All three found guilty
Travis McMichael was found guilty on all counts.
Greg McMichael, his father, was found not guilty of malice murder, but guilty on the other eight counts.
Their neighbour William Bryan was found guilty on three counts of felony murder, one count of aggravated assault, one count of false imprisonment and one count of criminal attempt to commit a felony.
So their attempt to persuade the jury that they were simply defending themselves while trying to make a “citizen’s arrest” failed.
You never know how these things are going to go. George Zimmerman got clean away with killing Trayvon Martin, claiming self-defense.
I think it’s highly likely that these guys would have got away but for two things. First, the local police and prosecutor didn’t even attempt to make their consideration of the crime look serious, which enraged a small group of people so much they kept making a stink about it. Second, one of the murderer’s friends was dumb, or cock sure enough, to post video of the event, which of course those asking for a proper investigation seized on. Once that video became public and media began reporting it the State had no option but to conduct a proper investigation.
If it weren’t for the video especially, I doubt any of us would ever have heard of the killing, let alone there being a trial with a guilty verdict. It does make you wonder how many other modern day lynchings there are.
Indeed. I was working on a follow-up about that as you were composing.
As Elie Mystal said “Lynching. Still illegal!”
Good video seems to make a world of difference even if it’s imperfect. As unhappy as I am with the Rittenhouse trial (though mostly with the prosecution) it’s nice to see laws followed and court outcomes reflecting it.
Also that Coffee dude in Florida had his self-defense plea accepted even though he shot at cops. A black man shot at cops and got to claim self-defense. No, things aren’t working well, but they are sort of working.
I’ve said this before when this comes up, but Zimmerman looked quite beaten up after the incident. From the Wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin#/media/File%3AGeorge_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin#/media/File:George_Zimmerman_back_of_head.jpg
The only witness said Martin was on top of Zimmerman pummeling him while Zimmerman yelled for help and for someone to call 911. They went to call and Zimmerman shot Martin when they were gone.
Zimmerman said Martin was trying to get his gun so he had no choice at that point. Zimmerman also said he’d been following Martin, had called 911, had been told to stop following, and was in the process of doing that when Martin attacked him.
I’m not saying this is what was said here, but many on the left act as if Zimmerman followed Martin then shot him in cold blood, completely ignoring that Martin was beating him up at the time of the shooting.
So if we assume Zimmerman was lying about everything not witnessed, the worst case is he followed Martin, started a fight with him, started losing the fight, then shot Martin. Even that is very different from the “he gunned that poor kid down for no reason” narrative, and there little reason to believe that worst scenario is what happened.
Zimmerman has acted like a garbage person since then, so I’m not defending him because I’m a fan. It is just more complicated than a simple murder.
Great to see the Arbery killers didn’t get off.
Not the only witness according to Reuters.
I based my statement on Wikipedia saying, “The only eyewitness to the end of the confrontation stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help.” Your are correct that I should have been clearer as my phrasing makes it sound like the only witness to anything.
With respect to the Reuters article, I don’t know how undermining it is saying this witness didn’t see the alleged head slamming, as he didn’t see the whole thing, and Zimmerman had wounds on the back of his head. Seems likely he either missed it or Zimmerman perceived or described it incorrectly (maybe his head bounced on the concrete as he was getting punched?) rather than any kind of Perry Mason “gotcha!” moment.
Note that Zimmerman is Hispanic and was beaten up badly enough that his nose was broken. This story doesn’t fit as neatly into the “white people can get away with killing Black people for no reason” category as was first thought.
I think it’s a reasonable point to note that one of the common framings of the killing is not quite correct.
What comes to my mind is the issue around self-defense, as quoted by Tim Harris in a comment here: “When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.” I wish this principle were applied more broadly to vigilantes. I don’t think there is any serious question that Zimmerman provoked the incident.
Can I ask Skeletor what ‘Hispanic’ actually means in a USAian context? I frankly do not understand the racial categories that exercise certain Americans. ‘Zimmerman’ is hardly a ‘Hispanic’ name. Neither is ‘George’. And since he is not descended from slaves, he wasn’t provided with his name by some former slave-owner. In comparison with Trayvon Martin he looks pretty white to me, if we want to play with racial categories, and I suspect that most of the people involved in that trial thought of him as white in comparison with the young man he murdered.
