Let me bless y’all ,if you go to settings then apps then safari and go down until you see advanced click on it then click on feature flags click on it and scroll down until you see something called Verify window. open user gest . It will block pop-ups
⚠️ The twins didn’t just “ask him to leave.” They tried to JUMP him.
⚠️ Before attacking him, they tried to take his belongings, BROKE his phone, and STOMPED on it.
⚠️ The twins are KNOWN BULLIES.
So ask yourself: If two 200+ lb attackers came at YOUR child, what would you expect them to do?
And yet, despite everything, the media is trying to destroy Karmelo’s name. They keep posting a picture of him with an AIRSOFT GUN—not even a real firearm—to manipulate public perception. Why? Because they want to paint him as a criminal instead of a victim.
Let’s talk about WHO Karmelo really is:
✅ A respectful, well-mannered young man
✅ A 4.0 student with multiple college offers
✅ A kid with ZERO criminal history—not even a blemish
✅ A son raised in a loving home by parents who taught him right from wrong
Karmelo defended himself against violent aggressors. That is NOT a crime.
JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL.
#StandForKarmelo #FreeKarmelo
A breakdown of why Karemlo Anthony will get off with self-defense against slaying known bully Austin Metcalf:
1. Aggressive and Unprovoked Confrontation: Austin Metcalf and his much larger brother approached Karmelo Anthony in an overtly aggressive manner. Without any provocation from Karmelo, they physically invaded his personal space, touching his belongings and making verbal threats. Under Texas Penal Code, Section 9.31 (Self-Defense), Karmelo had the right to use force to protect himself when he reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent imminent harm. The aggressiveness of Metcalf and his brother��especially considering the size difference—would naturally place anyone in a position of fear, triggering Karmelo’s right to self-defense.
2. Two Against One – Unjustified Threat: If Austin Metcalf had approached Karmelo alone, the situation might have been less dire. However, the fact that Karmelo was confronted by two individuals—both physically imposing—created an environment where he had every reason to fear for his safety. According to Texas Penal Code, Section 9.32 (Deadly Force in Self-Defense), Karmelo had the right to use deadly force if he reasonably believed that such force was necessary to protect himself from the use of deadly force or serious harm. With two men threatening him, Karmelo was within his rights to feel that a knife might be a necessary means of self-defense. Metcalf and his brother were not merely engaging in conversation; they were actively threatening and imposing their presence on Karmelo, leaving him with no reasonable escape.
3. No Duty to Retreat – Legal Right to Defend Himself: Unlike states like New York, Texas law recognizes that a person has no duty to retreat if they are in a place where they have a legal right to be. As per Texas Penal Code, Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Property) and Section 9.04 (No Duty to Retreat), Karmelo had every right to be on the public school campus and was under no obligation to retreat when faced with a threat. In situations like this, Karmelo was justified in standing his ground and defending himself, particularly when confronted with two aggressors who were threatening his safety. He wasn’t trespassing, nor was he engaging in any unlawful behavior. His presence on public property was entirely legal.
4. Karmelo Did Not Initiate the Confrontation: This is the most critical element of the case—Karmelo did not initiate the altercation. Under Texas Penal Code, Section 9.31 (Self-Defense), Karmelo had the right to defend himself when approached and physically threatened by Metcalf and his brother. The law clearly states that self-defense is justified when an individual is not the aggressor. The two men took it upon themselves to approach Karmelo, make physical contact with him, and threaten him. Karmelo was simply reacting to an escalating situation that was thrust upon him. The lack of provocation is crucial, as it directly impacts the legitimacy of Karmelo’s self-defense claim under Texas law.