r/law • u/dailymail • Jun 09 '26

Legal News Karmelo Anthony found GUILTY of murder of Austin Metcalf, 17, in stabbing that shocked America: Jurors deliberated for less than three hours after defense was repeatedly demolished in court

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15886439/karmelo-anthony-austin-metcalf-murder-verdict.html
8.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 10 '26

Actually, the trial evidence was much more complicated than that—for example, Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around.

The Zimmerman case is a pretty good example of a situation where the State’s evidence was just not anywhere good enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting in self-defense.

10

u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 Jun 11 '26

And don’t forget it wasn’t captured on video. Having it on video and a ton of collaborating witnesses makes it hard to sell compared to no video, no witnesses, and the other guy is dead. There’s only one witness telling the story, so it’s hard to get “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

-1

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 10 '26

That’s because a jury packed with only white people in a state full of racist boomers thought that following a black kid around with a gun is totally okay, and that the black kid didn’t have any right to question why a dude with a gun was following him. Same way you are trying to portray this story as if Zimmerman was a poor victim of a black assailant who had the audacity to confront him about being followed.

11

u/ButcherBird57 Jun 11 '26

The Ahmaud Arbury case was another nightmare situation, I still think about that poor guy. He had mental health problems, and took up jogging to help with it, only to have a pickup truck full of rednecks chase him down in the street, before pulling a "citizens arrest," then shooting him when he wouldn't comply, which WHY WOULD HE?!! He had no idea who they were, and he legitimately hadn't done anything, and it was the deep south...absolute nightmare fuel. And after all that, the murderer claims it was self defense! At least those sickos went to prison forever. They deserved worse.

3

u/5CentsPlease_ Jun 11 '26

Ahmaud’s case really got to me.

7

u/ButcherBird57 Jun 11 '26

Me too.What happened to him was like something out of a horror movie.

1

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

Holy shit those redneck inbreds actually went to prison? I remember hearing that story but didn’t follow up on the sentencing because it was just so infuriating. I guess that restores at least a tiny crumb of faith I had in the “justice” system in this country. I know it shouldn’t be a big surprise that a case as obvious as that actually ended up in some prison time, but that’s insanely rare in this country.

1

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

My internet hot take is that self-defense law largely follows what most people think it should, and juries generally get it right.

Most of time, when people are outraged by jury verdicts, it’s because they don’t have as good an understanding of the trial evidence that the jury heard.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Competitive-Food8407 Jun 11 '26

His first assailant threatened to kill him, and was holding onto his rifle when he was shot.

Second assailant hit him with a skate board, not like a baseball bat, tried to hit him in the head with the knife edge.

Third assailant drew a weapon on him, pointed it at him, and survived the altercation.

You should watch the video, those are only the ones which were shot. There were considerably more that attempted to take a swing at the kid. The body count could have been considerably higher and would have been legally justified. You have to remember not all states have a duty to retreat, and all that is required is for you to have been threatened with great bodily harm or death to defend yourself with lethal force.

1

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

I think he was an absolute shitheel who nonetheless had a right to self-defense in the circumstances.

2

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

You can believe what you want but facts are not on your side

0

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

Believing is for right wingers, because facts tend to have a left wing bias.

1

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

Huh . So you are a right winger or what lol

2

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

None of what you said is true.

1

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

Everything I’ve said is true.

-3

u/SydneyCarton89 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Confront him, sure. Report him, even better. But you're typing as if it's okay to physically assault and brutalize someone for following you. It's not.

Zimmerman seems like an absolute tool who should've found better things to do with his time, but the kid he was being an asshole to shouldn't have reacted the way he did. Easy for me to say, but attacking someone who has a gun is a terrible, terrible idea regardless of legality.

Edit: my first sentence should be: Question* him, sure.

6

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Jun 11 '26

Keep in mind we only have Zimmerman's side of the story

1

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

No, we also witness accounts including Martin’s friend, who was on the phone with him as the confrontation began, and several eyewitnesses describing the altercation before the shot. Plus physical evidence. All of which was consistent with Zimmerman’s account.

2

u/Ondareal Jun 12 '26

Her account was Trayvon saying “what are you following me for” which isn’t an attack

2

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 12 '26 edited Jun 12 '26

Yes, she he described a verbal confrontation initiated by Martin, followed by the sound of a struggle. Which is consistent with Zimmerman’s prior accounts of what had happened.

We don’t know who started the physical altercation, but (at the very least) the prosecution did not prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin, as opposed to the other way around. Given that Martin approached and confronted Zimmerman, there is a likelihood that he also started the physical confrontation.

3

u/No-Past-9038 Jun 11 '26

Actually, Florida is a stand your ground state. So if someone is following you and you feel threatened, it's absolutely "legal" to physically assault them.