And as for ‘So if we assume Zimmerman was lying about everything not witnessed, the worst case is he followed Martin, started a fight with him, started losing the fight, then shot Martin. Even that is very different from the “he gunned that poor kid down for no reason” narrative, and there little reason to believe that worst scenario is what happened.’: why is there little reason to suppose that youe worst-case scenario didn’t happen? You, and all of us, simply do not know what happened, since Trayvon Martin was killed and Zimmerman was left happily alive to tell what story he pleased. And it got him off.
And also, Skeletor, kindly explain the difference between ‘he gunned down the poor kid for no reason’ (that ‘poor kid’ sounds extraordinarily condescending to me, not to say cynically ironic and suggesting that anyone who thinks Trayvon Martin was a ‘poor kid’ is a sentimental fool) and starting a fight with the young man for no reason and then gunning him down and incidentally allowing himself to claim he did it it out of self-defence. .
And regarding Coel’s statement (which I missed) on the thread that Sakbut refers to (‘Contrary to those who claim that the Rittenhouse verdict gives a licence to vigilantes, it only gives a licence to shoot at people who are chasing you down, kicking you in the head, and grabbing at your gun.’), I suggest that, whatever may legally and narrowly be the case, he should pay attention to the hero’s welcome that KR has received from the American right.
#10 Tim Harris
Hispanic in USA typically refers to someone having latin american ancestry. Zimmerman is visibly hispanic, and a search finds that his mother was born in Peru. I’m not sure why you see his name as disproof of that ancestry; it is always worth noting that surnames can change in marriage, as is the case here. His mother adopted his (white) father’s name, and I guess the father also chose the name George.
I really don’t see why calling him hispanic is an issue for you, given that it is generally an understandable term and happens to be applicable here.
Skeletor is pointing out that the commonly accepted narrative regard the killing is too simplistic. It has been boiled down to ‘George shot Trayvon in cold blood’, when it is actually more complex than that. Your reaction to Skeletor’s corrective efforts suggests that you think Skeletor is siding with Zimmerman. Surely a person can point out the errors in an over-simplified narrative without it becoming a matter of allegiance?
#11
“Poor kid” in that he was going about his day and then he was killed by another person. Seems reasonable to me.
#13
“I suggest that, whatever may legally and narrowly be the case, he should pay attention to the hero’s welcome that KR has received from the American right.”
Really? I suggest the exact opposite of that. Rather than paying attention to who likes the guy and then choosing a narrative on that basis, I would totally ignore who is lionising him and look at the known events of the day. It is possible to acknowledge that the narrative dominating the left’s discussion of the man and that day might be flawed, without siding with that of the right. Isn’t that what we do here pretty often regarding feminism?
Thank you, Holms. Yes, I do realise that surnames can change as a result of marriage. It is, after all, a common practice, whatever one may think of it. ‘Visibly Hispanic’? You must have a very good eye. He could be Italian, or Greek. I do not see that the term ‘Hispanic’ is applicable in the way Skeletor used it. Why? Are we supposed then to agree that since it was a matter of one person, playing vigilante, who belongs to one ‘non-white’ category killing another person who belongs to another ‘non-white’ category, this somehow complicates the issue? Does it make the killing somehow more acceptable? Or does it make Zimmerman’s pursuit of Martin less racially motivated? The killing of Trayvon Martin has not been boiled down to ‘George shot Trayvon on cold blood’, and, yes, I am well aware that it is more complex than that. ‘Poor kid’ – well, if you find it reasonable in that context, do so.
Yes, I should love to be able to ignore both the ‘narratives’ of the left and right, and I have in previous comments said that I thought that the verdict of the court in the Rittenhouse case was in the circumstances correct, as you may ascertain if you wish. I do not know why you go on about ‘narratives’ (a word that is a journalistic cliché) and choosing them on some binary basis. I am not proposing any narrative. All I am saying is that in addition to legal decisions one should pay attention also to the way Kyle Rittenhouse is being cynically used and made a hero by powerful people on the right who like the sentimental and dangerous idea of vigilantism when he is nothing of the sort, but a foolish young man, who I hope, probably, alas, vainly, will have the sense to resist their blandishments. In addition to legal matters, political matters are important.
