“Stupid fight that escalated to the point where someone ended up dying” is kind of the textbook example for manslaughter (as opposed to murder).
I don’t think that the tents would create a legally exclusive zone for students from that school. Even if there were stadium rules that only students from a tent’s school could sit under the tent, Austin wouldn’t have had the authority to ask Karmelo to move. I would think that from a legal standpoint, the tent is irrelevant. It seems like from a legal standpoint, the situation would be as if Austin went up to Karmelo in a random part of the stadium and told him he had to move. In a scenario like that, Karmelo would have been within his rights to stay where he was no matter how much Austin pressured him to move. If Austin became physical with Karmelo, it seems like Karmelo could use force to defend himself. I don’t think that means Karmelo could use maximum force no matter what, but Karmelo would have had the right to defend himself if Austin had grabbed him to force him to move as Karmelo alleges.
Maybe, it depends on the laws in that jurisdiction and the details that we don’t have yet.
But there’s a possibility he might have legally defended himself. And the kid who died didn’t have the authority to grab and assault the suspect.
There’s a bit of, “don’t pick fights or you risk your life” element to this.
So FAFO?
I admit I’m curious why the kid was in the other team’s tent. Doesn’t change anything legally IMO, but it’s interesting as to intent.
Did he have friends on the other team? Somebody invite him there? Did that tent have better snacks or cuter girls? Was he just a socially clueless kid who never dreamed he’d get any negative reaction?
Or, less innocently, was he there to start a little something and succeeded well beyond his expectations?
Hellifino. But color me curious.
There’s a also bit of a “don’t come armed to a HS sporting event and then deliberately sit in a student section you’re not a part of” element to it.
His lawyer is seeking a reduction in the bond amount on Monday and there’s a significant “go fund me” amount available. He could be back in school this week unless there’s a policy against killing someone off campus.
Gofundme took the account down, because they do not do fundraisers for people even accused of a crime. Givesendgo is another story.
I just don’t understand why an extremely vocal minority of people are basically deifying this kid (Karmelo, that is).
Why should his race matter?
Well, there are a few angles here. One is that there are some folks that will always leap to the defense of anybody defending themselves, even if they end up killing somebody. To them (at the extreme end), every altercation with even a whiff of physical threat could morally end with somebody dead. FAFO, indeed.
Then you have the group that detects more than a little hypocrisy in the fact that when a white man kills an unarmed black kid, self defense is immediately invoked. The system seems to go out of its way to find a reason that the force was justified. But when a black kid kills an unarmed white kid it’s “go directly to jail” without much of a peep from the stand-your-ground crowd.
Me, I’m pretty consistently on the other side. If you escalate a situation that didn’t need to be escalated, whether by stalking a black kid you don’t think should be in your neighborhood or pulling a knife on a white kid that is harassing you to leave his team’s track tent, then the moral (if not legal) weight of the death is on you.
This attack happened in full view of multiple witnesses. I’ve heard rumors of it also having been filmed, which if it isn’t would be shocking in today’s environment.
He does need to be found guilty in a court of law, like any other suspect.
I hope that be “need” you mean “We need to have a trial and if found guitly, then he needs to be sentenced appropriately”. Rather than “he’s guilty, he needs imprisonment. After a brief show trial with a foregone concclusion.”
Hard for me to tell which sense of “need” you meant.
A common problem with video evidence is often nobody starts recording until the altercation is well underway. So you have a very accurate record of the third act of the drama, and total “he said; she said” about Acts 1 & 2. When the part that really drives the moral issues, and to some degree the legal issues, is all back in unrecorded Act 1.
Bail was lowered and he was released.
I saw that too. I wonder how long it will take before he violates his house arrest.
On what grounds would you be wondering that?
Guilty while black, what else? /s
house arrest = “released”?
Released from jail.
I don’t think very many people at all are “deifying” him, but it is very disturbing how many people seem to be champing at the bit to volunteer to swing the axe at this kid without a trial. So I think some of the reactions that seems like blind support for Karmelo are actually just people horrified by the extreme reaction from those that are all but marching with torches and pitchforks with how they are talking about this kid.
How about “accused while black?”
Or possibly “guilty of being black?”
That was my point. They are being “assumed guilty because black”. Sorry to be unclear.
I would guess he’s also a victim of being asked to move while black. If he was white, I wonder if Austin would have done anything at all.