Jump to content

17 year old stabbed to death by another 17 year old at Frisco track meet


Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, chainsaw said:

All we know is this was a homicide, not necessarily that it was murder.

Can anyone actually prove Anthony intended to create a substantial risk of death? Who could say if there's actual precedent that every stabbing comes with a substantial risk of death? What if Anthony was aiming for the victim's hand but the victim shifted his position and ended up getting stabbed somewhere Anthony didn't intend to stab him?

This feels awfully similar to when people try to explain what happened in a bar fight. Someone was an aggressor, someone else declined a few chances to de-escalate, pushing comes to shoving, punches get thrown (and if we're dealing with biker gangs weapons get drawn), and eventually one person is more hurt than the other and if they're really unlucky they're paralyzed or killed.

Maybe there will be surveillance video that will shed light on what really happened.

You are right. Murder implies intent and premeditation and that is not known at this point. 
 

I should have used taking someone’s life instead of murder. 

Posted
7 hours ago, chainsaw said:

All we know is this was a homicide, not necessarily that it was murder.

Can anyone actually prove Anthony intended to create a substantial risk of death? Who could say if there's actual precedent that every stabbing comes with a substantial risk of death? What if Anthony was aiming for the victim's hand but the victim shifted his position and ended up getting stabbed somewhere Anthony didn't intend to stab him?

This feels awfully similar to when people try to explain what happened in a bar fight. Someone was an aggressor, someone else declined a few chances to de-escalate, pushing comes to shoving, punches get thrown (and if we're dealing with biker gangs weapons get drawn), and eventually one person is more hurt than the other and if they're really unlucky they're paralyzed or killed.

Maybe there will be surveillance video that will shed light on what really happened.

In Texas, the fact that he used a deadly weapon in an act that would surely cause bodily injury probably makes it murder.  Other factors could make it 2nd degree.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

What is still unknown which I imagine will be worked out soon, is why did the kid have a knife at a track meet. That might or might not mean premeditation depending on how that question is settled.

Posted (edited)

If memory serves, baba yaga is a Frisco resident with kids which makes sense he would have more inside scoop than a DINK IP lawyer in Hutto. I suspect twocehorn just gets interested in all matters of the law out of an intellectual curiosity.

But be warned about all the “information” going around as rumors and gossip take on a life of their own. Heck, I’m Frisco adjacent in that my oldest grandson (Prosper High) had a track meet at that stadium literally the next day and anything south of Eldorado is considered basically downtown Dallas for all intents and purposes, and there are still gossip and rumors going around which strike me as absurd, like it was their community. 

Edited by Vegas64
Posted (edited)

If the perp was sitting under the wrong tent, I would look to any bullying as coming from his own hs. As in someone chased him off, or he just couldn’t be around them. Someone who is bullied may be at the point of carrying a knife to potentially hurt his tormentor.

He finds another tent to sit and collect himself. The story is that the victim asked him to leave. That could range from “hey buddy do you mind not sitting here” to  “get the f out of here you piece of shit. No one wants you here.”  At that age, if a friend said the former, I would later describe that as asking them to leave. Then the perp snaps at one more person making him feel small.

you can say one thing to someone and all of their pent up anger can go against you. It’s not right but it happens.

edit: also if an athlete is sitting in the wrong tent, something is off. An adult (coach?) should be asking questions. I never was around track but spend more than a few weekends at hs basketball tourneys. Understaffed coaches pretty much allowed us free range in between games. In hindsight it was a recipe for problems.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Posted
9 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

 

 

Damn, this is a fucked-up situation.

I fully agree that we should empathize with troubled kids and acknowledge complexities like bullying, fear, or youthful impulsiveness. But we should never confuse empathy with moral equivalence. Murder isn’t just another “bad decision”; it’s fundamentally different, profoundly worse, and incomparable to anything else involved here.

Our current political climate doesn’t have anything to do with poor decision-making like this—history is filled with stories like this one.

I'm not empathizing with the suspect, nor morally equivocating.  Our justice system generally is over-punitive, especially for minorities and poors and this kid just thrust himself into the system.

When we have a loss of life, we quite reflexively revert to "someone must pay" and that frequently leads to a rush to judgment.  And that judgment often leads to an incredibly harsh sentence.

