In a tragic incident at a track and field event in Frisco, Texas, earlier this month, a confrontation between two teenagers, Karmelo Anthony and Austin Metcalf, ended in Metcalf’s death. The altercation, stemming from a dispute over seating under a school tent, has sparked heated debate about whether Anthony’s actions were justified or if his response was disproportionate to the threat he faced.

To be fair, Attorney Deric Walpole, secured by the Anthony family to act on their son’s behalf, said of his client, “I know that my client said it was self-defense. I don’t have any reason to disbelieve that, but I need to develop facts, talk to people, and figure out what’s going on before I make any statements about what I think happened.”

Unfortunately, in the court of public opinion, it has become nearly impossible to expect such rationality or make judgments based on the law or the facts of the situation. Sadly, racial identities and political biases of those involved have more influence on what some feel is “just.”

A particularly polarizing take came from media influencer Tim Pool, as he, too, argued that Anthony acted in self-defense when he fatally stabbed Metcalf. In a clip circulating on social media, Pool creates a hypothetical scenario to support his claim: An individual legally carrying a firearm at a party is confronted by another person, leading to a verbal altercation. If the situation turns physical, Pool suggested that the armed individual immediately has the right to use their weapon in response. He applies this logic to Anthony, submitting that Metcalf’s physical contact, regardless of how minor, justified Anthony’s reaction. Pool also posed the idea that Anthony had a legal right to carry a knife at a school event (which he did not) and implied that lethal force is justified in any kind of altercation, as self-defense claims prioritize the victim’s perception of threat, not the attacker’s intent. Pool then went on to say that we need to know the type of knife Anthony was carrying before we can say if he had the right to have it with him, ending his argument by criticizing what he perceives as “tribal outrage” from conservative circles.

Tim Pool has completely lost the plot. He’s passionately defending the unjust slaying of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf. Calls it “self defense,” and acts as if Karmelo Anthony was justified in taking his life. Unfollowed. pic.twitter.com/cgz2PanRsP

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) April 10, 2025

Understandably, this perspective drew significant criticism. Many argued that this teenage boy’s reaction went far above the threat he faced. Others raised concerns over what it means for the safety of our kids if we normalize the use of deadly force as a form of conflict resolution.

It is reasonable to ask the public to reserve judgment until the facts come out. However, what is unique about this incident is the number of witnesses to what played out. Since the incident took place in the middle of a crowd of students, almost 30 names were taken down in the initial police report, and those who have shared what they saw have all recounted a similar story.

The confrontation occurred when Karmelo Anthony entered a tent designated for another school’s team. According to witnesses and police reports, Austin Metcalf approached Anthony, informing him that he was in the wrong area and needed to leave. The situation escalated when Anthony, reportedly reaching into his bag, challenged Metcalf with the words, “Touch me and see what happens.” Witnesses state that Metcalf then made physical contact — either touching, grabbing, or pushing Anthony (that part of the incident varies between witness accounts). Anthony then pulled a knife from his bag, stabbed Metcalf once in the chest, tossed the knife, and ran away. Metcalf died shortly after in his twin brother’s arms. When apprehended, Anthony immediately claimed self-defense, asking if his actions could be legally considered as such. Yet, per the rapid escalation, Anthony’s possession of a lethal weapon at a school event and his personal invitation to Metcalf for him to touch him have raised doubts about the claim that he feared for his safety, let alone his life.

Despite Pool’s personal assessment of the situation, the public has largely rejected the notion that Anthony’s actions constitute self-defense.

First, Anthony’s behavior suggests premeditation rather than fear. By entering a rival school’s tent and challenging Metcalf to “touch” him while reaching for his bag, Anthony appeared to invite the conflict. Despite Anthony later telling police that he had told Metcalf not to touch him, several witnesses have reported that Anthony asked him to do so before immediately responding with a fatal attack. Many public comments have noted the obvious: If you are truly afraid for your life, you don’t provoke someone to engage with you physically while knowing you have a lethal weapon and they are unarmed. As supported by this article, self-defense is a right, but the level of response must be reasonable: “Self-defense and defense of others also require that the force used is proportional to the threat faced. This is very important in the context of deadly force.”

Second, carrying a knife at a school event violates widely enforced regulations. Texas law prohibits weapons on school grounds, regardless of whether the blade is a utility knife or a switchblade. A screenshot of the Frisco ISD school policies on this matter shows that knives of all kinds are banned from school-related activities and events.

Pool’s analogy also fails to account for the common occurrence of teenage conflicts and the dynamics that make them unique from adult situations. High school altercations often involve posturing or minor physical contact, led by immaturity and a lack of self-control that comes with development, experience, and growth. Metcalf approaching Anthony and asking him to leave was a typical tough-guy scenario between high school boys. He also did not know about the knife, reducing the likelihood that he perceived Anthony as a lethal threat. Had he known, he would have likely backed off, as most would in the face of a visible weapon.

The controversy surrounding Pool’s comments underscores broader societal issues, including the application of self-defense laws, particularly in juvenile cases, and the influence of political narratives. Additionally, some have pointed to cultural factors, such as conversations about race and victimhood. As the ideologies of CRT and DEI have grown, there is a legitimate concern that extremist individuals are now justifying violence against others solely based on perceived historical grievances between races. The level of accountability we can expect will be based on what people look like instead of individual actions.

As the legal process unfolds, this tragedy serves as a stark reminder of the need for clear-headed discussions about violence, the law, and the precedent we want to set for how to resolve conflict.