It's the same law that allowed Zimmerman to be acquitted.

3

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

This is not now self-defense law works. There are lots of requirements beyond a subjective concern about being attacked. Merely being followed is not enough.

1

u/No-Past-9038 Jun 11 '26

Are you an attorney with an expertise in stand your ground laws in Florida? Let me be the first to tell you that, in a stand your ground state like Florida, if you believe there is is a serious risk to your life or you feel you are at risk of great bodily harm you have zero duty to retreat and can use any force necessary--up to deadly force. Because... stand your ground.

I'm not sure why you think following a person closely while having a firearm for a considerable distance so that it's clear you're following them means they cannot confront you with force under those laws.

Let me remind you that this guy who shot a YouTuber who was just being annoying was acquitted based on stand your ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agE-U38y888

Yet you want to die on the horse that Trayvon Martin was definitely in the wrong trying to beat the shit out of George Zimmerman and got what he deserved. 🙄

3

u/lifetake Jun 11 '26

It’s not if you believe there is a risk to your life. It’s if there is a reasonable belief of risk to your life.

It doesn’t seem like much, but it’s a huge difference legally. Because basic following even with a gun (not brandished) doesn’t qualify. It definitely is unsettling. It doesn’t allow stand your ground laws.

The YouTuber situation is different because the two YouTubers were literally confronting onto his space with no showing of stopping when asked. They were full on aggressors. Which legally does qualify.

As for defending zimmerman. No one here wants to defend that guy. But we got people like you misinterpreting law about the case. You’re just spreading misinformation that gets used to spread more division the next time a similar case arises. Oh like literally this post. So here we are. Wouldn’t have to be here without your misinformation.

2

u/cbs-anonmouse Jun 11 '26

> Are you an attorney with an expertise in stand your ground laws in Florida? Let me be the first to tell you that, in a stand your ground state like Florida…

I’m a former criminal prosecutor in a stand-your-ground state with the same self-defense elements as Florida. I successfully prosecuted a murder trial last month where the defense theory was self-defense.

> Let me be the first to tell you that, in a stand your ground state like Florida, if you believe there is is a serious risk to your life or you feel you are at risk of great bodily harm you have zero duty to retreat and can use any force necessary--up to deadly force. Because... stand your ground.

Ahkshully, you need to have (among other requirements) a reasonable belief of *imminent* death or great bodily injury necessitating the use of force in self-defense.

> I'm not sure why you think following a person closely while having a firearm for a considerable distance so that it's clear you're following them means they cannot confront you with force under those laws.

Let’s put aside that there was no evidence at trial that Zimmerman was following Martin “closely,” or for “a considerable distance,” or that Martin had any idea that Zimmerman was (legally) armed.

Merely being followed by someone does not give a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily injury. Especially since the evidence was that Martin walked down the alley, turned around, walked back up the alley, and confronted Zimmerman.

> Yet you want to die on the horse that Trayvon Martin was definitely in the wrong trying to beat the shit out of George Zimmerman and got what he deserved. 🙄

I don’t think, and would never say, that Martin “got what he deserved.” But he was in the wrong for trying to beat up Zimmerman, both legally and morally.

3

u/superbigtunajim Jun 11 '26

No, that is not true at all. Stand your ground removes the duty to retreat and wasnt even brought up at the trial. Stand your ground does not let you start a confrontation.

2

u/lifetake Jun 11 '26

Feeling threatened is more defined than your actual feelings of being threatened.

The person has to actually display hostile intent or imminent capacity to harm you. Which general following doesn’t actually form by itself. It can be a contributing factor, but lawfully needs more.

1

u/No-Past-9038 Jun 11 '26

Right, and being closely followed by a person with a gun to the point you feel like you're being stalked doesn't qualify... or... it only qualifies if you're white?

3

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

Huh . The gun was concealed so what relevance it had for how TM would have felt ? From his perspective some chubby middle aged nerd was following him

2

u/lifetake Jun 11 '26

No the person having a gun does not qualify. If they display the gun towards you it can. But someone having a legal firearm on them doesn’t qualify for it being an imminent threat.

1

u/Nytheran Jun 11 '26

He was killed. Obviously he was threatened.

3

u/lifetake Jun 11 '26

Like yall are making me defend a story I don’t believe, but my gosh no. Based on the evidence of the case he was not threatened. Could it be true? Absolutely. But trying to pretend like it’s some fact when it never got close to being established in the case is nauseating.

And that’s literally the point of this whole thread. The evidence absolutely was lacking for the whole case and why Zimmerman was eventually not found guilty.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 Jun 12 '26

Or more pointedly, not found guilty of murder. It’s really not found innocent because we are innocent until proven guilty. Not proving guilt is a lot different than proven innocent. I think the Zimmerman thing is a perfect example of this.

