Critics’ dismay at Zimmerman verdict New
Underneath the BBC has recruited the voice of the ‘Public’ for their verdict…funny how their voices are important when needed…
Zimmerman acquittal: Your views
First one:
I am surprised by the verdict, and not surprised at the same time.
I didn’t have much faith in the legal system in Florida to begin with but I had still hoped that the verdict would be different from the one we have.
Next:
Given the justice system, I think it was the only plausible evidential outcome that could be achieved. There was only one side who could speak up for himself. There was no other counter-story, so you hope the jury will infer the best outcome from that.
Another:
This is a clear pronouncement that racism – with underlying ugliness of fear and persecution – still thrives in America.
A positive one…but hold on…Zimmerman was dangerously reckless…
While I might criticise some elements of the way Mr Zimmerman went about his actions, I can’t object to the verdict. The law was served, and a jury agreed after a full examination of the facts……However, I would not approach an individual under such circumstances unless I was a fully-warranted, uniformed police officer. As an armed person, contact is what you want to avoid like the plague.
Another:
As a father, I believe Zimmerman crossed the line and should pay a price. However heavy or light, Zimmerman should be punished for his defiant actions.
And finally a second positive one…but again wait for the sting in the tail:
Whilst I am very sorry for the family of Trayvon Martin, the verdict is the right one. …..Stereotyping and racial profiling does go on in the South. It would be nice if everyone could be colour blind, but they aren’t and that is the reality.
Not one single, unequivocal statement of support for Zimmerman…surely there must be one out there somewhere.
Judging on the basis of previous BBC vox populi I can’t imagine this is anywhere near a true representation of majority thought on this subject…highly subjective though it is.
Don’t be too harsh on the BBC, they seem to have a hard time finding representative samples – for example, despite their best efforts over many, many, years, Question Time audiences still seem to be disproportinately left wing, which is something the BBC is acutely aware of and trying to remedy in line with their charter.
On what possible grounds can any of those people offer an informed opinion? Were they at the scene when Martin was shot? Did they sit through the trial and see all the evidence? Do they have an understanding of Florida and US Federal law?
Exactly what I was thinking. Lots of armchair experts out there.
I can’t see why any of these people have anything that qualifies them to have an opinion on the subject. The only group that did was the jury, and we know what their opinion is.
They may have followed the trial? But even if they are completley ill-informed, it still tells part of the story to know how people are reacting to the verdict.
Utter garbage. But thanks for popping in, Beeboid.
Perhaps it’s me…. to quote Brian Wilson, ‘Maybe, I just wasn’t made for these times’ and so on. But isn’t there a pattern emerging now of the BBC’s blatant censorship and subtle and not-so-subtle indoctrination in its reporting? The two main areas are thus (in my opinion – feel free to add to the list):
1) Muslim groveling: failure to properly link acts of atrocity to Muslims in their reporting i.e. using the offensive term ‘Asian’ to denote Muslim paedos and ‘radicals’ for terrorists, when they are all too eager to link crimes to EDL/white supremacists, often being very wrong in their presumptions… and
2) The West is a hotbed of racist, white supremacists who are out to oppress blacks and ethnic minorities.
3) President Obama must never be criticized even if he makes the same type of decisions the BBC used to ridicule with George W.
I like the comment about ‘red states’ and ‘blue states’. Didn’t Florida end up supporting Barack Hussein Obama in November last year? (And Mr Zimmerman was a Democrat)
The BBC has form on that sort of thing. That nut who shot a congresswomen in Arizona was apparently inspired by an advert run by Sarah Palin. Shame those who knew he believed he was apolitical or left leaning.
Both the BBC and Channel 4 appear to be salivating at the prospect of race riots as a consequence of this decision. Looking at the excitable mob with placards I don’t think they’ll have long to wait. And we’re still seeing the same snap of Trayvon as a very young and innocent lad. He looks about eight. To add to the image of innocence the Beeb commentator has informed us that “he had just gone out to buy sweets.”
