GoFundMe for Karmelo Anthony

277,990 Views | 2163 Replies | Last: 23 min ago by fc2112
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YokelRidesAgain • 11:00p, 6/3/26
YokelRidesAgain said:
5Amp said:
He had no business in that tent, he had no rights to be in that tent.

The first statement is true; as a matter of law, the second is not. A tent at a track meet is not your house or your car and you do not have a legal right to defend it with force.

Yes but there is a reasonable concern when someone is not from your team, school or involved in the meet shows up in your teams space. Public or not, Anthony caused a disturbance being under the tent. You have athletes competing, worrying about their event, tired from an event, or getting focused for their event in the space set aside for them buy using tents. Him walking into that situation with clearly marked tents is asking for a reaction by any reasonable person. He got the reaction and acted. None of this would have happened if he didn't put himself in that situation. If it happened outside the tents in the stands, you'd have an argument. What you're saying is not an argument.

edit: Austin was in the space he was supposed to be in and minding his own business with his team. Anthony wasn't in a space he was supposed to be in, even if it was public and he knew it. Any reasonable person would. This is way closer capital murder than manslaughter.
Reply Quote
2 edits
YokelRidesAgain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShaggySLC • 11:07p, 6/3/26
ShaggySLC said:
Public or not, Anthony caused a disturbance being under the tent. You have athletes competing, worrying about their event, tired from an event, or getting focused for their event in the space set aside for them buy using tents. Him walking into that situation with clearly marked tents is asking for a reaction by any reasonable person.

There are reasonable reactions other than giving someone the fight he was looking for (get an official, etc.). If someone from the other team sits down in your dugout, you have the umpire throw them out of the game.
Reply Quote
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YokelRidesAgain • 11:26p, 6/3/26
YokelRidesAgain said:
ShaggySLC said:
Public or not, Anthony caused a disturbance being under the tent. You have athletes competing, worrying about their event, tired from an event, or getting focused for their event in the space set aside for them buy using tents. Him walking into that situation with clearly marked tents is asking for a reaction by any reasonable person.

There are reasonable reactions other than giving someone the fight he was looking for (get an official, etc.). If someone from the other team sits down in your dugout, you have the umpire throw them out of the game.

Victim blaming, nice!
Reply Quote
one safe place
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:34p, 6/3/26
Goaltending for a murderer. Never thought I'd see it.
Reply Quote
The Ex Officio Director
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to one safe place • 11:36p, 6/3/26
one safe place said:
Goaltending for a murderer. Never thought I'd see it.

Texags is like Texas Weather. Stick around for 5 minutes, you'll see the unexpected
There is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect.
Reply Quote
normalhorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShaggySLC • 11:56p, 6/3/26
If memory serves me correctly, 'Mello wasn't even supposed to be at the track meet. I think I recall he had been suspended for fighting ,which according to student interviews that made tv and was a regular MO of the murderer.
If that's correct, then yes, he had a "right" to be on public property. Unless you want to splice hairs and suggest that his attendance there when not an active participant in the meet, and likely not a paying spectator, isn't a problem for the defense.
Also, I'm going out on a limb here, but carrying a concealed weapon doesn't seem very legal on a school campus. Why isn't he also being charged with a felony tacked on to the murder for being a minor in possession of a deadly weapon on school grounds?
Reply Quote
FriscoKid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YokelRidesAgain • 12:22a, 6/4/26
YokelRidesAgain said:
ShaggySLC said:
Public or not, Anthony caused a disturbance being under the tent. You have athletes competing, worrying about their event, tired from an event, or getting focused for their event in the space set aside for them buy using tents. Him walking into that situation with clearly marked tents is asking for a reaction by any reasonable person.

There are reasonable reactions other than giving someone the fight he was looking for (get an official, etc.). If someone from the other team sits down in your dugout, you have the umpire throw them out of the game.


This is a horrible take. I really question the reasoning skills of grown ass adults that could possibly rationalize "mello" killing another student like this.
Reply Quote
FriscoKid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:31a, 6/4/26
Track kids don't carry guns or knives to meets. Extra water, snacks, spikes, etc. "Mello" wanted to live the thug life and he will get the punishment through our justice system that he deserves, but it won't replace the life that he took.
Reply Quote
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FriscoKid • 12:51a, 6/4/26
FriscoKid said:
Track kids don't carry guns or knives to meets. Extra water, snacks, spikes, etc. "Mello" wanted to live the thug life and he will get the punishment through our justice system that he deserves, but it won't replace the life that he took.