Hispanic in the US is an ethnic and not a racial category. Forms separately ask for race and Hispanic status. Thus, there are “white Hispanic” and “non-white Hispanic” people. Zimmerman is probably “white Hispanic”.
@Tim #13:
What on Earth does that have to do with it? If you’re suggesting that different verdicts should be reached depending on the politics of the defendant, or depending on their racial hue, then you’re part of the problem.
And the main reason the right-leaning media are currently having a field day over KR is that the left-leaning media got the story wrong from the start (video was available very early on showing that his “self defense” claim was at least strong) and then they stuck to a wrong version of the story regardless of the facts, and they did that for ideological reasons. And it’s hardly the first such story. As seen by centrists/moderates, they are effectively waving a banner saying “you can’t trust us”.
Nothing in the previous paragraph is an assertion that the right-leaning media are any better, they’re not. All mainstream media outlets are tribal, and that is tearing Americans apart.
Sackbut @ 14 – But also, it’s just plain confusing, including for USians. “Hispanic” means several things, at least in the vernacular, and some of the things are incompatible. Like…am I wrong in thinking it refers to people from south of the US and not to people from Spain? And that it includes indigenous people from south of the US but (again) not people from Spain? And what about people from Brazil? How about Haiti?
Ophelia@16, yes, attempts to classify people by race or ethnicity are fraught with problems. But generally, Hispanic refers to people from the (mostly) Spanish speaking countries in the Americas, with varying amounts of European and indigenous heritage. I suspect they are lumped together because the people with power lump them together and emphasize the “Spanish speaking” part; there is certainly a lot of prejudice against people whose native language is Spanish, and consequently against people who look like their native language is Spanish. Beyond that extremely simplistic categorization it gets very weird very quickly. Like any of these categories, there are lots of people who fit obviously in it or not in it, and lots of unclear boundary cases.
@Tim #13:
The point is that, according to the Woke ideology that nowadays dominates the MSM and American campuses, such a killing could only be a manifestation of White Supremacy.
Thus, a White person would have been exerting his privilege to police who could walk around his neighborhood, and, when the incident went wrong, a jury manifesting White Supremacy would excuse him from any consequences of his actions.
Therefore it matters that the killer was not actually “White”, and that actual White Supremacists — and, despite Woke rhetoric that there is a White Supremacist bogeyman behind every lamp-post, there is probably only of order 1000 actual White Supremacists in the whole of the US — would not regard someone with a Peruvian mother as “White”.
Therefore the whole Woke analysis, under which any and everything is always about Whiteness and White Supremacy, with everyone else living in a state of perpetual oppression, gets a bit undermined.
My wife is from Spain; by the census bureau’s definition she’s technically Hispanic, though she doesn’t have a lot in common with most Latin Americans beyond language (at even that is a stretch at times). But she’s not Latina. On the other hand, a Brazilian would be considered Latino but not Hispanic.
Of course those terms are mostly meaningless outside of the US.
But Coel why did Zimmerman think Trayvon Martin looked suspicious in his gated community? I wouldn’t call it “white supremacy” but I do think there are some knee-jerk reactions that get instilled in us that can be racist. Don’t you? If you live in a neighborhood with few if any black people in it you may feel a twinge of involuntary suspicion when you do see any (“you” here as in “one,” not you personally). Neighborhoods aren’t nearly all white by chance, they’re that way because of a long history of redlining. Isn’t that racism? Both ways? The creation of white enclaves and the knee-jerk attitudes those enclave foster?
@Ophelia:
Yes, agreed, I do, Zimmerman’s suspicion could well have been racial prejudice.