Bias at the BBC? Never!
Jeff, Yes, just gone out to buy sweets like any innocent sweet little boy. Iced Tea and Skittles, just the street formula for getting high.
http://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/skittles-arizona-iced-tea-robitussin.html
I’m guessing the BBC had all it’s mountains of “Zimmerman found guilty/racism is alive” material ready for broadcasting but were caught out by the verdict.
It’s obvious that they’ve spent today coming to terms with the verdict and after cobbling something together are now in utter hyper-drive playing the racism card.
Looking at the overall picture, the BBC/MSM are playing a very, very dangerous game which is not only interfering with the Rule of Justice but is having an effect on society itself.
As usual only Fox gives you fair and balanced, not the One-Party MSM. America reacts photo: (black) thug in sportswear thrown trashcan through window because he doesn’t like jury decision based on the facts. “We are victims!!” narrative. When will people wake up, this is 2013 not 1964: race card is a busted flush. But like the “Global Warming” Lie, there is too much investment in convenient Lies. We are victims!!!
nothing but a conviction would have been good enough for al beeb. impartial at all times my arse. their coverage is a disgrace. they havnt shown the pics of zimmermans injuries. heaven forbid, ppl might think obamas son was a violent thug
Not only have the BBC never been fully honest about Zimmerman’s injuries, but they knowingly promoted the falsified 9/11 call which was doctored to make Zimmerman appear racist. The lie about racial profiling they’re pushing now is based on this faked audio recording. The BBC is dishonest, and if I had the money I’d initiate legal action.
Nice one David. well said
A large news organization like the BBC could have found out a few facts about the little boy they have repeatedly presented as an innocent victim.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/trayvon-martins-involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police-prosecutors/
It is of course usual practice for the Jury to NOT be told about previous convictions/ felonies/ misdemeanours of either party in case they go for the ‘give a dog a bad name and hang him’ approach.
Some alternate takes from the USA…
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/14/conservative-larry-elder-tweets-refreshing-post-zimmerman-verdict-reality-checks/
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/14/rapper-lupe-fiasco-black-blood-spills-in-the-streets-of-america-nightly-at-the-hands-of-other-blacks/
http://tavernkeepers.com/george-zimmerman-trial-the-bbcs-mark-mardell-displays-overt-bias/
In other words, Mardell – just like all other Beeboids – believe that Zimmerman should suffer for the Sins of the Fathers. Mardell has been quite open about his viewpoint that the US is infused with racism at its very core, and probably believes that Zimmerman shot the “unarmed teenager” in cold blood, despite the known facts and testimony from eyewitnesses and Martin’s own girlfriend.
We’re seeing the personal belief system of the entire BBC on display in this case. Groupthink? What groupthink?
Well said again David
I guess that Booker T. Washington anticipated the BBC and those it supports.
‘There is (a) class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the N3gro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the N3gro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.’
– Booker T Washington, 1911
“By ‘race industry’ I mean community relations personnel, multi-ethnic education inspectors and advisers, vote-hungry local politicians, members of local government committees and agencies set up to monitor police attitudes to blacks, ambitious leaders of immigrant pressure groups and the like. In other words, those with a vested interest in putting race into the forefront of people’s minds.”
“The incidence of alleged racism in a given society will vary in a direct proportion to the number of people handsomely paid to find it.”
Tom Hastie, quoted in “Anti-Racism: A Mania Exposed” by Russell Lewis, Quartet Books, 1988, ISBN 0-7043-2636-1.
It is absolutely no defence of the craven BBC but the Daily Mail has reacted even more like a surrealist parody of a news organisation, No doubt willing to tie reality into knots so as not appear racist (as it also did over the Lawrence case) it reads like the Guardian on acid – and its commenters are in full anti-American cry.
So far has the Left’s ‘liberal progressive’ view pervaded British media that honest reporting is beyond almost all of it. And I added the ‘almost’ as insurance against a single article appearing over the next week that doesn’t read like a press release from the NAACP.