All crimes, at their basic level, are bad decisions.  Some of those bad decisions are made by those with a long history of bad decisions from the trivial to the grave, in terms of morality and in terms of consequences.  They're schizophrenic, psychotic, or psychopaths, or otherwise deeply damaged human beings.  Others aren't, but due to certain circumstances of a possibly temporary origin, make these horrible decisions.

We know as a matter of first principles that those under 25 are prone to bad decisions, maybe not this bad, but bad nonetheless and frequently of a criminal dimension.  That's why we have a juvenile justice system, in the first place.

Juvenile justice is often equated with a lack of consequences, but I don' think that's the general case.  We tend only to hear about juvenile cases when the juvenile in question goes on to commit adult crimes, that is, they prove to be the "psycho" type prone to continued "epically" bad decisions.

One of the problems, to my mind, with juvenile justice is that it ends too early.  Meaning two things:  those with adolescent minds lose eligibility at 16; and possibly worse, the ability of the juvenile justice system to deal with juveniles ends at about that age, meaning it can't incarcerate or otherwise treat them beyond majority, regardless of when they committed their crime.

There are a ton of unanswered questions in this case that bear on what kind of bad decision-maker this kid was.  They may have less bearing in adult criminal court, but could still be relevant to sentencing.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Cops lie all the time. Not sure this kid will get a fair trial in Frisco.

What a sad commentary on our failed country that obvious race-baiting agitprop is the only slop the majority of its citizens choose to engage with.

There are more than 30 eyewitnesses and a half dozen coaches all corroborating the same chain of events I posted earlier.  People will engage in low-hanging race baiting as they will, but the sequence of actions seems pretty clear at this point.  

Posted
1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

There are more than 30 eyewitnesses and a half dozen coaches all corroborating the same chain of events I posted earlier.  People will engage in low-hanging race baiting as they will, but the sequence of actions seems pretty clear at this point.  

Yeah but let's be honest most of these witnesses are in that Good Ol Boys network

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Yeah but let's be honest most of these witnesses are in that Good Ol Boys network

I gotta step away from this thread because of posts like the above and Twice talking about this kid’s treatment. Y’all are insane. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If the perp was sitting under the wrong tent, I would look to any bullying as coming from his own hs. As in someone chased him off, or he just couldn’t be around them. Someone who is bullied may be at the point of carrying a knife to potentially hurt his tormentor.

He finds another tent to sit and collect himself. The story is that the victim asked him to leave. That could range from “hey buddy do you mind not sitting here” to  “get the f out of here you piece of shit. No one wants you here.”  At that age, if a friend said the former, I would later describe that as asking them to leave. Then the perp snaps at one more person making him feel small.

you can say one thing to someone and all of their pent up anger can go against you. It’s not right but it happens.

edit: also if an athlete is sitting in the wrong tent, something is off. An adult (coach?) should be asking questions. I never was around track but spend more than a few weekends at hs basketball tourneys. Understaffed coaches pretty much allowed us free range in between games. In hindsight it was a recipe for problems.

The bullying angle just isn't there.  It doesn't add up.  Again, coaches told their kids about concerns of theft at these meets, so they "park" kids to watch everyone's stuff between meets.  This is pretty standard.  This is why the victim was at the tent.  Every school competing has a tent with the name/colors of the school to coordinate the athletes and keep their stuff together.  Many have mats for kids to rest on, foam role, etc  There are often coolers with drinks/snacks, etc.  It's home base.

There are often not coaches in the tent as they are running around coordinating events and athletes, getting them lined up, etc. so you need someone back to watch everyone's stuff.  

Another kid in your tent is as unusual as a football player lined up on the opposite side's bench.  It just isn't done.  So you have a kid warned about theft, and you see a kid camped out under your tent, your first thought if of course theft.  So yeah, you are going to bark about clearing out.  That's also how Anthony got so close to the victim.  The whole "make me" line.  He either got in his face or touch the bag that Anthony already had his knife in hand hidden in.  There was no warning.  No brandishing of the knife as you would expect and we've all seen a thousands times on social media - holding the knife out as a warning.  This was an immediate and fatal stab.  No warning.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Yeah but let's be honest most of these witnesses are in that Good Ol Boys network

Stop.  Those are eyewitness accounts from HS kids.  Teenage boys and girls.  The only adult statements are from other coaches at the event.  There are no adults anywhere near the tents.  They are not allowed to be near the tents.  Hence the concerns of theft, as the coaches have to be near the races to coordinate and collect kids between events.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

