Karmelo Anthony: Guilt, Innocence, Self-Defense, and the Bullying Allegations, what is your take?

One thing that keeps getting lost in discussions about the Karmelo Anthony case is that there are really multiple questions being debated at once.
First, there is the question of whether he caused Austin Metcalf’s death. That is not the major point of contention.
The real debate is whether the stabbing was murder, self-defense, or something in between.
Those who believe Anthony is guilty argue that a verbal dispute or even a physical confrontation does not justify using deadly force. From that perspective, introducing a knife into the situation escalated a conflict that otherwise may not have been life-threatening. They argue that self-defense laws have limits and that a person must reasonably fear serious bodily injury or death before using deadly force.
Those who believe Anthony may have a valid self-defense claim point to reports and allegations that there was a history of bullying, intimidation, or ongoing conflict. Their argument is that context matters. If someone has been repeatedly threatened, harassed, or physically confronted, they may perceive danger differently than an outside observer looking at a single moment in isolation. Even if no one believes bullying alone justifies violence, supporters argue it could affect how a person interprets an encounter and whether they genuinely feared harm.
However, critics of that argument respond that allegations of bullying still do not automatically make a killing legally justified. They argue that even if bullying occurred, the legal question remains whether there was an immediate threat requiring deadly force at that specific moment.
This is where the case becomes complicated.
If the bullying allegations are true, should they be considered when evaluating Anthony’s state of mind?
If there was physical contact, how much does that matter?
What level of threat is required before deadly force becomes legally justified?
Can someone honestly fear for their safety and still use unreasonable force?
If self-defense is rejected, does the evidence support murder, or a lesser charge such as manslaughter?
I think reasonable people can disagree on these questions without excusing violence or demonizing either side.
What should not be forgotten is that Austin Metcalf lost his life, and Karmelo Anthony faces consequences that will shape the rest of his. Two families are living with the aftermath.
The strongest discussions focus on evidence, witness testimony, self-defense law, and the credibility of the bullying allegations—not race, politics, or social media narratives.
What evidence do you think is most important in determining whether this was murder, self-defense, or something in between?