the absence of a weapon doesn’t automatically mean there wasn’t a serious threat. whether someone agrees with the outcome or not, reducing the entire case to “fists versus knife” ignores a lot of the context that people are actually debating.
one of the most common arguments i’ve seen regarding karmelo anthony’s case is that this couldn’t have been self-defense because the other person was unarmed. that’s an oversimplification of a much more complicated situation.
self-defense isn’t always determined by whether one
person had a weapon and the other didn’t. a person’s fists are not harmless by definition. people have been knocked unconscious, suffered brain injuries, and died from punches.