It’s refreshing to see someone engage with both the legal and moral aspects of a case like this, rather than just jumping on a narrative for clicks. I agree—self-defense claims need to be grounded in actual law, not just gut reactions or contrarian takes.
It’s frustrating when personalities like Tim Pool prioritize being provocative over being accurate, especially on serious matters like this. Reckless commentary does real damage—not just to public understanding, but to the credibility of honest, independent voices out there. Thanks for sharing this perspective!
Exactly. Of course, the law is not always correct. So I think it’d be fine if commentators argue that we should expand our legal notion of self-defense to match our broader moral conception of self-defense. Unfortunately, this is not a case where the perpetrator has either law or morality on his side. It really is quite clear-cut from a legal standpoint. The only way I see out of this is a politically-charged or pressured jury; or it turns out that Anthony legitimately has some mental disability which allows him to plead unsoundness of mind.
Thank you for sharing this Sherry! I always appreciate when others view something valuable enough in my work to share it with their audience!
Conducted the legal analysis of Anthony’s case under Texas law here: https://open.substack.com/pub/theclaphamomnibus/p/the-austin-metcalf-murder-tim-pool?r=4kzb59&utm_medium=ios
It’s refreshing to see someone engage with both the legal and moral aspects of a case like this, rather than just jumping on a narrative for clicks. I agree—self-defense claims need to be grounded in actual law, not just gut reactions or contrarian takes.
It’s frustrating when personalities like Tim Pool prioritize being provocative over being accurate, especially on serious matters like this. Reckless commentary does real damage—not just to public understanding, but to the credibility of honest, independent voices out there. Thanks for sharing this perspective!
Exactly. Of course, the law is not always correct. So I think it’d be fine if commentators argue that we should expand our legal notion of self-defense to match our broader moral conception of self-defense. Unfortunately, this is not a case where the perpetrator has either law or morality on his side. It really is quite clear-cut from a legal standpoint. The only way I see out of this is a politically-charged or pressured jury; or it turns out that Anthony legitimately has some mental disability which allows him to plead unsoundness of mind.
Excellently explained. Your clear explanation of the issues and comparison with the Daniel Penny case made me stop and think.
Thank you Sherry!