The Heartbeat Of Black America

Witnesses confirm that after Karmelo was told to leave the tent, Austin physically confronted him, and Karmelo warned, “Touch me and see what happens.” This warning was repeated, showing Karmelo’s intent to deter, not provoke, violence. When Austin ignored the warning and grabbed him, Karmelo-cornered and outnumbered by two football athletes, each reportedly weighing over 200 pounds-used force to escape what he reasonably believed was imminent serious harm.

Texas Law: No Duty to Retreat and the Multiple Assailant Doctrine

Stand Your Ground:

Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 and the state’s stand your ground law mean Karmelo had no duty to retreat. If he was lawfully present (which he was at the school event), not provoking the incident, and not engaged in criminal activity, he was entitled to defend himself with reasonable force-even deadly force-if he reasonably believed he was in danger.

Multiple Assailant Doctrine:

Texas courts have long recognized that when a person is attacked or threatened by more than one individual, they are entitled to defend themselves against the group. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Jordan v. State and the historic Black v. State (1912) affirmed:

“When the evidence viewed from the defendant’s standpoint shows an attack or threatened attack by more than one assailant, the defendant is entitled to a multiple-assailants self-defense instruction. The issue may be raised even as to those who are not themselves aggressors as long as they seem to be in any way encouraging, aiding, or advising the aggressor.”

This means Karmelo did not have to wait for both twins to attack-his reasonable perception of a group threat justified his defensive action.

Comparable Cases: Texas and Federal Precedent

• Jordan v. State (Texas): Defendant faced a group, not just one attacker. The court held that self-defense applies when there is a reasonable fear of attack from multiple people, even if only one is the main aggressor.

• Black v. State (Texas, 1912): The court ruled that when attacked by a group, the defendant could use force against any member, not just the one who struck first.

• Federal Parallel: U.S. v. Peterson (D.C. Circuit) and similar federal cases recognize no duty to retreat when lawfully present and facing a group threat, provided the defendant did not provoke the encounter.

Karmelo’s Statement: A Defensive Warning, Not Provocation

Karmelo’s repeated statement-“Touch me and see what happens”-was not a threat, but a clear defensive warning. It was an attempt to de-escalate and deter physical contact.

The prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that this statement was meant to provoke violence; the context and Karmelo’s own testimony support that he felt cornered and fearful, not aggressive.

 The law is clear: the reasonableness of force is a subjective standard, judged from Karmelo’s perspective at the time.

Subjective Fear and Proportional Force

Karmelo’s testimony that he felt “cornered” by two larger athletes, both displaying aggressive behavior, is critical. Texas law requires the jury to view the situation from the defendant’s standpoint. Karmelo’s fear of being seriously harmed or even killed-especially considering his athletic future-was reasonable. The single defensive action (one stab) and his immediate flight support that he acted to escape, not to kill.

No Duty to Retreat: Supported by Law

Texas’ stand your ground law, as reaffirmed in recent cases, means Karmelo had no duty to retreat. He was entitled to stand his ground and use force to protect himself from what he reasonably believed was a group attack, even if that meant using deadly force.

Conclusion: Why Indictment or Conviction Is Unlikely

Given the facts, the law, and the precedent, the most probable outcome is that Karmelo Anthony will not be indicted, or if indicted, will be acquitted at trial. The combination of the multiple assailant doctrine, stand your ground protections, and the clear evidence of defensive warnings and reasonable fear make his self-defense claim strong and legally sound.

Black Pulse Newsletter Analysis:

Karmelo Anthony’s case is a textbook example of why Texas’ self-defense laws exist-to protect those who genuinely fear for their safety, especially when faced with multiple aggressors. The law is on his side, and the facts support his claim. Justice, in this case, means recognizing the right to defend oneself against overwhelming odds.

Sources: Texas Penal Code Ch. 9, Jordan v. State, Black v. State (1912),, and current reporting on the Frisco case.

In 2020, Black Americans—especially Black women—stood as the nation’s last line of defense against the rise of authoritarianism.

Their votes, activism, and organizing were pivotal in stopping Donald Trump’s bid for a second term, helping to preserve democracy at a moment of crisis.

Yet, as history has shown, the warning went unheeded by many white and Hispanic voters, who later reversed course and returned Trump to power. Now, the consequences of ignoring those early alarms are being felt across the country.

The Authoritarian Playbook in Action

Trump’s second term has been marked by a systematic effort to consolidate executive power and undermine democratic institutions. Experts have detailed how his administration is following a well-worn authoritarian playbook: using presidential powers to punish critics, sideline the judiciary, and erode constitutional protections. 

Plans are underway to override traditional checks and balances, including threats to due process, free speech, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Abrego Garcia Case: Due Process Under Threat

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongfully deported to El Salvador, highlights the Trump administration’s disregard for judicial authority and due process. Despite court orders—including a Supreme Court directive—to facilitate his return, the administration has stonewalled, withheld information, and acted in what judges have called “bad faith”.

Abrego Garcia, never charged with a crime, remains detained abroad, his rights trampled in a display of executive overreach.

From Warnings to Nationwide Protests

Today, white and Hispanic Americans are joining nationwide protests against the administration’s authoritarian moves, from aggressive tariffs to open defiance of court rulings and even the arrest of judges.

