TX - Austin Metcalf - 17 - fatally stabbed at track meet, 2 April 2025

[Ontario Mom]

My grandsons run high school and elementary cross country. But never track. The kids and parents often visit other tents at meets. However, I’ve never seen fights.

I was never on the track team but played baseball through junior high and high school. Going into the other team's dugout was quite literally unheard of.

From all I've read via the links posted here, all the kids knew that was the "rule" even if it wasn't written down anywhere. You mind your own business and stay out of other team's spaces.

 

[Sundog]

Unless there was specified signs that indicated he was not allowed to be in that area, we can't assume that KA "knew" he was not supposed to be there.

The term you quoted above talked about being "lawfully present." I doubt it was "illegal" for KA to be in the tent. Just school rules, perhaps, but not likely "unlawful."

 

[mickey2942]

The term you quoted above talked about being "lawfully present." I doubt it was "illegal" for KA to be in the tent. Just school rules, perhaps, but not likely "unlawful."

Right. So, even with a Texas jury, I am not sure that this case is a slam dunk, based on Texas law.

Not victim blaming, but I always told my kids, don't confront others go get an adult. But would it have had the same outcome? I don't know.

1. KA was in a place he was allowed to be, lawfully. (Unspoken rules or "knowing" doesn't count).
2. KA had no duty to retreat.
3. KA lawfully "stood his ground".

 

[Seattle1]

Law Exceptions

In Texas, the "Stand Your Ground" law, also known as the Castle Doctrine, removes the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, but it's not without exceptions. You cannot use deadly force if you provoked the incident, were engaged in criminal activity at the time, or if your belief of imminent danger was unreasonable.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Provocation:

If you started the fight or confrontation, you generally cannot claim self-defense or use the Stand Your Ground law to justify your actions. However, if you clearly abandoned the fight and the other person continued to pursue you, you may regain the right to self-defense.

Criminal Activity:

If you were committing a crime at the time of the incident, the Stand Your Ground law typically does not apply, according to Texas law firm, Luster Law Firm.

Unreasonable Belief:

The use of deadly force must be based on a reasonable belief that it is necessary to protect yourself or others from imminent death or serious bodily injury. If your belief is deemed unreasonable by law enforcement or a jury, your claim of self-defense may fail.

Duty to Retreat:

In Texas, you have no duty to retreat before using force, even deadly force, if you are in a place you have a right to be and are not engaged in criminal activity. However, this does not mean you can use excessive force or initiate violence.

Use of Excessive Force:

Even when justified, you can only use the amount of force necessary to defend yourself. Using excessive force, even in a self-defense situation, can lead to criminal charges.
_______________________________

IMO, I think there's still a question whether or not KA was a participant at the event or a spectator, or if he had permission to be in stands with other athletes, or if he was suspected by others-- including Austin, as cruising school tents (bag in hand) to steal valuables.

Nonetheless, as most familiar with these events have opined, being asked to go to his own school's tent was a reasonable request that was met with provocation by the defendant, an exception to "stand your ground."

 

[tlcya]

To understand how the castle law works, it is important to understand the underlying laws for self-defense and the use of force related to protecting others and property. The key word in all of these laws is “reasonable.” For example, it is never considered reasonable to use force against someone for words alone. Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(b)(1). If the force used is reasonable in the situation, then using force is considered justified.

When force is used in the specific circumstances of the castle doctrine, the law presumes that the use of force was reasonable. The presumption of reasonableness makes it much easier to avoid criminal charges, and even if you are charged, it is much easier to prove that your actions were justified.
Texas Castle Law Doctrine | Self Defense

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;

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;
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

IMO, KA provoked ( brought the knife, seated himself where he knew he was unwelcome, issued the "touch me and see what happens" taunt) the conflict with his victim. KA used deadly force in response to what was reported to be a shove by the victim, to which he responded "punch me, see what happens" (further escalating the situation), on receiving another shove/push, KA drew his knife from his backpack and stabbed the victim.

