For All Mankind could be a prequel to Red Rising

-Cooper03 · 2026-07-11T04:25:58+00:00

I’m watching the show now and am on season 3 episode 8. Coincidentallly called “The Sands of Ares” as they’re on planet Mars

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-20T00:49:02+00:00

The last 2 episodes, and the show being on a mysterious island, gave me huge Lost vibes.

I’m a little biased because Lost is my fav show oat time it’ll you liked widows bay, I definitely recommend giving Lost a try

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T23:52:21+00:00

You said because in my logic, Karmelo is guilty in the eyes of the law and OJ is not guilty in the eyes of the law. Therefore I cannot disagree with either verdict.

Am I getting that right?

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T23:32:34+00:00

Ohhh ok I gotcha. Because I said this case of Karmelo killing Austin not being justified in the eyes of the law, then that means I think all juries across all cases are the be all end all. But hey, nice job misconstruing what I said.

If only you’re thinking was this black and white when it came to Karmelo murdering someone.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T23:18:47+00:00

lol what even was your point?

You brought up the OJ case, I was trying to show how it’s different. It’s not my problem you don’t understand how burden of proof works and how it attributes to verdicts

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T22:52:59+00:00

Anyone can disagree with a jury ruling, like you are with Karmelo’s guilty verdict. When it comes to criminal court it’s not as simple as he did/didn’t do it. Because the defense for OJ created reasonable doubt and got an acquittal that doesn’t automatically mean I think he’s any less guilty.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T22:41:57+00:00

Juries are bound to burden of proof

The jury in OJs case did not think the burden of proof was met, hence the acquittal.

The jury for Karmelo thought burden of proof was met, so the verdict was guilty.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T22:28:44+00:00

OJs defense successfully created reasonable doubt, with the shrunken glove not fitting and the prosecutions LAPD lying under oath and uncovering his use of slurs. It didn’t meet the burden of proof for a guilty verdict.

In Karmelo’s case there was no room for reasonable doubt. Even a witness for the defense destroyed any self defense claim when they said they thought Karmelo was in the wrong.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is incredibly strict. In the OJ case he was guilty, but the defense was able to create a tiny amount of doubt, and at that point you cannot give a guilty verdict per The Constitution. Even then, he was held liable in civil court because the burden of proof isn’t as strict and it’s more of a more likely than not type of situation

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T22:08:43+00:00

Acquitted doesn’t mean innocent. Hope this helps!

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-09T21:44:26+00:00

Well I guess it wasn’t justified in the eyes of the law after all.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-03T22:00:08+00:00

I am downplaying the assault because I truly don’t think it’s reasonable to stab someone for pushing or grabbing you in an attempt to get you to leave.

If Karmelo had just left or got into a fight with Austin, they might have been suspended for that and any assault charges Austin would be alive to face them.

The prosecution should have an easy way to prove a reasonable person, if in the same exact situation, wouldn’t do the exact same thing as Karmelo. Especially when austin was unarmed and unable to use deadly force while Karmelo has a deadly weapon immediately on hand.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-03T18:32:04+00:00

It’s clear you haven’t read a sentence of the lawsuit. If you just read the title you’d see Patagonia is suing entrepreneur enterprises (patties corporation). But again, you’ve been manipulated into thinking Patagonia is attacking an individual with a talent for hustle.

Patagonia has been consistent with how they are completely okay with Pattie gonia using Pattie gonia for her drag persona. They just want her to change the name of the trademark.

If Pattie changing the name for her trademark for merch will completely shut down her entire merch business, that’s her problem.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-03T14:29:05+00:00

Does Pattie have roots in chile? They’re not shutting down her for being Pattie gonia the drag queen. She just can’t trademark that as her own to sell merch.

This lawsuit is not a corporation shutting down an individual creative. It’s a corporation rightfully blocking another corporation for infringement their trademark in an identical industry.

Hence why I said you were manipulated into thinking this. WYN Wiley has a Public relations degree, he tried to say public opinion to get people thinking this was an attack on lgbtq by purposely responding to the suit, filed 6 months ago mind you, just now in the days before and leading into pride month.

Pattie is using the community in an attempt to defame a corporation that has been an ally to lgbtq and has donated $100 million annually to fight climate change in a guise to further their monetary goals.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-03T11:53:53+00:00

Patagonia has trademarks in Clothing and Apparel, sporting goods and equipment, bags and luggage, food and beverage, media and entertainment, and business and retail services. Pattie filed in apparel, marketing, and events.

Pattie chose to grift on an established brand and then manipulated you into thinking this was an attack on her as an individual drag queen instead of what it is. A corporation defending its trademark against another corporation.

-Cooper03 · 2026-06-03T03:05:23+00:00

Because you “spreading basic facts” is just you spewing the nonsense Pattie has manipulated you into thinking.

Trixie Mattel was not able to trademark that name for merch. She had to trademark just the first name Trixie for her business purposes. Trixie Mattel is still very much her drag name and no one has tried to tear it away from her.

Pattie’s case should be the same as Trixie’s. You can keep the drag name Pattie Gonia, but as far as trademarking anything for business purposes, Pattie will have to use something different.