These actions echo the warnings Black communities raised in 2020—warnings that were too often dismissed or ignored.

Black Women: The Unsung Guardians of Democracy

Black women, in particular, have long recognized the dangers of unchecked power. Their activism was not just about one election, but about protecting the rights of all Americans.

Now, as the country faces unprecedented assaults on civil liberties, their foresight and leadership stand as a testament to the critical role Black Americans have played—and continue to play—in defending democracy.

Conclusion

America’s current reckoning is a reminder: when Black communities sound the alarm, the nation should listen. The fight for justice, equality, and constitutional rights is far from over—but it was Black America that first kept its finger on the pulse, warning of the dangers now unfolding before us.

A Tragedy at the Crossroads of Race and Misinformation

The recent fatal stabbing involving Karmelo Anthony and Austin Metcalf at a Texas track meet has become a flashpoint in America’s ongoing struggle with racial division and media-driven misinformation. 

Conservative media outlets and white supremacist groups, such as “Protect the White,” have seized on the incident, spreading false narratives designed to inflame racial tensions and provoke chaos.

How Misinformation Was Weaponized

In the aftermath, misinformation flooded social media and fundraising sites, with false claims about Anthony’s motives and background. 

These efforts were part of a broader strategy by extremist groups to spark a racial conflict, anticipating that Black protesters would show up to the “Protect the White” rally to escalate tensions.

However, Black communities recognized the bait and refused to participate, denying agitators the chaos they sought.

The Role of the Metcalf Family

Crucially, Austin Metcalf’s father rebuffed attempts to exploit his son’s death for racial or political gain. His actions, along with the restraint shown by Black communities, helped prevent the situation from spiraling into the violence that white supremacist organizers had hoped for.

The Broader Scheme: Demonizing Movements and Curtailing Rights

This incident fits a disturbing pattern: using isolated tragedies and misinformation to justify labeling Black-led movements, like Black Lives Matter, as “domestic terrorists”—a move that has been repeatedly pushed by online petitions and some conservative voices, despite no legal basis for such a designation.

The ultimate goal, critics argue, is to create grounds for draconian measures like martial law and mass incarceration or deportation of Black Americans under the guise of national security.

Karmelo Anthony’s Legal Outlook: Self-Defense and the Multi-Assailant Doctrine

Despite the media frenzy, the evidence points toward a strong self-defense claim for Karmelo Anthony. Witnesses and police reports indicate that Anthony warned Metcalf not to touch him and was confronted by more than one person before the fatal encounter.

Legal experts note that the “multi-assailant doctrine” in Texas law provides additional protection for individuals defending themselves against multiple attackers, making it unlikely that Anthony will be indicted for murder if the evidence supports his account.

Conclusion

This case illustrates how misinformation and racially charged narratives are weaponized to divide communities and undermine civil rights. Yet, the restraint and clarity shown by Black Americans—and the refusal to be manipulated into conflict—demonstrate a powerful resistance to these tactics. As the legal process unfolds, the facts, not the falsehoods, must guide the nation’s response.

Understanding the FAFO Phenomenon

In Black communities across America, the phrase “F’ Around and Find Out” (FAFO) has become a rallying cry against a persistent and frustrating reality: Black people are often provoked into defending themselves, only to be painted as the aggressors when they respond. 

The provocateurs-commonly dubbed “Karens” and “Kens”-instigate conflict, then play the victim, weaponizing their perceived innocence against Black individuals.

Historic and Modern Patterns of Provocation

This dynamic is not new. 

Throughout American history, Black people have been systematically provoked and then criminalized for defending themselves. The 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre, for example, was ignited by sensationalized and unsubstantiated reports of Black violence against white women. 

White mobs attacked Black neighborhoods, and when Black residents armed themselves to protect their homes, they were met with further violence and mass arrests.

Similarly, during the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, a false accusation against a Black man led to white mobs destroying Black Wall Street, with Black residents ultimately blamed and detained en masse.

Modern-Day “Karens” and “Kens”

Today, the pattern continues in viral incidents where Black people are harassed in public spaces-parks, stores, neighborhoods-by individuals who then call authorities and claim to be the victims.

These encounters often escalate because of the provocateur’s actions, yet it is the Black individual who faces police scrutiny or legal consequences.

The “Victim Mentality” Myth

Conservative commentators and some within the Black community, like Candace Owens, often accuse Black Americans of having a “victim mentality.” However, this narrative ignores the lived reality of systemic provocation and the psychological toll of constantly being targeted.

As philosopher Kate Manne notes, acknowledging victimhood can be a form of reclaiming agency, not relinquishing it. The so-called “victim mentality” is often a rational response to ongoing oppression, not a sign of weakness.

The Pulse of Black America

The constant provocation and subsequent vilification of Black Americans is a lived experience-a pulse that beats through the community.

The FAFO mindset is not about seeking conflict, but about demanding respect and refusing to be scapegoated for defending oneself.

Black Americans recognize the traps set by provocateurs and are increasingly refusing to play into narratives designed to criminalize their existence.

Conclusion

FAFO is more than a catchphrase-it’s a warning and a declaration. When Black people are pushed to the edge and forced to defend themselves, the real story isn’t one of aggression, but of survival in a society that too often blames the victim.

The challenge remains: will America finally recognize who is provoking whom, and who is truly playing the victim?