None of Autin's described actions (telling KA to leave, pushing/shoving KA as he was being encouraged to do by the accused's own words) warranted deadly force in response. KA provoked the conflict, escalated the conflict, and then murdered AM.

IMO it matters not one bit if he knew the "unspoken" rule or not. Deadly force is not required in response to a shove or two or even three. A couple of shoves after basically being dared to do so does not an imminent threat make.

ETA that's what I get for taking a call while in the middle of writing this post and not refreshing before finishing and posting. @Seattle1 basically said what I was thinking on this topic

 

[Quill]

Unless there was specified signs that indicated he was not allowed to be in that area, we can't assume that KA "knew" he was not supposed to be there.

Hasn't it been established that due to his school suspension for bringing a knife to school that he wasn't even supposed to be at that track meet. He wasn't a participant. Those tents were not only school specific, but they were for participants only.

 

[Quill]

My grandsons run high school and elementary cross country. But never track. The kids and parents often visit other tents at meets. However, I’ve never seen fights.

Totally different from a track meet situation. The tents are not for for families of participants. They are for the athletes to stash their stuff, rest out of the sun, get nutrition, etc.

 

[Quill]

DBM

 

[Quill]

I was never on the track team but played baseball through junior high and high school. Going into the other team's dugout was quite literally unheard of.

From all I've read via the links posted here, all the kids knew that was the "rule" even if it wasn't written down anywhere. You mind your own business and stay out of other team's spaces.

Same here. I participated and my children did, also. I attended all of their meets and even as a parent we were not in and out of their tents. It really was strictly team and coaches only.

 

[Justice101]

Hasn't it been established that due to his school suspension for bringing a knife to school that he wasn't even supposed to be at that track meet. He wasn't a participant. Those tents were not only school specific, but they were for participants only.

Really? I hadn't heard that.

Is there a link to a story or research I can read? Would love to read that.

 

[Quill]

Really? I hadn't heard that.

Is there a link to a story or research I can read? Would love to read that.

I'll have to dig back through the thread. I know it was discussed but it seems that there are so many discrepancies out there now that it is hard to find the facts. I have looked high and low and while it's out there, the mainstream isn't touching it so I cannot verify. To be fair, I was asking the question(not making a statement) in my post and I see I left off my question mark. I guess we will have to wait until the trial and hear what gets presented in court to get the facts.

 

[tlcya]

Really? I hadn't heard that.

Is there a link to a story or research I can read? Would love to read that.

That was released via twitter on April 5th by reporter Amelia Mugavero of CBS NewsTexas. The school declined to confirm or deny that information and so she pulled her tweet down after it was up for approximately a week.
No other MSM has touched on the topic and since she removed her tweet about it it now falls into the rumor pile (for now)

I personally believe it is true but until the school decides to either confirm or deny, or until it comes up in trial we cannot assume that is fact.

ETA screenshots of her now removed post are still floating around out there.

 

[Quill]

That was released via twitter on April 5th by reporter Amelia Mugavero of CBS NewsTexas. The school declined to confirm or deny that information and so she pulled her tweet down after it was up for approximately a week.
No other MSM has touched on the topic and since she removed her tweet about it it now falls into the rumor pile (for now)

I personally believe it is true but until the school decides to either confirm or deny, or until it comes up in trial we cannot assume that is fact.

ETA screenshots of her now removed post are still floating around out there.

Thank you. I just finished digging through the thread to find it but felt uncomfortable bringing it forward on the thread since I could not find another article corroborating it.

 

[Justice101]

Thank you. I just finished digging through the thread to find it but felt uncomfortable bringing it forward on the thread since I could not find another article corroborating it.

Thanks everyone. I will take it at this point as uncorroborated.

 

[tlcya]

Thank you. I just finished digging through the thread to find it but felt uncomfortable bringing it forward on the thread since I could not find another article corroborating it.