This is why you should teach your kids never to provoke a stranger

That's the angle?  Really?  This wasn't some back alley or gas station parking lot.  The victim was told by his coaches to watch their tent.  You see another kid in the tent you are told to watch and he's going to tell that kid to leave.  That's what he was told to do as is very common at these meets.  It was a clear act of provocation by the attacker who could have just walked away.  He's a track athlete, not some out of town kid that doesn't know the landscape and how things are done.  His initial acts were confrontational and his words touch me and see what happens are confrontational.  It wasn't raining.  It wasn't his tent.  He chose to bring the knife.  Your brain is broken.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, chainsaw said:

All we know is this was a homicide, not necessarily that it was murder.

Can anyone actually prove Anthony intended to create a substantial risk of death? Who could say if there's actual precedent that every stabbing comes with a substantial risk of death? What if Anthony was aiming for the victim's hand but the victim shifted his position and ended up getting stabbed somewhere Anthony didn't intend to stab him?

This feels awfully similar to when people try to explain what happened in a bar fight. Someone was an aggressor, someone else declined a few chances to de-escalate, pushing comes to shoving, punches get thrown (and if we're dealing with biker gangs weapons get drawn), and eventually one person is more hurt than the other and if they're really unlucky they're paralyzed or killed.

Maybe there will be surveillance video that will shed light on what really happened.

Too much I don't know about the case to determine murder charge. 

Purely on the knife aspect per penal law of Texas subsection 2 underlined below stabbing someone with a knife is clearly intened to cause serious bodily harm. Its a huge reach, imo, to argue that someone is unaware that stabbing them with a knife can be life threatening. Its a pretty weak argument that I don't think many jurors would buy. "He didn't know attempting to stab him in the arm could result in death." Intention to do bodily harm that resulted in death is pretty clear on anyone stabbing anyone. Unless a lawyer wanted to argue that his client didn't intend to do serious bodily harm with his knife. Which... I guess a lawyer could try, but unless there are some serious learning deficiencies isn't gonna fly. 

which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

 

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

 

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

 

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;

Posted
Just now, BurntEyes said:

Too much I don't know about the case to determine murder charge. 

Purely on the knife aspect per penal law of Texas subsection 2 underlined below stabbing someone with a knife is clearly intened to cause serious bodily harm. Its a huge reach, imo, to argue that someone is unaware that stabbing them with a knife can be life threatening. Its a pretty weak argument that I don't think many jurors would buy. "He didn't know attempting to stab him in the arm could result in death." Intention to do bodily harm that resulted in death is pretty clear on anyone stabbing anyone. Unless a lawyer wanted to argue that his client didn't intend to do serious bodily harm with his knife. Which... I guess a lawyer could try, but unless there are some serious learning deficiencies isn't gonna fly. 

which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

 

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

 

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

 

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;

How serious is "serious" though?

Posted
38 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Another kid in your tent is as unusual as a football player lined up on the opposite side's bench.  It just isn't done

That is simply not true.

37 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

There are no adults anywhere near the tents.  They are not allowed to be near the tents. 

This is also not true.

  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

How serious is "serious" though?

As in serious bodily harm?

Texas Law:

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Or serious learning deficiency?

I would have to look up the legal history on that one, but pretty sure there are set mental incapacity standards that have already been set. Likely they'd need to have extensive prior recognition by the state to make it remotely reasonable.

In short, if you attack someone with a knife, I really dont think any lawyer is gonna fight that with a "He didn't know a knife was dangerous" defense. It doesn't hold any water and no jury is buying it.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
12 hours ago, BJ Johnson said:

he feared for his life? Please. He wasn’t beaten up at all in his mug shot. 

Perhaps he's a karate man and only bruises on the inside...

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

The bullying angle just isn't there.  It doesn't add up.  Again, coaches told their kids about concerns of theft at these meets, so they "park" kids to watch everyone's stuff between meets.  This is pretty standard.  This is why the victim was at the tent.  Every school competing has a tent with the name/colors of the school to coordinate the athletes and keep their stuff together.  Many have mats for kids to rest on, foam role, etc  There are often coolers with drinks/snacks, etc.  It's home base.

