, we should be on guard for having a bias because of course they would, Austin was their leader"

"So we heard a very jumbled account of what really happened in that tent"

"It was a shove, it was a hit, it was a lineman drill"

On Anthony leaving the scene,

"Not exactly escaping like the guilty do, Melo had every opportunity to go right out that exit"

"We heard about Melo's emotions, every single person who saw him down on that track said he was crying"

"What did he say? Melo said, 'he's not gonna die', it's clear he thought he stabbed him a place that he was not going to die"

Austin reportedly said to Karmelo according to a witness

"If you don't move i'll beat your ass"

'As much as we may not like it, even a 17yo kid can legally have a 5 and knife, even in a high school stadium, yes it's a violation of policy but it is not a crime"

"Texas law doesn't not require that you wait until you get hit"

"So ask yourself, has the government ruled out reasonable doubt when you put yourself in Melo shoes under that tent?"

"

---

from the testimonies that have been reported on, there is no way that anyone can construe that deadly force was being applied toward KA. The defenses own witnesses said as much

Got a Natty! said:

---

You are correct
If KA is found guilty of manslaughter, that is a huge win for the defense.
And if guilty of only Manslaughter, not only is he eligible for probation, but the maximum punishment is just 20 years.

And with his age, assuming he does not get into trouble while in prison, he will be paroled in less than 10 years.

---

In the acetadote used early in a similar case, with similar aged kids (freshman in college), the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to 20. It looked like the victims family fought parole hard and he did 18 of the 20. That case was murder just like this one. I agree manslaughter is the best he can hope for imo.

Here's the rub- AM didn't use deadly force to make him leave.

I get that the defense attorneys are doing their jobs, but their assertions are an affront to a decent society. Karmelo Anthony is a a lawless thug and anyone who defends him is no better.

How common is it for a defendant claiming self defense to not take the stand?

Quote:

---

"Austin and Hunter had the right to tell Melo to leave, but they did not have the right to use deadly force to make him leave,"

---

I wasn't aware that anyone said that Metcalf used "deadly force" to make KA leave. Is the "deadly force" in the room with us now?

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

What a weak argument.

---

Embarrassingly weak. When it gets out that Melo is a ***** while he's serving his hopefully lengthy sentence, his days will be filed with the fear he claimed here. He's gonna get wrecked.

“You didn’t hear the words motive in the jury charge, but you can make reasonable deductions as to how that applies to intent”

“Karmelo has no motive other than he absolutely felt like he was in danger”

“The evidence is very clear these kids didn’t know each other”

“This case…

— J.D. Miles (@jdmiles11) June 9, 2026

Quote:

---

"You didn't hear the words motive in the jury charge, but you can make reasonable deductions as to how that applies to intent"

"Karmelo has no motive other than he absolutely felt like he was in danger"

"The evidence is very clear these kids didn't know each other"

"This case is not about race as much as people want to make it about that"

"There's no evidence that Karmelo do anything but really thinking he was defending himself in that split second of chaos."

He says the way the knife entered shows that it wasn't intentional. He says Karmelo's hand was underneath the knife not on top of it

On credibility of Memorial students who testified

"I understand whether they are coming from, they lost their brother"

On why Karmelo didn't walk away

"If you turn your back on him who knows what happens"

"We have this chorus of people, but it's too late to turn your back, what's going to happen? I don't know"

On Karmelo keeping his hand in his bag

"You don't have something in that bag, I do have something in that bag"

On the "touch me and find out comment from Karmelo

"That is the ultimate warning it is the ultimate backoff"

---

Deadly force? Where was that proven?

Quote:

---

What is the thought process and strategy for the prosecution waiving the right to begin closing arguments?

---

A) Don't beat a dead horse.
B) Take defense's closing apart, point by point.
C) Thirty five minutes for closing is harder to bifurcate between two presentations. Easier to let defense go first then use all of the 35 minutes to do B, point by point.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I get that the defense attorneys are doing their jobs, but their assertions are an affront to a decent society. Karmelo Anthony is a a lawless thug and anyone who defends him is no better.

---

Agree he's a lawless thug. I think he was trying to steal **** to begin with. I think he's guilty.

But I don't want anyone to be able to say a defense attorney is limited in how they represent their clients. As long as it's within ethical bounds, represent away. Say offensive things, who cares? I would want that if I was accused of a crime. Once you start limiting things, you allow the government to railroad your ass by saying you're not worth defending. Everyone deserves representation. Everyone deserves representation that will fight hard for them.

Z3phyr said:

---

How common is it for a defendant claiming self defense to not take the stand?

---

Very common. Its the norm.


Remember, Karmelo does not have to prove he was justified in believing deadly force was needed to protect himself from Austin. He just has to convince the jury that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the State proved Karmelo was not justified.


Note: I think this is a open and shut case. But want everyone to understand the burden still rests wholly with the State.

Wonder who is paying for all the Karmelo Anthony signs?

https://www.youtube.com/live/SWjeJwf_JGc?si=UwLdRvrfZDYUJSF2

So from now on, I will assume, and tell my kids and grandkids to assume that black teens might have packed a knife and that they view me, or them as a threat to their life if I ask them to stop cussing, leave a party or leave a store.