Opponent's Argument (Why Defense Fails)
Argument 1: Only Metcalf attacked. The brother did nothing, so it was a single assailant.
Applicable Code of Law
Self-Defense Against Multiple Assailants (Case Law Doctrine)
Rebuttal (Legal Argument)
The law does not require every person in the group to throw a punch. If the second person (Metcalf’s twin brother, Hunter) was present and appeared to be aiding the attack, Anthony was entitled to defend against the entire group.
Simplified Explanation (Layperson's Terms)
“The law doesn’t make me wait for two guys to start hitting me. Since Metcalf’s brother was there, and the confrontation was already hostile, Anthony had a right to fear harm from both of them acting as one dangerous group.”
Specific Legal Citation
Jordan v. State, 593 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020); Black v. State, 145 S.W. 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
Argument 2: Deadly force (knife) was disproportionate to a “mere push or grab.”
Applicable Code of Law
Deadly Force in Defense of Person (Proportionality)
Rebuttal (Legal Argument)
A single push from one person can escalate quickly into a serious bodily injury from two people. Anthony’s reasonable belief that he faced imminent serious bodily injury (being severely beaten by multiple people) justifies his defensive use of deadly force to stop the threat instantly.
Simplified Explanation (Layperson's Terms)
“The law allows Anthony to use a knife if he reasonably feared death or serious injury. When facing two hostile opponents, a reasonable person can fear a tackle and severe beating, which qualifies as a risk of serious injury—justifying the use of a knife to immediately stop the combined threat.”
Specific Legal Citation
Texas Penal Code §9.32(a)(2)(A) (Deadly Force in Defense of Person)
Argument 3: Anthony provoked the attack by telling Metcalf, ‘Touch me and see what happens.’
Applicable Code of Law
Limitation on Self-Defense (Provocation and Abandonment)
Rebuttal (Legal Argument)
Anthony can argue his statement was a warning to cease the harassment and amounted to communicating an intent to abandon the verbal dispute. Metcalf then violated that abandonment by escalating to physical force (the push/grab).
Simplified Explanation (Layperson's Terms)
“Anthony verbally warned Metcalf to back off. When Metcalf physically grabbed him anyway, Metcalf became the aggressor who continued the fight, legally giving Anthony the right to use self-defense without losing his justification.”
Specific Legal Citation
Texas Penal Code §9.31(b)(4)(A) (Provocation exception if actor abandons the encounter)
Argument 4: Anthony had a legal duty to retreat from the area before stabbing Metcalf.
Applicable Code of Law
No Duty to Retreat (Stand Your Ground)
Rebuttal (Legal Argument)
Since Anthony was not the provocateur (as per the rebuttal above) and was legally present at the track meet, he had no legal duty to retreat before using the force reasonably necessary to protect himself.
Simplified Explanation (Layperson's Terms)
“Texas is a ‘Stand Your Ground’ state. As long as Anthony was legally there, and didn’t provoke the final act of aggression (Metcalf’s physical contact), the law says he did not have to turn and run before defending himself.”
Specific Legal Citation
Texas Penal Code §9.31(e) (No Duty to Retreat)
Argument 5: Anthony was committing a crime by possessing the knife, so self-defense is automatically voided.
Applicable Code of Law
Disqualification from Justification (Criminal Activity)
Rebuttal (Legal Argument)
As established in the prior table, possessing a knife ≤5.5 inches is not a criminal offense under Texas Penal Code §46.03. Therefore, Anthony was not engaged in a criminal act that would void his right to self-defense under the statute.
Simplified Explanation (Layperson's Terms)
“The claim that Anthony was carrying an illegal weapon is factually false under state law. Since he wasn’t committing a crime like selling drugs or robbery, he retains his full right to use deadly force for self-defense.”
Specific Legal Citation
Texas Penal Code §9.31(a)(3) (Defense is voided if actor is “otherwise engaged in criminal activity”)