Exactly*, no normal high school student competing at an athletic event trying to better themselves thinks, **** I better pack a blade, we'll be in Frisco. Shocking responses from that doctor. Must be a city doc where this **** is job security.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Fenrir
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YokelRidesAgain • 2:15a, 6/4/26
YokelRidesAgain said:
5Amp said:
He had no business in that tent, he had no rights to be in that tent.

The first statement is true; as a matter of law, the second is not. A tent at a track meet is not your house or your car and you do not have a legal right to defend it with force.


The irony of using this argument as statement against the deceased when the killer is the one seemingly trying to claim stand your ground status isn't lost on me.
Reply Quote
Jack Squat 83
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:30a, 6/4/26
I wonder if the prosecution got his cell phone? Would they have the ability to do that?

There's a much better than zero chance he told one of his thug friends he was gonna shank a white boy that day, before going to the stadium.
I don't think you know me.
Reply Quote
1 edit
91AggieLawyer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YokelRidesAgain • 4:15a, 6/4/26
YokelRidesAgain said:
5Amp said:
He had no business in that tent, he had no rights to be in that tent.

The first statement is true; as a matter of law, the second is not. A tent at a track meet is not your house or your car and you do not have a legal right to defend it with force.


Matter of law. Anything to back it up? Has there been a case in Texas where this has happened and a COA or the CCA has ruled as such?

Tex Penal Code 9.43 covers protection of third person's property and use of force (not necessarily deadly) to do this. I'm not saying it is applicable here, but your blanket statement is not correct, at least not in all circumstances.

This is a red herring anyway. I'm 100% sure the facts are going to come out that he was there for reasons other than just sitting or getting shade.
Reply Quote
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bull Meachem • 4:33a, 6/4/26
Bull Meachem said:
The defense attorney's job is to create any amount of doubt they can and as they should. Here's to hoping it doesn't work but I find it funny how angry people get at the defense attorney and then they'd want the exact same thing if they were accused.

Indeed - I have no sympathy for Karmalo, but I kinda do for his attorney. Dude is trying his best to create whatever confusion he can about the incident because he was dealt a losing hand.

Of course, I don't feel too bad cause he'll get paid and get a lot of future work from other hood rats because of this case.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Geminiv
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:40a, 6/4/26
So if you're running away and get shot in the back thats self defense on the shooters part. Kid at fault for causing the situation?
If someone puts their hands on you on public property and you kill them, not self defense the perpetrators fault because he caused the situation. Got it.
Reply Quote
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Geminiv • 6:08a, 6/4/26
Geminiv said:
So if you're running away and get shot in the back thats self defense on the shooters part. Kid at fault for causing the situation?


With just these facts, it's not self defense. I assume you are alluding to the acquittal in South Carolina. Yet you leave off the vital testimony of a gun being pointed at his son. You also leave out the malice element of murder is South Carolina that jurors did not believe was met.

Quote:
If someone puts their hands on you on public property and you kill them, not self defense the perpetrators fault because he caused the situation. Got it.


If you kill someone that merely puts their hands on you in public, that's not self defense.



Reply Quote
1 edit
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 91AggieLawyer • 6:12a, 6/4/26
both "did he have a right to be in the tent?" And "was it illegal to have the knife" are both red herrings.

if you assume Anthony had every right to be present and carry a knife, that does not change the relevant questions the jury must answer.
Reply Quote
AggieArcher17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 7:19a, 6/4/26
BMX Bandit said:
both "did he have a right to be in the tent?" And "was it illegal to have the knife" are both red herrings.

if you assume Anthony had every right to be present and carry a knife, that does not change the relevant questions the jury must answer.


Yep. Just because it's legal for me to have a pistol in my waistband at HEB doesn't mean I can shoot someone that shoves me in the dairy aisle
Reply Quote
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:47a, 6/4/26
We find it so easy to be sucked into arguments about his right to be under the tent or right to have a knife - all the while forgetting these are just side shows intended to cloud the real issue and hopefully get Carmelo free of murder.