There are often not coaches in the tent as they are running around coordinating events and athletes, getting them lined up, etc. so you need someone back to watch everyone's stuff.  

Another kid in your tent is as unusual as a football player lined up on the opposite side's bench.  It just isn't done.  So you have a kid warned about theft, and you see a kid camped out under your tent, your first thought if of course theft.  So yeah, you are going to bark about clearing out.  That's also how Anthony got so close to the victim.  The whole "make me" line.  He either got in his face or touch the bag that Anthony already had his knife in hand hidden in.  There was no warning.  No brandishing of the knife as you would expect and we've all seen a thousands times on social media - holding the knife out as a warning.  This was an immediate and fatal stab.  No warning.

 

You know the perp was in the tent to steal? I haven't heard that line yet. 

If your reply is why else was he there, then at least admit you don't know.

Posted
20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That is simply not true.

This is also not true.

Bull.  Kids that know each other is usual.  Kids that are friends, dating, etc. is very usual.  A complete stranger camped out under your tent is cause for alarm.  When I say no "adults", I'm talking about parents, not event staff and coaches - to clarify not being near the tents.  XC is different.  That also isn't held at a stadium.

As for kuykendall stadium, where I've been to dozens of meets and games, as Frisco HS's don't have their own stadiums.....is a recessed field, fenced off from the bleachers.  There is no direct access to the field except through the outside fence.  There is a walkway near the field to get up into the bleachers that also will have tents or at either endzone.  This is why the coaches wanted kids to watch everyone's stuff as again, there had been concerns about theft at these meets. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Bull.  Kids that know each other is usual.  Kids that are friends, dating, etc. is very usual.  A complete stranger camped out under your tent is cause for alarm.  When I say no "adults", I'm talking about parents,

I literally camped out with my kid at probably 10 meets helping him with homework between events.  Your experiences aren't universal.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You know the perp was in the tent to steal? I haven't heard that line yet. 

If your reply is why else was he there, then at least admit you don't know.

Nobody "knows" the intent of the attacker but the attacker, but that is why the victim was watching the tent and why it escalated so quickly.  During events you'll have the majority of the other kids on the football field, inside the track lanes cheering on their classmates.  This leaves the tents exposed, and again, with concerns about theft, you have the coach have a kid camped out just in case.  

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I literally camped out with my kid at probably 10 meets helping him with homework between events.  Your experiences aren't universal.

No, my experiences are with Frisco meets, covering an event that happened at a Frisco meet.  At a stadium that I have been to dozens and dozens of times.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

No, my experiences are with Frisco meets, covering an event that happened at a Frisco meet.  At a stadium that I have been to dozens and dozens of times.  

That's fine, and I'll take your word for the way things play out there, but I just wanted to be clear that what you are suggesting either (a) isn't a UIL "rule" or at the very least (b) isn't universally enforced.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I strongly suspect Yaga is hearing the same things I’m hearing. He knows quite a bit more than you.  YOU don’t know shit about fuck. Yet here you are with generic, obvious warnings about how we shouldn’t assume anything, and it’s a shame this kid will be tried as an adult. I might suggest shutting the fuck up. 

I've read Twice's posts in this thread. I'm at a loss as to what you're raging at here. What post is setting you off? I feel like some folks are responding to what they imagine people mean and not what they are actually saying. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I feel like some folks are responding to what they imagine people mean and not what they are actually saying. 

On Surly? No wai. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
11 hours ago, chainsaw said:

All we know is this was a homicide, not necessarily that it was murder.

Can anyone actually prove Anthony intended to create a substantial risk of death? Who could say if there's actual precedent that every stabbing comes with a substantial risk of death? What if Anthony was aiming for the victim's hand but the victim shifted his position and ended up getting stabbed somewhere Anthony didn't intend to stab him?

This feels awfully similar to when people try to explain what happened in a bar fight. Someone was an aggressor, someone else declined a few chances to de-escalate, pushing comes to shoving, punches get thrown (and if we're dealing with biker gangs weapons get drawn), and eventually one person is more hurt than the other and if they're really unlucky they're paralyzed or killed.

Maybe there will be surveillance video that will shed light on what really happened.

Intending to cause substantial risk of death is not needed. If you intend to cause serious bodily injury and death results, you buy the farm on murder.  Good luck trying to argue a stabbing to someone's chest was not intended to cause serious bodily injury.