Contrary to Woke ideology, racial prejudice is not “whites versus everyone else”. One thing I learnt when living in Texas is that there can be just as much suspicion and racial prejudice between blacks and Hispanics (or indeed, across the world, between many non-white groups). I recall one Hispanic foreman explaining to me why he would never hire black people, only Hispanics.
I’m sure that many people in the US “profile” young, black males. Of course it doesn’t help with that that the crime rate committed by young, black males is somewhat raised.
Though the effect of redlining can be over-stated. (E.g., the majority of people redlined where white, though a lower fraction of whites were redlined.) Communities become predominantly one or the other for a host of cultural and financial reasons, and I suspect that de-facto segregation would be largely the same nowadays even if there had been no redlining.
I bet you still haven’t read Worse Than Slavery. It clarifies a lot of the whys on this subject.
#Coel & Coel: I have nowhere suggested, or even begun to intimate, that ‘different verdicts should be reached depending on the politics of the defendant, or depending on their racial hue’. And I have said, more than once, that in the messy circumstances (legal as well as actual), the Rittenhouse verdict was correct. Kindly re-read my comments on the Rittenhouse affair.
I see no reason to suppose that it ‘matters’ that Martin’s killer was in some way classified as ‘not-white’, or would be regarded as ‘non-white’ by white supremacists. It seems to me that you at once seek to see and explain things in terms of ‘woke ideology’ without reference to historical realities and present lived reality. Forgive me for saying this, but reducing things to intellectually manageable, a-historical, competing ‘ideologies’ seems to be a way of not attending to the complexities of reality.
Sackbut#14: Thank you very much for the clarification about ‘ethnicity’ & ‘race’. But, as is apparent from this thread, nobody seems very clear about the difference between these categories, and cheerfully moves between one and the other, or plumps for race in order to suggest that Zimmerman was ‘non-white’ and therefore (so far as I can see) that white racism played no part in the killing; thus, complacent white people may feel relieved (nothing to do with us!) and the dreaded ‘woke’ lot who go about making whites feel guilty may be given a splendid poke in the eye. Zimmerman apparently ‘identifies’ as Hispanic, but his father was, it appears, an American of German descent. He could surely just as easily ‘identify’ as ‘Caucasian’ or ‘white’ or whatever you are supposed to write down when ‘identifying’ on those forms. Or is it that the ‘one-drop’ rule still stretches its tentacles into the present?
Tim, yes, the categories are anything but clear cut. And it’s one thing for the government to list something in demographic data, and another thing for people on the street to make assessment according to various prejudices. It’s entirely possible that different people will look at Zimmerman and draw different gut reactions regarding his ethnicity, and those reactions may or may not align with Zimmerman’s self-perception. This is true for lots of people of multi-ethnic background. And yes, white Hispanic people are “white” when convenient and “Hispanic” when convenient (and both when convenient, for that matter), for whoever is trying to make a point.
The One-Drop Rule (hypodescent) is very much in play in the US, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned a few times here. Sometimes it figures in self-assessment, sometimes in other people’s assessment, sometimes both, and it is sometimes controversial. Light-skinned people of black ancestry are sometimes said to be “passing” or “denying their roots” if they don’t consider themselves black. I have read of cases where people wanted to mark themselves “white” on government forms and were prevented from doing so because of a black ancestor several generations back. However, I have never heard of hypodescent being used as a criterion for anything other than black classification; not Hispanic classification, in particular.
I don’t think that whether Zimmerman appears more white or more Hispanic is really relevant to the question of whether “white racism” played a factor in the killing. His self-assessment, and whether his views are racist, those matter more. To make an analogy: I recall a news item about a man whose mother was Jewish, but he renounced his Jewish background and joined an antisemitic skinhead group. Does he look Jewish? Probably. Is he Jewish? By matrilineal descent, yes. But his views are certainly antisemitic, even though he passes several criteria for being Jewish, just because of his self-identity and his views.
