A Vermont jury on Monday convicted Jason Eaton, 51, of attempted murder for the November 2023 shooting of three Palestinian college students near the University of Vermont in Burlington. The jury rejected Eaton’s defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, which centered on his claims that the CIA and Mossad were transmitting orders to him via FM radio and that God commanded him to act. Hisham Awartani was paralyzed from the waist down in the attack, and his friends, Tahseen Aliahmad and Kinnan Abdalhamid, were wounded.
The trial included testimony from the three victims, now 23, who recounted the shooting, and from psychiatric experts called by both the prosecution and defense. Eaton did not dispute shooting the students, who were speaking a mix of English and Arabic and two of whom were wearing keffiyehs, but claimed he was acting on external orders. Defense attorney Joshua O’Hara argued Eaton suffered a delusional, psychotic disorder following job loss, believing the intelligence agencies tasked him with “overwatch duty” to protect a Jewish family.
Prosecutors presented testimony from a state psychiatrist who concluded Eaton did not have a mental disease or defect and that his actions were intentional. Authorities found three shotguns and a Ruger .380-caliber handgun in Eaton’s apartment, the latter confirmed as the weapon used in the shooting after being purchased seven months prior. The shooting occurred weeks after the start of the Israel-Hamas war and initially prompted calls for a hate crime investigation, though no hate crime charges were filed. Awartani, Aliahmad, and Abdalhamid had been visiting Awartani’s grandmother in Burlington over the Thanksgiving holiday when the shooting occurred. Eaton faces up to life in prison and was ordered jailed pending sentencing.
Our reading is that the jury’s rejection of the insanity defense suggests they found Eaton responsible for his actions despite his elaborate claims of external control. The focus on the victims’ backgrounds in some reports, while less prominent in others, highlights a potential sensitivity around the context of the shooting occurring amidst heightened tensions related to the Israel-Hamas war. The differing emphasis in reporting, some prioritizing the legal outcome, others the alleged motivations, suggests varying editorial choices in framing the story.
Read the original coverage
💬 Comments
📜 Comment Policy