Karmelo Anthony found guilty of murder in fatal stabbing of Frisco student Austin Metcalf
Source: CBS News
A Collin County jury found Karmelo Anthony guilty of murder in the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf during a Frisco ISD track meet, bringing an end to a closely watched trial that drew national attention and sparked debate over self-defense, race and school safety.
Anthony, now 19, had been charged in the April 2, 2025, killing of Metcalf at Kuykendall Stadium in Frisco. Prosecutors argued Anthony intentionally stabbed Metcalf during an altercation between the two teenagers, while defense attorneys contended Anthony acted in self-defense.
The jury reached its verdict after hearing testimony from dozens of witnesses over several days, including students who witnessed the confrontation, law enforcement investigators, medical experts and character witnesses called by the defense.
Anthony was arrested shortly after the stabbing and charged with murder. On Tuesday, during closing arguments, Judge John Roach allowed the jury to consider a lesser manslaughter charge.
Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/karmelo-anthony-trial-verdict-austin-metcalf-frisco-track-meet-stabbing/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Floyd R. Turbo
(33,593 posts)
OC375
(1,173 posts)What happens to the Go Fund Me money when you lose in criminal court? Can you use it at the commissary or must it be returned?
Seeking Serenity
(3,348 posts)It's very rare for someone convicted of murder in Texas to be granted parole the first time around.
Jacson6
(2,294 posts)is theirs to do as they wish. 
Theres going to be appeals for few years. I'm sure it'll run dry by then.
MichMan
(17,559 posts)Instead they used an alternative called GiveSendGo
Polybius
(22,250 posts)Blows my mind.
MichMan
(17,559 posts)Polybius
(22,250 posts)Those who love Luigi (again, not me) say that he did a good deed by striking corporate greed; they claim that he killed someone who was indirectly murdering thousands with high cost prescriptions. With Anthony, I see no reasoning at all.
Jose Garcia
(3,564 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(21,336 posts)suburb of Dallas. Frisco has grown rapidly over the last 20 years. It used to be over 80% white. Now it's under 50% white, and they don't like it one damn bit.
I'm an old white lady and even I understand how threatened young black men feel.
EX500rider
(12,844 posts)https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
TexasBushwhacker
(21,336 posts)I'm saying that many young black men feel threatened. They are often perpetrators AND victims. I saw comments like "why did he bring a knife to a track meet?"
Karmelo Anthony is 5' 11" and weighs 162 lbs. The victim, Austin Metcalf, was 6' and 200 to 220 lbs. He played linebacker on the football team. So why did Austin feel the need to shove a much smaller student? He made a bad choice that day too.
QueerDuck
(2,057 posts)MichMan
(17,559 posts)QueerDuck
(2,057 posts)Thanks for the update.
Polybius
(22,250 posts)But I hope he serves the full 35 years at least.
Response to QueerDuck (Reply #10)
Post removed
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)I figured this would be the result.
Polybius
(22,250 posts)The one who murdered got 35 years. I wish he would have gotten life in prison though.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)
Llewlladdwr
(2,221 posts)
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)This case meets the three main criteria.
He was legally allowed to be at the location.
He wasn't commenting a crime.
He didn't provoke the attack.
They also recognize the "Castle Doctrine" but that wouldn't apply. It does show Texas believes in a expansive right to self defense. Using this trail results as an example it's only for whites.
Polybius
(22,250 posts)And he was illegally carrying a knife.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Easily found it wasn't illegal for him to have or bring to the stadium.
https://www.tmz.com/2026/06/08/karmelo-anthony-murder-trial-police-detective-testifies-knife-legal/
Karmelo Anthony Murder Trial
Detective Says Knife Was Legal Under Texas Law
The testimony came as Anthony's defense team wrapped up its case, with jurors hearing from Detective Beau Riley -- a member of Frisco PD's Crimes Against Children unit who responded to the scene of the fatal stabbing.