I knew I had read it as well, very early on but when I went looking for it it was gone. This afternoon when the topic came up in the thread it caused me to go looking for that info again and I discovered the screenshots of her original tweet and her follow up one stating that the school district was not going to confirm or deny. Must be why she eventually deleted her tweet.

 

[Justice101]

Any people with law experience want to chime in on what the accused would have to do to prove self defense in this particular situation based on what we know happened?

 

[mickey2942]

I know that I felt Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to jail, not for life, but it seemed to me that he left his house, with a gun, looking for trouble. But a jury determined he was not guilty.

Kyle Rittenhouse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, if we felt Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in shooting unarmed men with an AR-15, how does this compare with Anthony Karmelo, who stabbed another boy, with a knife, who pushed him?

Imperfect Self-Defense in Criminal Law Cases

Imperfect self-defense may apply if a defendant had an unreasonable fear of imminent harm or was facing an unreasonable amount of force.

www.justia.com

 

[Ontario Mom]

I know that I felt Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to jail, not for life, but it seemed to me that he left his house, with a gun, looking for trouble. But a jury determined he was not guilty.

Kyle Rittenhouse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, if we felt Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in shooting unarmed men with an AR-15, how does this compare with Anthony Karmelo, who stabbed another boy, with a knife, who pushed him?

Imperfect Self-Defense in Criminal Law Cases

Imperfect self-defense may apply if a defendant had an unreasonable fear of imminent harm or was facing an unreasonable amount of force.

www.justia.com

Different circumstances entirely. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[tlcya]

I know that I felt Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to jail, not for life, but it seemed to me that he left his house, with a gun, looking for trouble. But a jury determined he was not guilty.

Kyle Rittenhouse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, if we felt Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in shooting unarmed men with an AR-15, how does this compare with Anthony Karmelo, who stabbed another boy, with a knife, who pushed him?

Imperfect Self-Defense in Criminal Law Cases

Imperfect self-defense may apply if a defendant had an unreasonable fear of imminent harm or was facing an unreasonable amount of force.

www.justia.com

without dragging the thread off topic, I disagreed with the Rittenhouse verdict. I felt he should have done some jail time. But the jury decided otherwise after hearing the evidence. I do not count myself as one of the "we" who thought his actions were justified.

I guess some would make the argument that Rittenhouse was in a fight or flight situation where violence was occurring all around him, thereby amping up his own perception of imminent danger.

KA went to a track meet that he may or may not have even been a participant in that day. He is an experienced track runner, he knows what tent belongs to his own team and what ones do not. He is familiar with what is considered acceptable and what is not as far as going into a rival HS's team tent at such an event. One can assume, as the stellar student his parents and mouthpiece all describe him to be, that he is familiar with the rules prohibiting bringing weapons to a school sponsored sporting event.

He stabbed an unarmed peer in an area he wasn't even supposed to be in, with a weapon he wasn't supposed to bring there, when that peer allegedly shoved or pushed him.

The two cases are apples and oranges IMO but I do believe both young men were guilty of:

placing themselves in an area designed to create a conflict, doing so while armed, killing someone unarmed (or in Kyle's case someones.)

 

[Kalanit]

I know that I felt Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to jail, not for life, but it seemed to me that he left his house, with a gun, looking for trouble. But a jury determined he was not guilty.

Kyle Rittenhouse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, if we felt Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in shooting unarmed men with an AR-15, how does this compare with Anthony Karmelo, who stabbed another boy, with a knife, who pushed him?

Imperfect Self-Defense in Criminal Law Cases

Imperfect self-defense may apply if a defendant had an unreasonable fear of imminent harm or was facing an unreasonable amount of force.

www.justia.com

Even the mention of KR's name in this thread is extremely disrespectful to the memory of Austin Metcalf. It is unnecessary politicizing it. There is zero similarity to that case- you are comparing apples to elephants.
*my opinion.