Karmelo Anthony was serving an active suspension from his school
- Thread starter volsrocks
- Start date
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Again, where's all this outrage for the Nevada concert goers massacred by a white mass shooter? Or the near endless parade of white maga alt-right preachers, pundits and politicals nailed for sexual assault of children as reported on the Apartheid Punk's X (formerly Twitter)? And let's not forget the number of INNOCENT black men, women and children killed by white cops.
I could go on, but sheet wearers only see black through those pointy hood eyelets.
Whataboutism. Off topic for this thread.
The chronology of the posts confirms it.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
How many got off with "stand your ground" in the last few years after killing someone? Any of them black?
The prosecutor and defense are long time friends. The judge is a known conservative. All white jury. Defense would not let him client testify.
Could changes here led to a different verdict, like a lesser sentence or acquittal.
The prosecutor and defense are long time friends. The judge is a known conservative. All white jury. Defense would not let him client testify.
Could changes here led to a different verdict, like a lesser sentence or acquittal.
Outrage for what? Was he tried in absentia and found not guilty?
Who of theses were tried annd found not guilty?
Innocent of what? Examples?
You suspect Klan members are under your bed apparently.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
1. That yet snother white guy got ahold of assault weapons and killed a lot of people. There was more gun monkey apologist and excuses than outrage. Note that you didn't have a slew of folk dancing with glee that another white guy shooter bit the dust, either.
2. To date, ZERO. But silence from the likes of you that it's even happening.
3. For starters: https://livefreeusa.org/news/7-blac...rges-filed-attorney-calls-for-accountability/
5. I just go by what you like minded brethren post ... similar garbage found on white supremacist web sites and the like.
Last edited:
Whataboutism.
Off topic for this thread.
The chronology of the posts confirms it.
Irrelevant.
Conspiracy?
These arguments are largely misleading, exaggerated, or taken out of context to imply a rigged or racially biased trial.
They do not demonstrate actual misconduct, collusion, or a denial of a fair trial under U.S. law.
1. "The prosecutor and defense are long time friends"
Partially true, but this does not imply collusion or unfairness.- Lead prosecutor Bill Wirskye (Collin County First Assistant DA) and defense attorney Toby Shook (part of Anthony’s defense team alongside lead counsel Mike Howard) are longtime friends and former law partners. They previously worked together at the firm Shook, Gunter & Wirskye and co-prosecuted major Texas murder cases.
- Wirskye publicly noted it felt “odd” not speaking daily during trial but emphasized they are professionals who set personal relationships aside to do their jobs. He expressed relief at returning to friendship post-trial.
- They were adversaries in court: Wirskye aggressively prosecuted (21 witnesses); the defense vigorously contested evidence and raised objections (including the Batson challenge below).
- The result was a conviction and 35-year sentence. If personal friendship controlled the outcome, the defense would have prevailed or received a sweetheart deal. It didn't.
- This is standard professional conduct, not evidence of conspiracy. Claims otherwise ignore how the adversarial system works.
2. "The judge is a known conservative"
True, but irrelevant to claims of bias here.- Judge John Roach Jr. (296th District Court) is a Republican elected in Collin County. His campaign materials describe him as a "proven conservative." He is a longtime judge (since 2007), former prosecutor, veteran, and founder of a veterans court.
- Texas district judges are elected and often have partisan affiliations—this is public and normal. It does not automatically make them biased in individual cases.
- No credible evidence has emerged of improper rulings favoring the prosecution.
3. "All white jury"
Misleading and overstated. The jury had no black members, but it was not "all white." The seated jury included Asian and Hispanic members.- Reports confirm the final 12 jurors + 6 alternates included no black jurors. The defense raised a Batson challenge when prosecutors struck the last three remaining prospective jurors from a large pool (~589 summoned).
- Prosecution’s stated reason (accepted by Judge Roach): The struck jurors were educators of school-aged children—a race-neutral explanation under Batson v. Kentucky precedent. The judge denied the challenge.
- Collin County is ~12% Black. Large jury pools + peremptory strikes (limited number each side gets) + for-cause challenges routinely result in juries that don't perfectly mirror demographics.
- Batson requires only a credible race-neutral reason for strikes if challenged—not proportional representation. The judge followed the legal procedure.
- "Jury of one’s peers" means a fair and impartial jury drawn from the community, not a guaranteed racial match to the defendant. U.S. law does not require racially balanced juries.
- The jury convicted after hearing evidence (witnesses described Anthony as the aggressor who pulled a knife; self-defense was rejected). Racial composition alone does not override the evidence or prove the verdict was biased.
- This outcome is legally proper and occurs in many cases across jurisdictions.
4. "Defense would not let his client testify"
Standard defense strategy, not unusual or sinister.- The defense (led by Mike Howard, with Toby Shook) rested without calling Karmelo Anthony to the stand. This was a deliberate tactical choice after presenting other witnesses.
- Defendants have a constitutional right not to testify. Many choose not to, especially in serious cases.
- Testifying carries huge risks: aggressive cross-examination, impeachment with prior statements, demeanor under pressure, opening the door to other evidence. Defense counsel (experienced attorneys here) advises clients on whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
- In self-defense cases, some defendants testify to explain their fear/state of mind; others do not if the evidence (witnesses, statements) already supports the claim or if cross-examination risks are too high.
- This was not the defense "silencing" Anthony against his will. It was professional advice that he (with family input) accepted. He retained the right to insist on testifying. He did not exercise that right.
- Countless defendants—guilty and not guilty, including in self-defense claims—do not take the stand. It is routine, not evidence of a weak case or poor representation.
Not evidently.
The convicted murderer's representative already filed a Notice of Appeal.
@volsrocks went to all the trouble making a thread about a claim, and now we hear that it is not even relevant if it is a lie?