One of the key moments came when Anthony's attorney had Riley confirm the knife Anthony carried that day was legal to possess in Texas ... and legal to bring into a stadium. . . .
Also, he most certainly had a right to defend himself.
MichMan
(17,559 posts)rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)MichMan
(17,559 posts)Wouldn't it be school administrators?
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Anthony's defense questioned him. They asked him whether it was legal in that jurisdiction and at that location, and he answered yes to both.
Why wouldn't a Police officer that's part of the Frisco PD's Crimes Against Children unit know school policies?
MichMan
(17,559 posts)I only included the relevant portions of the policy. The entire document is linked
Student Code of Conduct
2025-2026 School Year
School District Authority and Jurisdiction
School rules and the district’s authority to administer discipline apply whenever the interest of the district is involved, on or off school grounds, in conjunction with or independent of classes and school-sponsored activities.
The district has disciplinary authority over a student:
● At any school-related activity, regardless of time or location;
● For certain offenses committed while on school property or while attending a
school-sponsored or school-related activity of another district in Texas;
Students shall not possess or use:
● A pocket knife or any other small knife;
https://www.friscoisd.org/docs/default-source/resources-information/frisco_isd_scoc.pdf?sfvrsn=bccd42d7_1
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)The incident occurred in April 2025.
LtTx
(99 posts)the no weapons has been in the school districts codes for many years. All across the nation.
EX500rider
(12,844 posts)manicdem
(565 posts)You can only defend yourself with deadly force, like with a knife, if you are facing deadly force or a serious act of violence listed below in yellow. Stand your ground still requires the justification, only difference is there is no requirement to retreat if it can be done with complete safety.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE.9&artSec=#C
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Karmelo Anthony's defense team argued that he believed deadly force was necessary.
It's why I'm generally against "Stand Your Ground" laws, but it should apply to all of us.
MichMan
(17,559 posts)rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)MichMan
(17,559 posts)rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)The last election taught me that most people of color don't see themselves as allies to African Americans.
Polybius
(22,250 posts)Race doesn't matter here. A human murdered another human. If he was acquitted, he'd murder again.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Race does matter when, out of twelve jurors and six alternates, not one was African American.
Interesting that you don't acknowledge spreading disinformation. (illegal knife)
You now decree that Karmelo Anthony would kill again. So Fetterman and Platner get to grow from the evil they've committed, but not this child?
Polybius
(22,250 posts)They did not commit murder like this worthless human did. He had no right to bring a knife to where he was, and cause trouble, which led to the murder.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Platner most certainly killed in combat. In your own words, a human murders another human. So he is a murderer, where we don't have self-defense or acknowledge he killed in military action.
He had no right to bring a pocket knife that a Police officer testified was legal?
Polybius
(22,250 posts)You can not bring a knife to school grounds. He picked a fight, and pulled it out like a wimp. He should have gotten the chair.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)The police officer testified it was legal. How does wanting to get out of the rain during a Tornado warning justify being denied shelter in a storm equal to picking a fight? What right did the Metcalf brothers have in refusing him the tent? Did they own the tent? Was it their property?
I'll answer your question. I suspect you won't sympathize with what I went through.
When I was in middle school. My best friend at the time, who was white, invited me to race RC cars with some high school kids in our neighborhood. The day started as a fun and what should have been a happy childhood memory. Turned into one of the worst and most shameful days in my life. It was a group of middle and high schoolers, but I was the only black kid.
As the group broke up and the day came to a close. We left their backyard and went to the front of their house, thanking them for a fun time. Two black girls got off a school bus from an after-school program. The two white high schoolers catcalled and yelled at them to come over to the remaining group, now four or five boys max. The girls only said, "We're not messing with you fools," or something to that effect. They did not curse or use racial slurs and continued to walk to their house.