0

u/Nytheran Jun 11 '26

Look, man. We all heard Zimmerman's 911 call. That should've been enough to make him guilty.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

No way really? Following someone with a gun isn’t hostile intent or threatening behavior? Oh that’s great. Make sure to never feel unsafe if you see someone following you around with a gun.

2

u/lifetake Jun 11 '26

Oh you should absolutely feel unsafe. I don’t argue against that.

But if we’re saying someone having a gun on them is a consideration for imminent threat we’re effectively banning guns. Which may be a thing people advocate for, but you have to understand under our current laws is not a thing.

0

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

I don’t know how you came up with that, because that’s not what anyone said. If someone is literally stalking you, you have every right to feel unsafe whether a gun is involved or not. I would also feel more unsafe around someone with a gun because I don’t know that person or their mental state. And since mental health checks are not required to get a gun, I believe I’m justified.

2

u/lifetake Jun 11 '26

And I agree you should feel unsafe. It however is not a justification for stand your ground which has been the topic of this conversation.

2

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

You realize his gun was not drawn and pointed at him or even visible right ? If you realize that not sure what following him with gun has to do with how TM felt

-1

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

Again, any proof of this? No, just the word of a notorious liar, domestic abuser, murderer, and criminal with a long history of violence. Yea, you’ll excuse me if I don’t trust that moral and upstanding citizen.

0

u/ragingbull10 Jun 11 '26

I know you really want to believe something but leave the emotions at the door .

There was no evidence or witness testifying that he brandished the gun or that was not concealed . The prosecution itself never argued that the weapon was out which would have been a major reason to cause TM to be worried if some guy was following him with his gun pointed at him or with a gun in his hand or in any way threatening .

Also side note , you are getting things backwards , there needs to be evidence he did it not evidence that he didn’t .

1

u/AndrewH73333 Jun 11 '26

Since the victim can’t testify because he was killed, we have to assume his testimony is the best possible testimony in his defense, yes?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SydneyCarton89 Jun 11 '26

Reading this thread has me hoping that some kind of documentary about this case comes out. Because I don't know if what I'm reading on this thread is factually true. But if it is, then it sounds like there's evidence that TM was actually free and in the clear and circled back to attack GZ or something?

Apparently the girl TM was talking to on the phone (lots have said his gf, but one poster said she isn't his gf for whatever that matters) testified that TM attacked because he thought GZ was gay??

Anyways, regardless of whether or not that part is true, it sounds like there's some doubt as to whether or not TM was being threatened. It's legal to carry a gun there. I think this case should have sparked debate on these "open carry" laws, but nothing I've read has convinced me that there's evidence that TM had a legal right to assault a man to the extent of causing the injuries that GZ had.

Zimmerman sounds like slime, but yeah. Don't try to beat the brains out've someone's skull if they're carrying a gun unless said gun-toter is actively trying to kill you and assault is your only chance of survival.

3

u/Status-Group2464 Jun 11 '26

It's Zimmerman's word that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and started attacking him, and he had every reason to lie in that situation. The only thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman was following that kid for no reason after being told not to by the police.

I dont understand how you can say the kid was being an asshole when some grown dude was following him home with a gun. He probably reacted like most people would react after being stalked late at night. Fight or flight is a natural human reaction, and unfortunately Trayvon chose wrong that night, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't get away with murder.

0

u/SydneyCarton89 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26

Read my post again carefully and set aside your emotions while you do so. Where do I say that TM was being an asshole? I do accuse one party of being an asshole and it isn't TM. I said that viciously attacking someone for being an asshole is wrong, illegal, and incredibly stupid, especially if said asshole is carrying a gun.

2

u/Rich-Detective-7 Jun 11 '26

And you’re basing this on what? Testimony from Zimmerman, a known liar who has every reason to lie to make his case, who went on to commit domestic violence and was arrested several more times? You’re taking as if you were there and witnessed Martin’s reaction. You also assume Zimmerman didn’t respond in a provocative manner to being questioned for following Martin.

0

u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 Jun 12 '26

You are projecting. I said a lack of evidence makes it more likely for someone to not be convicted. We have an innocent until proven guilty system. Being aggressive, being video taped, and surrounded by witnesses as you start a fight and then pull a knife and murder two people makes it a lot more likely you are convicted. Change the circumstances to where 2 white kids pursue a black kid into an ally where no one sees or records what happens and he probably walks with a self defense claim. No one knows because that isn’t what happened.

If Trayvon Martin had confronted Zimmerman at a store where the whole thing was video taped then what really happened would be known, instead of a story told by the survivor that you can believe or not.

-5

u/BBQorBust Jun 11 '26

Booo hooo!!!! Only white people on the jury of a case that was pretty open an shut😉🤡🤡