1.There was no imminent threat to Karmelo Anthony.
2. Karmelo Anthony’s actions could be considered provocation.
3. Karmelo Anthony’s response was not proportionate to the actions of an unarmed person.
4. Carmelo Anthony committed a crime by taking a weapon to a prohibited place. By committing this crime, he has negated any self-defense claim.

Ignorance of the law is no self-defense. Ignorance of the law can get you in trouble.

I don’t expect you to take my word for it. I demand you do your own research into Texas law.

Only a moron thinks an unarmed person poses a deadly threat. There is no self-defense in this situation.

Conditions for Justified Use of Force -

Imminent Threat: The threat of harm must be immediate or imminent.

Non-Provocation: The individual must not have provoked the other party.

Proportional Response: The level of force used must be proportionate to the threat faced.

Carmelo Anthony’s self-defense claim fails on these three issues.

It is a two-way street. How can somebody practicing their religion in public not be offensive when that religion wants to kill anybody who is not a member of the religion?