The two white high schoolers got angry and immediately called them the N-word and B-word as soon as the girls walked past us. One of the high schoolers turned and realized I was sitting on the curb with my friend and said, "You're not like those N-words" Till he called me the N-word. I didn't think oh I'm a black kid with a group of white kids. What hurt me more was that my friend smiled and said nothing. I knew in that second he wouldn't speak up for me. I quickly realized if I stood up for the girls or hell for myself, they might get angry at me. Thinking I was uppity or ungrateful for getting to play with their RC cars.
So like a coward, I said nothing and sat there afraid. Realized I didn't tell my mom or granddad where I was, and if I disappeared. I knew it would have broken my mother's heart. I made myself small and quickly left before they could take their anger out on me.
This ended my friendship with my best friend, as I couldn't look or talk to him knowing he saw my cowardice.
I defended him because I was him. A scared black kid, outnumbered and realizing I'd be lucky to just get my ass beat.
Polybius
(22,250 posts)He was told no. Fuck him for not taking no for an answer. I ate people like that. Does he melt in the rain?
As for you, I do sympathize. You shouldn't have had to go through that, but in the end, you did the right thing. You didn't murder anyone.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Sorry you can't sympathy with Anthony.
Polybius
(22,250 posts)I will never have any sympathy for murderous cowards. He knew he couldn't beat him in a fair fight, so he came back and started trouble with him and pulled a knife.
Jedi Guy
(3,524 posts)Does being an "ally" to someone mean supporting them no matter what, even when they're clearly in the wrong? Excusing bad behavior on their part just because they're a person of color? Refusing to consider the facts and blindly backing them up even when they've killed someone?
With all due respect, that sounds less like being an ally and more like being an enabler or sycophant. Being a good friend and ally to someone means having the courage to tell them when you think they're in the wrong and have made a mistake.
And you're making some pretty heavy assumptions about these jurors knowing nothing about them other than their race. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit problematic in and of itself?
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)MichMan
(17,559 posts)rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Jedi Guy
(3,524 posts)Complaining that there were no black jurors in one post and then implying that they should refuse to take part in the judicial system is more than a little self-contradictory, don't you think?
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by not taking part in a racist system?
And I notice that you didn't address anything else in my post.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)So I never said black people who know America's history of racism shouldn't take part.
I didn't address the rest of your post, like others didn't address mine.
MichMan
(17,559 posts)You know who takes part in the justice system every day?
Judges, Prosecutors, Defense attorneys, Clerks & administrative staff, and those of us who are called for jury duty.
Jedi Guy
(3,524 posts)You confidently assume that this is the case for the jurors in question and yet you know nothing about them apart from their race. Again, do you not think it's even a tiny bit problematic to make such sweeping assumptions about people based on nothing more than their race? Hint: there's a specific word for that.
Furthermore, there's no evidence that America's history of racism had any impact on this particular case. It's very, very clear that Anthony reacted with force far out of proportion to the threat he perceived. A shove is not lethal force in the context of one young man touching another. There's no reasonable claim of lethal self-defense here in the legal context and certainly no claim of lethal self-defense in the moral sense.
I can't help but wonder if you'd perceive this case differently if the ethnicities of Anthony and Metcalf were swapped but all other facts remain the same. Based on your comments on this thread, I rather suspect you'd view it differently.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)They didn't mind three Black educators being removed from the jury.
They didn't mind the one white educator being allowed to stay.
How problematic it is to not have any black jurors at the trial.
They ignored the Police Officer's testimony that Karmelo Anthony had the knife legally.
You leave out key pieces of information.
Don't have to wonder. I'd feel sorry for a white child being denied his right of self-defense. Of course, your hypothetical reversal would never happen in our Judicial system. I.E. A white defendant would have no whites on their jury.
Jedi Guy
(3,524 posts)If they were improperly struck from the jury that would violate the Batson rule and give Anthony grounds for appeal. Neither you nor I know why they were struck. They may well have made comments indicating that their judgment would be prejudiced. They may have been removed improperly. Let the chips fall where they may on appeal.
