The Things Worth Believing In

Standard Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is for informational purposes only and is NOT to be mistaken for legal or professional advice. Any opinions here are my own and do not represent the views of my agency. If you have personal legal concerns, contact a qualified attorney. I’m from New York; these writings are based on NY Law.

In light of recent high-profile trials, everyone has an opinion on “Justified Use of Force.” Most of those opinions are shaped by news headlines and Hollywood scripts, not by the actual statutes.

If you want to understand the threshold for force in New York, you have to read the law like an operator: look for the ANDs, ORs, and UNLESS-Es. You have to read the subsections together, or you will jump to a dangerous, erroneous conclusion.

The Baseline: NY Penal Law 35.15

Subdivision 1: Physical Force

“A person may… use physical force… when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person…”

• The “Reasonable” Standard: Note the word reasonably. The law doesn’t require you to be 100% correct in your judgment; it requires you to act as an “average person in similar circumstances” would. If someone points a “finger gun” in their pocket and threatens your life, you are judged on the reasonable belief that the threat was lethal. Conversely, you don’t get to “throat-chop” a stranger because you have a “hunch” they’re about to mug you.
• The “Unless” Provisions: You cannot claim self-defense if:
  • (a) You provoked the conflict with the intent to cause injury.
  • (b) You were the initial aggressor (unless you effectively communicated your withdrawal and the other party persisted).
  • (c) The force is the product of “combat by agreement”—don’t expect to host a backyard “fight club” and claim self-defense when you get charged for the damage.

Subdivision 2: Deadly Physical Force (DPF)

Everything in part (1) only justifies Physical Force. If you are going to use Deadly Physical Force, you must meet higher thresholds:

(a) The Threat of DPF: You must reasonably believe the other person is using or about to use DPF against you.

• The Duty to Retreat: In NY, you cannot use DPF if you know you can retreat with “complete personal safety.”
• The Exceptions: You are under no duty to retreat if you are in your own dwelling (and not the initial aggressor), or if you are a police/peace officer acting in the line of duty.
• Note on “Stand Your Ground”: People get wrapped around the axle here. The law isn’t asking you to risk your life to run; if a guy can shoot you in the back while you flee, that is not “complete safety.” But if you’re in a car and someone is stabbing the window, and you can drive away—do it. Avoiding the fight is the ultimate tactical victory.

(b) The Heinous Crimes: You are justified in using DPF if you reasonably believe the other person is committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act, or robbery.

(c) Burglary: DPF can be authorized during a burglary, but this is governed by specific circumstances found in section 35.20.

In the trial of Karmelo Anthony, the defense attempted to argue that Anthony acted in self-defense when he fatally stabbed Austin Metcalf. The jury, after deliberating for less than three hours, rejected that claim entirely and convicted him of murder.

For those who live by a Code, this trial wasn’t just a tragedy—it was a lesson in how “sudden passion” and aggressive behavior destroy a self-defense claim.

1. The “Initial Aggressor” Barrier

In the statutes we discussed previously, the law is clear: You cannot be the initial aggressor and then claim self-defense.

• The Reality: Testimony showed that Anthony refused to leave a team tent that didn’t belong to him. When told to leave, he escalated the situation by saying, “Touch me and see what happens.”
• The Tactical Fail: By refusing to vacate the space and issuing a threat, Anthony effectively declared himself the aggressor. In the eyes of the law, he set the stage for the violence. You don’t get to initiate a confrontation, provoke a physical response, and then claim you were “forced” to use a lethal weapon to protect yourself.

2. Proportionality: “Shove vs. Stab”

One of the most vital principles of the use-of-force continuum is proportionality.

• The Prosecutor’s Point: During closing arguments, the prosecution nailed the core issue: “You don’t get to meet a shove with a stab, especially if you provoke the shove.”
• The Legal Standard: A “reasonable belief” in the need for Deadly Physical Force requires a threat of Deadly Physical Force. A shove is a physical assault, yes, but it is rarely a justification for the immediate use of a knife to the chest. The jury correctly recognized that the response was not proportionate to the threat.

3. The “Duty to Retreat” and De-escalation

We talked about the “complete personal safety” clause in the law.

• The Choice: Anthony could have walked away at any point. There was no “trapped in a corner” scenario. By staying, arguing, and escalating, he abandoned the most powerful tool in the self-defense arsenal: disengagement.
• The Code: A practitioner knows that the best “win” is the one where the knife stays in the bag. By choosing to stay and fight, Anthony ensured that the “Second Fight” (the courtroom) would be one he could not win.

4. The “Social Media” Distortion

This case was unfortunately fueled by racial narratives on social media, which served only to cloud the objective facts.

• The Professional View: As the attorneys in the case noted, race played no role in the reality of the incident. It was a confrontation between two teenagers that spiraled because one refused to follow the “Standard” of basic civility, and the other reacted with lethal, unjustified force.

The Captain’s Bottom Line

The Karmelo Anthony trial is a stark reminder of what happens when you treat “self-defense” as a blank check rather than a last resort.

1. Don’t be the aggressor: If you stay, argue, and threaten, you lose the right to claim you were “defending” yourself.
2. Proportionality is the Law: You cannot escalate a non-lethal conflict into a lethal one and expect a jury to call it “self-defense.”
3. The “Second Fight” is Final: A jury will see through the “I was scared” defense if the evidence shows that you were the one who wouldn’t walk away.

There is nothing “macho” about ending up in a state penitentiary for 35 years because you couldn’t swallow your ego and walk out of a tent. True strength is the discipline to avoid the fight, not the lack of discipline that lands you in one.