Thank you, Sackbut. No, I entirely agree that whether Zimmerman appears more white or more Hispanic is not really relevant to the question of whether “white racism” played a factor in the killing, but I don’t find his self-assessment as to his ethnic or racial identity very relevant, either (though it seems to have appeared relevant to those who were pleased that he wasn’t ‘white’ since it muddles the ‘category’ or ‘narrative’ that white people can get away with killing Black people for no reason – a ‘category’ or ‘narrative’ that does not seem entirely unfounded, given American history, and recent history: for example, Tamir Rice was shot dead by Cleveland police in 2014 at the age of 12 for holding a toy gun. The claim of the police, upheld by the judicial system, was that his murder was justified because he presented a possible threat.). And, yes, the question whether his views are racist surely is relevant.
I suppose that I wonder whether the ‘One-Drop Rule’ has had an unacknowledged influence on what seems to me to be the fascination with ‘ethnicity’ & ‘race’.
Zimmerman appearing white would certainly be a factor in “white people can get away with killing Black people for no reason”, because his appearance, not so much his self-assessment, will sway a jury or law enforcement who care about such things. But him getting away with it due to racism, and him committing the crime due to racism, are two different questions. Not entirely separate, since he may be influenced in committing the crime by his thoughts about whether he’d get away with it, but still not identical issues.
Interesting question about ‘One-Drop Rule’. My inclination is that it’s the other way around, but I’m having trouble articulating why. I think the fascination with race and ethnicity in the US is derived from continued prejudice and animosity toward certain groups combined with well-intended but clumsy efforts to resolve these long-standing problems. (For example: nobody but nobody likes tracking race in government forms, but there is no good way of detecting discrimination if we don’t have data.)
Thank you, Sackbut. No, I certainly was not conflating the two questions concerning race. I was simply asking the question whether Zimmerman’s pursuit of Martin was due to his seeing a young black man in a white neighbourhood and immediately leaping to the conclusion that Martin, since he was black, must be a criminal.
I like your answer to my second question, and it seems very plausible to me.
@Tim Harris:
Then you’re not keeping up with the concepts of “whiteness” and “white supremacy” as they are currently dominating US university campuses and playing out in wider US society.
An example being Biden’s labeling of Rittenhouse as “white supremacy” and plenty of commentators from the left saying that this acquittal is “white supremacy” rather than the application of the law.
To give another example, the last 18 months would have been hugely different had Derek Chauvin been black.
And, sorry, but Coel again: ‘the point is that, according to the Woke ideology that nowadays dominates the MSM and American campuses, such a killing could only be a manifestation of White Supremacy.’
Can we stop these lazy references to the MSM? If you seriously suppose that Fox News, and in Britain the Telegraph, the Daily Mail & the Express are not part of the MSM, you must not be able to see straight. And as for the MSM all being in thrall to the ‘Woke ideology’, that is an equally lazy generalisation.
Ah, you’re back! Come on, give us chapter & verse on precisely why the last 18 months would have been hugely different had Derek Chauvin been black. Do you think the last 18 months would have been somehow better? Or what?
I don’t think we get to call a hypothetical an “example.”
@Ophelia:
OK, well a real example would be Waukesha, where much of the media paused to learn the race of the culprit in order to know how to spin it.
@Tim:
I’m sure everyone can work it out for themselves.
And by MSM I was referring to the US (the UK media is indeed different), and MSM is a commonly used shorthand.
No, Coel, don’t try to get out of it. Don’t deflect. You’re sounding like Boris Johnson in PMQs. It was you who stated that the last 18 months would have been hugely different had Derek Chauvin been black. Have the courage to lay out it out for us. It will be counter-factual history, of course, not actual history – we realise that. But then you seem not to have any great respect for history, which is not something that lies in some remote past, separate from our delightful present, so counter-factual history should be right up your street.
And so with the get-out of my query about ‘MSM’. Come on, is Fox News part of the Mainstream Media, or is it not? I know it likes to pretend not to be, but that is no reason why a well-educated person like yourself should buy their story. A ‘commonly used shorthand’ – really! Surely you, with your ongoing university education, should be able to think a bit further than that.
@Tim:
It’s not any lack of courage, it’s that it’s entirely obvious that much about the last 18 months would have been different, and yet expounding on how the counter-factual might have gone would be lengthy.
Well, what a wholly predictable and evasive response, Coel.