That's your view, I guess. It's not necessarily a view shared by everyone. Non-black jurors can impartially judge black people just as black people can impartially judge non-black people. Again, you're making a ton of assumptions based on race rather than based on fact.
Okay, so he had the knife legally. So what? That doesn't excuse what he did with the knife. The only material difference would have been that additional charges would've been tacked on if he'd illegally been in possession of the knife. Apart from that, completely irrelevant.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)You assumed incorrectly, as I had read why the prosecutor struck them last week.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/court/2026/06/11/554312/karmelo-anthony-appeals-collin-county-murder-conviction-austin-metcalf-race-criminal-justice-black-frisco-track-meet-stabbing/
So why didn't you know that?
Your other two points would be us arguing the trial facts, which we clearly don't agree on.
Jedi Guy
(3,524 posts)As is his right, of course. Let the chips fall where they may.
So as per your own source, not because they were black, which would violate the Batson rule. I don't know why their profession would be relevant but evidently the prosecution made a persuasive enough case for the judge to agree. Whether that holds up on appeal remains to be seen but in a high-profile case like this one, particularly one laden with racial tensions, the prosecution would be pretty dumb to blatantly violate the Batson rule. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, since people do stupid things all the time.
My deepest apologies. I shall strive to be omniscient henceforth. Less flippantly, I hadn't exhaustively followed the case, just read about the verdict when the news broke.
In any case, I don't dispute that there have been miscarriages of justice based on race in the US judicial system. I just don't think this is one of them. It's very clearly a case of wildly excessive force against a perceived threat, no different than someone shooting a person who just pushed them. The only difference is the nature of the weapon and I sincerely doubt anyone here on DU would defend the killer in that scenario.
YMMV, though.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)I'm not going to respond to rest as DU'ers will alert on my post.
Jedi Guy
(3,524 posts)Turnabout is fair play.
Less flippantly, I noted that whatever complete rationale the prosecutor provided passed muster with the judge and that if it were in violation of the Batson rule it would be resolved on appeal. Not sure what else you want me to say here.
Doesn't change the facts of the case one bit. Anthony responded to nonlethal force with lethal force. From where I'm standing the jury got it right and would very likely have delivered the same verdict if the ethnicities of those involved had been swapped or different altogether.
Anthony's claim of being in fear for his life was ridiculous based on the facts presented at the trial.
rogue emissary
(3,444 posts)Everyone's threshold of fear is different and can be different from situations to situations.
Clear your and the jury 's is higher than Anthony's.
That's why I live in VA and we don't have stand your ground.
Texas has both and I'm not going to ignore it for Anthony.
Jedi Guy
(3,524 posts)It comes down to whether a jury believes the person's fear is reasonable and therefore if lethal force is justified. No one is "ignoring" the statute in Anthony's case and no SYG statute allows for the person's subjective belief in the moment to automatically be accepted as objectively true or valid.
It's really, really a stretch to argue that a shove to the shoulder is enough to make someone reasonably fear for their life, like gold medal in mental gymnastics level stretch.
Anthony's defense team tried to make that argument and a group of reasonable people didn't think it met the threshold and believed that he overreacted regardless of what he believed in the moment.
It really is just that simple.
manicdem
(565 posts)I haven't been following the case closely so I'm not sure if the defense brought up why Karmelo though stabbing him was necessary through either (A) or (B) that I highlighted. They would have to show the other person
1. used or attempted to use deadly force against Karmelo - a shove isn't enough
****OR****
2. was going to do one of the following:
a. Kidnapping
b. Murder
c. sexual assault or aggrivated sexual assault
d. robbery or aggrivated robbery
I don't see any intent of any of those from what I saw. Which is why he was convicted of murder.
Dlpger61
(86 posts)Don’t tell that to white people
rollin74
(2,343 posts)especially in a state like Texas
B.See
(9,024 posts)because it was a horrific act. So no commentary there.
But I DO have a problem with the nation's double standard of justice, especially when the perp is white and the victim, Black. And with the selective outage (nationally speaking) thereof.