Matt Walsh

Prosecutor, is there any reason an athlete should have a knife at a track meet?

Witness, no.

Prosecutor, you would expect someone asked to leave a tent to comply.

Witness, yes.

So again, this is a defense witness.

The witness is supposed to help the defense actually benefiting the prosecution in a major way.

This is a situation where Anthony has created the circumstances in which it's reasonable for Metcalf as the team leader who was put in charge of the tent by his coach to remove him from the tent.

He's threatening a bunch of children with a hidden weapon and challenging them to a fight for no reason.

It's a textbook provocation.

And therefore, under these circumstances, Metcalf was justified in putting his hands on Anthony and lightly shoving him away to get him out of the tent.

He would have been justified in harshly shoving him, violently shoving him, but he didn't.

So by itself, these facts neutralize any claim of self-defense.

It's out the window completely.

You simply cannot start a fight in a manner that everybody recognizes is totally unreasonable and insane and then claim self-defense when you kill an unarmed person.

But here's the thing.

Even if Carmelo Anthony hadn't provoked anyone, even if he was a saintly figure in that tent, minding his own business, being completely silent, never once reaching in his bag for a weapon or saying he wanted to fight someone, the claim of self-defense still falls apart.

And that's because when you're engaging in self-defense, your physical response has to be proportional to the physical injury you suffer or that you reasonably believe you're going to suffer.

If somebody shoots at you or is about to shoot you, then you could shoot back.

If somebody pulls a knife on you and you have a gun, you can shoot them.

Because a knife can kill you.