If he is claiming self defense, the only question is - did he have a reasonable cause to fear for his life? that's the only pertinent question.
Reply Quote
VaterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fc2112 • 8:24a, 6/4/26
fc2112 said:
We find it so easy to be sucked into arguments about his right to be under the tent or right to have a knife - all the while forgetting these are just side shows intended to cloud the real issue and hopefully get Carmelo free of murder.

If he is claiming self defense, the only question is - did he have a reasonable cause to fear for his life? that's the only pertinent question.


Yes! Although I'd add he can also use deadly force to defend himself against serious bodily harm. Either way, his belief must be reasonable and proportional and he could not have provoked the attack which triggered the self defense.

In this scenario, with the caveat that I obviously haven't seen the evidence presented at trial, I don't believe deadly force self defense is either reasonable or proportional.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Muy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YokelRidesAgain • 8:29a, 6/4/26
YokelRidesAgain said:
ShaggySLC said:
So basically what you're saying is for example at a high school baseball tournament, a player goes into another teams dugout, with them in there in the middle of a game, the first guy that tells him to get out, he stabs.

Thug murderer created the entire situation, knowing he would be told to leave. This is nonsense.

No, I am saying that the stands at a track meet are not your house or your car and you do not have a legal right to defend them with force. Do you think that the victim would have had a legal right to punch Anthony for sitting in "their" tent? Or stab him?

If Anthony had been in someone's house uninvited they would be legally justified in ejecting him with force. In this case, what he did was not illegal until he started stabbing.


NOBODY is arguing the tent is public or private property. It has NOTHING to do with the justification of murder! What is wrong with you?
Reply Quote
MsDoubleD81
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:30a, 6/4/26
And of course the protesters are using the stupid megaphones like they did with Sully
Reply Quote
Muy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:34a, 6/4/26
This will be fun when the Swedish soccer team and fans show up in Frisco in a few days to practice here in prep for the World Cup. No way the race pimps try and get the agitators riled up to cause problems in the streets. No way.
Reply Quote
oh no
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to VaterAg • 8:40a, 6/4/26
VaterAg said:
fc2112 said:
the only question is - did he have a reasonable cause to fear for his life? that's the only pertinent question.


Yes!
I'm sure that white boy from Frisco Memorial was a stone cold killer that everyone feared. As we all know, according to Joe Biden, General Milley, Lloyd Austin, CNN, WaPo, NyT, and all of msm have rightly informed the masses that domestic suburban white boys are extremist and our nation's greatest threat! A guy can't even go where he's not welcome without being asked to leave by an extremist white guy in track shorts anymore. What kind of world are we living in when sweet sweet karamelo is a defendant instead of the real victim?
Reply Quote
1 edit
4stringAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:06a, 6/4/26
I think Melo is toast and had zero reason to pull a knife. As others have said, the real crux of this issue for the defense is whether they can prove his life was under threat enough to stab the other kid to death. It wasn't and this isn't some 'stand your ground' case or issue but the defense is trying to make it one.
Reply Quote
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:11a, 6/4/26
I've often heard most cases are won or lost during jury selection. All the noise were hearing out of Karmalo's people seems to be evidence they know they lost

Perhaps he shouldn't have murdered someone in Collin County?
Reply Quote
1 edit
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fc2112 • 9:19a, 6/4/26
fc2112 said:
We find it so easy to be sucked into arguments about his right to be under the tent or right to have a knife - all the while forgetting these are just side shows intended to cloud the real issue and hopefully get Carmelo free of murder.

If he is claiming self defense, the only question is - did he have a reasonable cause to fear for his life? that's the only pertinent question.


Understand that part. Those questions and the answers to them can change whether it's murder or manslaughter right? This feels much more premeditated than what's being said.
Reply Quote
BadMoonRisin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:21a, 6/4/26
Any guesses on the duration of the trial? 2 weeks or so? Seems like a pretty straightforward argument.
Reply Quote
Law-Apt_3G
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22a, 6/4/26
The left will never recover from a guilty verdict.
Reply Quote
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 9:23a, 6/4/26
BadMoonRisin said:
Any guesses on the duration of the trial? 2 weeks or so? Seems like a pretty straightforward argument.