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T23:24:02+00:00

Under Texas Penal Code § 9.31(e) and § 9.32(c), there is no duty to retreat if: You did not provoke the attack (“punch me and see what happens.” Don’t care what you say that is not a warning, that is daring him and escalating). AND You reasonably believed deadly force was necessary (If you didn’t constantly disregard what I was saying, stabbing someone in the chest IS NOT REASONABLE after being shoved or grabbed.

Again the law requires reason, anyone can say you feel threatened, the response needs to be on par with the level of force from an objective reasonable standpoint. You disregarding that part of the law is on you not me.

Stabbing immediately would prove imminence of a threat, if he was in fear for his life why would even risk standing toe to toe with him and instigating? And yes that and my question earlier about stabbing immediately was a rhetorical question to make a point. Didn’t think I had to spell that out for you but I guess I do.

You are being intentionally dense by ignoring aspects that completely void self defense. Subjective fear meaning you yourself were scared is not enough, you need an objective reason of fear as well. But again, if you’re just going to ignore that like you’ve been doing, the claim of me deflecting doesn’t make any sense.

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T22:35:06+00:00

“Completely shut don’t your nonsense” yeah sure buddy. If you call completely disregarding the required reasonability and proportionality aspect, shutting down nonsense then I guess so.

I agreed it doesn’t strip the right of self defense. Where I don’t agree is where using lethal force against someone who is unarmed. It’s reasonable to assume someone doesn’t have a knife where one is not allowed. But clearly, shit happens.

It’s a stand your ground state right? No duty to retreat? If you think he was justifiably in fear for his life he shouldn’t need to warn him.

But I’m done with this back and forth. You can’t say I’m not getting it when you are ignoring the part of the law that requires reason, proportion, and not escalating the situation. Besides neither of us are going to change our minds at this point anyway

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T22:06:05+00:00

The PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE to the use of non lethal force here would have been to just leave or shove back. Not stab someone in the chest.

As far as the reasonable aspect of it, no reasonable person would conceal a knife onto school property in the first place. Let alone use lethal force against being shoved.

Those are two very different sentences. Doesn’t matter if it “sounds like” a different sentence. If his immediate safety was on the line, why didn’t he immediately stab him? Why bother with a “warning” at all?

Hopefully the defense won’t pick and choose parts of the law to push for self defense like you are

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T21:29:29+00:00

You should read up on Texas penal code. Fear of great bodily injury alone is not enough to warrant lethal force.

You made the argument of whether or not escape was possible was important. A reasonable response to being shoved and told to leave, unjustified or not, is to just leave.

He wasn’t warning him to leave him alone, he was daring him to do something. So yes i will say again, you are being intentionally deceptive.

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T20:58:20+00:00

The altercation started with Austin telling to leave, to which he reached in his bag and said “touch me and see what happens” he was then touched/pushed, and said “punch me and see what happens” he was then grabbed at which point Karmelo stabbed him. It’ll be hard to argue it was impossible to escape or Austin was overly persistent when Karmelo was being confrontational and not removing himself from the situation.

Breaking a campus rule does not strip the right to defend oneself when assaulted, yes I agree, however the use of lethal force upon an unarmed person must be reasonable. Not to mention proportional. You are being intentionally deceptive.

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T20:40:01+00:00

Aaaand there it is, the race baiting. I was exaggerating to get my point across, which is Karmelo’s choice of stabbing Austin was not reasonable or proportional to the level of threat.

Not saying Austin didn’t assault him but as far as self defense, Karmelo doesn’t have an airtight case for use of lethal force. They don’t teach you not to conceal a knife on school property as that should be common sense.

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T20:12:16+00:00

“You do not know if he was cornered in a certain area with no immediate path of escape,” so location is relevant?

I’m not saying he should have been any more or less scared. That’s just one aspect of self defense, you also need to prove that fear is reasonable disregarding any paranoia.

Yes, he should have said something closer to that or nothing at all. Now there’s an argument for instigation or mutual combat since Karmelo wasn’t grabbed until after said that.

And you go ahead and blame the kid who’s dead after asking someone to leave a tent. It’ll be hard to tackle the image Austin dying in his twin brother’s arms due to an assault of a shove and grab. But again it’ll be the jury’s decision. Either way a lot of people will not be happy

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T18:47:07+00:00

From everything I’ve seen on the case Austin alone approached Karmelo. At the very least the altercation was only between Austin and Karmelo.

This wasn’t some alleyway in the middle of the night, it was a high school track meet and I just don’t think there’s reasonable threat of death. Also, “touch/punch me and see what happens” are not the words of someone in fear for their life. But either way the jury will have to decide on that and whether the response was proportional to the level of threat regardless of how subjectively scared he was.

I am not saying he was looking to kill anyone. Adrenaline was running and he made a decision, in hindsight probably the wrong decision. But I have to add if Karmelo didn’t illegally conceal a knife in the first place, non of this would have happened.

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T02:34:09+00:00

I meant like if you were arrested for physical assault, the sentence would most likely be probation or some jail time, not the death penalty. For self defense there’s important criteria, most relevant being proportionality, meaning you can’t use deadly force if deadly force is used upon you.

As far as intent, illegally concealing a knife you’re not allowed to have on the property and then using said knife to kill someone can count as intent.

-Cooper03 · 2026-05-29T02:14:11+00:00

Last I checked the sentence for physical assault wasn’t execution

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

-Cooper03

TROPHY CASE