Serious bodily injury includes but is broader than "substantial risk of death".

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

As in serious bodily harm?

Texas Law:

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Or serious learning deficiency?

I would have to look up the legal history on that one, but pretty sure there are set mental incapacity standards that have already been set. Likely they'd need to have extensive prior recognition by the state to make it remotely reasonable.

In short, if you attack someone with a knife, I really dont think any lawyer is gonna fight that with a "He didn't know a knife was dangerous" defense. It doesn't hold any water and no jury is buying it.

Yeah my question is different though.

Can they prove that Anthony intended to cause a "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death" because it's only murder if that's the caliber of bodily injury Anthony intended to inflict. If you're saying that the victim died therefore Anthony intended to cause "serious" bodily injury that strikes me as redundant. Wouldn't any intentional assault that results in a homicide become a murder, at that point?

If we know Anthony was aiming for the chest, then sure it's murder. But do we know that? What if Anthony held the hilt against his own chest and was in a "get the fuck away from me stance" not realizing how close the blade was to the victim?

So many variables here which is why it's best to reserve judgment until more reliable information comes out.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Intending to cause substantial risk of death is not needed. If you intend to cause serious bodily injury and death results, you buy the farm on murder.  Good luck trying to argue a stabbing to someone's chest was not intended to cause serious bodily injury.

Serious bodily injury includes but is broader than "substantial risk of death".

Doesn't even matter where he was trying to stab him per my note of the law above. Using a knife that results in death falls clearly into bodily harm definition. 

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

Yeah my question is different though.

Can they prove that Anthony intended to cause a "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death" because it's only murder if that's the caliber of bodily injury Anthony intended to inflict. If you're saying that the victim died therefore Anthony intended to cause "serious" bodily injury that strikes me as redundant. Wouldn't any intentional assault that results in a homicide become a murder, at that point?

If we know Anthony was aiming for the chest, then sure it's murder. But do we know that? What if Anthony held the hilt against his own chest and was in a "get the fuck away from me stance" not realizing how close the blade was to the victim?

So many variables here which is why it's best to reserve judgment until more reliable information comes out.

Yes, easily.

Does not matter where he was trying to stab him, he was trying to stab him and it resulted in death. 

That clears the bar for intent to cause bodily harm per my note and quote of the law above. 

You're tilting at windmills. The law says that's murder in that aspect. 

Using a knife to attack someone that results in death qualifies for the intent to cause bodily harm per Texas law on murder. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Yeah my question is different though.

Can they prove that Anthony intended to cause a "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death" because it's only murder if that's the caliber of bodily injury Anthony intended to inflict. If you're saying that the victim died therefore Anthony intended to cause "serious" bodily injury that strikes me as redundant. Wouldn't any intentional assault that results in a homicide become a murder, at that point?

If we know Anthony was aiming for the chest, then sure it's murder. But do we know that? What if Anthony held the hilt against his own chest and was in a "get the fuck away from me stance" not realizing how close the blade was to the victim?

So many variables here which is why it's best to reserve judgment until more reliable information comes out.

 

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In Texas, the fact that he used a deadly weapon in an act that would surely cause bodily injury probably makes it murder.  Other factors could make it 2nd degree.

I don't think you necessarily have to prove intent for it to be murder in the state of Texas, based on what Twice is saying here.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

I don't think you necessarily have to prove intent for it to be murder in the state of Texas, based on what Twice is saying here.

Twice's argument makes sense, but we need to know more about the "act" to draw any conclusions about Anthony's intent. The law makes a distinction between regular bodily injury and serious bodily injury and the distinction could end up mattering.

Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

You haven't quite made a convincing case that it does.

You clearly have reading comprehension issues.

I posted the laws. Under the laws definition it qualifies. I don't have to make the case. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Twice's argument makes sense, but we need to know more about the "act" to draw any conclusions about Anthony's intent. The law makes a distinction between regular bodily injury and serious bodily injury and the distinction could end up mattering.

he was just trying to give him a pedicure and accidently stabbed him in the chest 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Twice's argument makes sense, but we need to know more about the "act" to draw any conclusions about Anthony's intent. The law makes a distinction between regular bodily injury and serious bodily injury and the distinction could end up mattering.

you are wrong.

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

You clearly have reading comprehension issues.

I posted the laws. Under the laws definition it qualifies. I don't have to make the case. 