The judge said June 12th
Reply Quote
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShaggySLC • 9:25a, 6/4/26
ShaggySLC said:
fc2112 said:
We find it so easy to be sucked into arguments about his right to be under the tent or right to have a knife - all the while forgetting these are just side shows intended to cloud the real issue and hopefully get Carmelo free of murder.

If he is claiming self defense, the only question is - did he have a reasonable cause to fear for his life? that's the only pertinent question.


Understand that part. Those questions and the answers to them can change whether it's murder or manslaughter right? This feels much more premeditated than what's being said.

No, they don't. Those questions have nothing to do with whether it was reasonable for him to fear for his life or severe bodily harm. That's the only question and all else only serves to obfuscate and confuse and play to the defense.
Reply Quote
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fc2112 • 9:39a, 6/4/26
fc2112 said:
ShaggySLC said:
fc2112 said:
We find it so easy to be sucked into arguments about his right to be under the tent or right to have a knife - all the while forgetting these are just side shows intended to cloud the real issue and hopefully get Carmelo free of murder.

If he is claiming self defense, the only question is - did he have a reasonable cause to fear for his life? that's the only pertinent question.


Understand that part. Those questions and the answers to them can change whether it's murder or manslaughter right? This feels much more premeditated than what's being said.

No, they don't. Those questions have nothing to do with whether it was reasonable for him to fear for his life or severe bodily harm. That's the only question and all else only serves to obfuscate and confuse and play to the defense.


Gotcha. This case reminds me of a couple guys I graduated high school with were at a party together, one guy was making fun of the others ski goggles and trying to get him to fight. The goggles guy didn't want to fight but finally agreed to do chest punch for punch. As soon as the goggles guy hits him the chest, homeboy beats the breaks off him and walked away. He turned back when he saw goggles guy trying to get up and kicks him in the face with steel toe boots and kills him right there. He wasn't charged with murder because goggle guy hit him first, he received 10 years for manslaughter for kicking him. Just like steal toe guy set the whole thing up and should have got murder, I believe Anthony set this whole thing up.
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiepanic95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShaggySLC • 9:55a, 6/4/26
ShaggySLC said:
fc2112 said:
ShaggySLC said:
fc2112 said:
We find it so easy to be sucked into arguments about his right to be under the tent or right to have a knife - all the while forgetting these are just side shows intended to cloud the real issue and hopefully get Carmelo free of murder.

If he is claiming self defense, the only question is - did he have a reasonable cause to fear for his life? that's the only pertinent question.


Understand that part. Those questions and the answers to them can change whether it's murder or manslaughter right? This feels much more premeditated than what's being said.

No, they don't. Those questions have nothing to do with whether it was reasonable for him to fear for his life or severe bodily harm. That's the only question and all else only serves to obfuscate and confuse and play to the defense.


Gotcha. This case reminds me of a couple guys I graduated high school with we at a party together, one guy was making fun of the others ski goggles and trying to get him to fight. The goggles guy didn't want to fight but finally agreed to do chest punch for punch. As soon as goggles guy hits him the chest, homeboy beats the breaks off him and walked away. He turned back when he saw goggles guy trying to get and kicks him in the face with steel toe boots and kills him right there. He wasn't charged with murder because goggle guy hit him first, he received 10 years for manslaughter for kicking him. Just like steal toe guy set the whole thing up and should have got murder, I believe Anthony set this whole thing up.

Wow, that's messed up
Reply Quote
A Net Full of Jello
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:02a, 6/4/26
I read somewhere (don't remember where because this was back closer to the incident than the trial) that the Anthony family was on their third attorney and they were the ones pushing to go to trial rather than take a plea. Did anyone else see anything like this? I didn't really think anything of it at the time but if true, I'm wondering if the pervious attorneys knew self-defense was going to be a really hard thing to prove.
Reply Quote
Teslag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiepanic95 • 10:05a, 6/4/26
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/justice-or-vengeance-11724007/

Story about ski goggle killing
Reply Quote
ShaggySLC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 10:18a, 6/4/26
Teslag said:
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/justice-or-vengeance-11724007/

Story about ski goggle killing

I forgot he held on for a week. Terrible deal, and split our class. I think Brandon did 8 or the 10.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.