The ink wasn’t dry on Karmelo Anthony’s 35-year murder sentence when a man in Jacksonville, Florida, climbed off his bicycle, walked up to an elderly white veteran sitting by the road, and punched him in the head. He’d filmed himself doing it. He captioned the video with a racial slur and “Free Karmelo.” Before the day was out, a second video appeared: a Tampa woman approaching a white man seated outdoors, demanding to know if he’d been “on the jury selection,” then assaulting him when he said no. Both attackers filmed themselves. Both posted it. Neither seemed to understand that Anthony was tried in Collin County, Texas — not Florida — and that their victims couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with the verdict.

This is what happens when you spend fourteen months telling people that a murder conviction is a racial injustice. You don’t just distort a verdict. You build a permission structure for violence.

I have a degree in criminal justice. I’ve spent thirty years in finance, and I’ve watched enough due process arguments made in bad faith to recognize one on sight. The Karmelo Anthony case had a mixed-race jury, a mixed-race jury pool of roughly 500 people, a defendant who admitted the stabbing at the scene, a 5-inch serrated blade recovered with blood on it, and more than twenty eyewitnesses. The jury deliberated less than three hours. That’s not a miscarriage of justice. That’s a functioning court system doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.

What followed wasn’t grief. It was industry. The narrative machine that turned Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and George Floyd into cultural cause célèbres — regardless of what the evidence showed — needed a new case. Anthony fit the template: young Black defendant, white victim, and a self-defense claim that could be amplified into a rallying cry before the........

© Townhall