BurntEyes and Twice are right.

Using a deadly weapon clears the "intent to cause serious bodily injury" bar.  And, he didn't just "use" it, he used it AS a deadly weapon, stabbing.  If you stabbed someone, you 100% intended to cause serious bodily injury.  Maybe you didn't start your day wanting to do so, but when you committed the actual act....come on, man.  A self-defense argument might make more sense (if there are facts to back it up at all).  But "I didn't intend to cause serious bodily injury when I took a knife and stabbed someone in the chest" is laughable.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

you are wrong.

BurntEyes and Twice are right.

Using a deadly weapon clears the "intent to cause serious bodily injury" bar.  And, he didn't just "use" it, he used it AS a deadly weapon, stabbing.  If you stabbed someone, you 100% intended to cause serious bodily injury.  Maybe you didn't start your day wanting to do so, but when you committed the actual act....come on, man.  A self-defense argument might make more sense (if there are facts to back it up at all).  But "I didn't intend to cause serious bodily injury when I took a knife and stabbed someone in the chest" is laughable.

And because chainsaw seems to want to argue the "where he planned to stab him" angle for some unknown reasons, I'll point out, doesn't fucking matter. If your attack resulted in death, even if you were trying to stab their big toe, it qualifies under serious bodily injury if they... DIE as a result of the attack.

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

And because chainsaw seems to want to argue the "where he planned to stab him" angle for some unknown reasons, I'll point out, doesn't fucking matter. If your attack resulted in death, even if you were trying to stab their big toe, it qualifies under serious bodily injury if they... DIE as a result of the attack.

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Good point.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

And because chainsaw seems to want to argue the "where he planned to stab him" angle for some unknown reasons, I'll point out, doesn't fucking matter. If your attack resulted in death, even if you were trying to stab their big toe, it qualifies under serious bodily injury if they... DIE as a result of the attack.

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

But what this thread presupposes is....maybe the victim ISN'T really dead....

b30a209f-3508-4614-b833-4265da255823_scr

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So you're calling me a liar?

Other kids absolutely do not hang out in tents. I’ve been to meets where I walk by and speak with my daughter. This past meet, run against several Frisco schools on the same day of this cowardly murder, I was asked to leave the side of the field where the athletes and their tents are. That parents weren’t allowed over there. I suspect the answer to your second statement is largely venue dependent. 

I’m not calling you a liar, but athletes absolutely do not hang out under the others’ tents. The statement is preposterous. 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Other kids absolutely do not hang out in tents. I’ve been to meets where I walk by and speak with my daughter. This past meet, run against several Frisco schools on the same day of this cowardly murder, I was asked to leave the side of the field where the athletes and their tents are. That parents weren’t allowed over there. I suspect the answer to your second statement is largely venue dependent. 

I’m not calling you a liar, but athletes absolutely do not hang out under the others’ tents. The statement is preposterous. 

not worth it

Edited by jimmyjazz
Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Other kids absolutely do not hang out in tents. I’ve been to meets where I walk by and speak with my daughter. This past meet, run against several Frisco schools on the same day of this cowardly murder, I was asked to leave the side of the field where the athletes and their tents are. That parents weren’t allowed over there. I suspect the answer to your second statement is largely venue dependent. 

I’m not calling you a liar, but athletes absolutely do not hang out under the others’ tents. The statement is preposterous. 

Yes and no.  Friends of friends do spent time together, but there has to be a reason.  The majority of the time kids are spending time together on the football field/infield, not at the tent.  They want to watch the events.  If they come back to the tent, and they do, it's essentially an invited situation.  What you don't see are random kids just parked under another teams tent.  That's a huge red flag, especially against the backdrop of property theft concerns.  Then for the kid who was told to leave to refuse, and escalate with threats of "make me" goes form confrontational to inciteful pretty quick.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Can't imagine being the parent of the victim.  Can't imagine being a fan of the kid who killed him either.  Just awful.

I read that Karmelo had a GoFundMe hit $140k (but got pulled because of a violation of T's and C's from gofundme). Seems like a lot of folks feeling for him and his family. 

I think this story is just getting started as far as the "discourse". 

And Jimmy's lived experience of going to track meets wherever he is from is real and honest, I'm sure. It also has about as much relevance to a Frisco track meet as the price of tea in china. Not sure why he's dying on that hill.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...