In other words, Mardell – just like all other Beeboids – believe that Zimmerman should suffer for the Sins of the Fathers. Mardell has been quite open about his viewpoint that the US is infused with racism at its very core, and probably believes that Zimmerman shot the “unarmed teenager” in cold blood, despite the known facts and testimony from eyewitnesses and Martin’s own girlfriend.
We’re seeing the personal belief system of the entire BBC on display in this case. Groupthink? What groupthink?
The Daily Mail has to stop comments on these articles after about 30 minutes as the authors are torn to shreds in the comments at the bottom of the page.
And if they are not careful they will leave themselves wide open to experience first hand ‘libel tourism’.
(The Guardian had to pull gary Younge’s article for a while. It is back again in all its glory. But I can summarise all the posts.
“He was racist, he followed Martin with a gun.
The Jury were racist”
“Can you prove that?”
…Silence…
They only took it down while they removed the unflattering images and texts from St. Trayvon.
I only looked at the first few comments on that article, but I feel unclean already. It is truly frightening how many people cannot accept that there is more to finding someone guilty than the fact that the deceased was black and the survivor wasn’t.
Unfortunately as Churchill wrote “This is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end. [Regrettably] this is only the end of the beginning.”
Hopefully the fallout will not just be one-sided.
The race riots have already begun.
Oakland rally for Trayvon Martin turns violent
Trayvon Martin protesters block freeway, clash with LAPD
The NY Daily News is instigating protests, and hyping up “Justice For Trayvon”. I’m actually afraid to walk near Times Square right now (I’ll have to be in the middle of it for a job one week from today), and am in fear of what might happen next. Much of the US media – local as well as national – is now laying the ground for violence.
Not much violence yet, but just wait. The President’s minions have only begun to work. This can be a boost to His agenda and for the 2014 mid-term elections. The media which had been doubting their absolute faith in Him recently are back on side with a vengeance. Literally.
What? Three of the comments are unequivocally supporting the verdict. That’s the same thing as supporting Zimmerman in the end. They weren’t saying Zimmerman was a racist who dodged a bullet.
This is ‘unequivocal’ support for Zimmerman David?:
‘Given the justice system, I think it was the only plausible evidential outcome that could be achieved. There was only one side who could speak up for himself. There was no other counter-story, so you hope the jury will infer the best outcome from that.’
Hardly unequivocal…it suggests the justice system is dodgy and the fact that we only got one side of the story makes the whole thing questionable.
Or this:
‘As an armed person, contact is what you want to avoid like the plague.’
This makes it clear that he thought Zimmerman was at fault for approaching Martin.
or this:
‘Stereotyping and racial profiling does go on in the South. It would be nice if everyone could be colour blind, but they aren’t and that is the reality.’
That says the verdict may be correct but Zimmerman might have been guilty of ‘profiling’….that thing so beloved by the Left.
There’s a reason why the BBC chose those particular quotes….DB’s posting of a BBC USA news producer’s Tweets should be enough evidence of that.
No such thing as a free lunch with the BBC.
Zimmerman isn’t completely blameless. If he hadn’t gotten out of the car, Martin is still alive. That’s what these opinions reflect. Nobody is unequivocally supporting Zimmerman, because that means he had no part to play in the tragedy. It doesn’t mean Martin is blameless, it doesn’t mean Zimmerman is the cold-blooded, racist murderer the BBC wants everyone to think he is.
I’ll quote the following back at you, from Brendan Stollard:
While I might criticise some elements of the way Mr Zimmerman went about his actions, I can’t object to the verdict. The law was served, and a jury agreed after a full examination of the facts.
People are blathering about it being a racial judgement, but I just don’t see it. It has nothing to do with race, but the law. It has precious little to do with private citizens being armed, in truth.
I am an armed citizen, legally certified by the state. However, I would not approach an individual under such circumstances unless I was a fully-warranted, uniformed police officer. As an armed person, contact is what you want to avoid like the plague.
If the circumstances are true, that Martin had punched Zimmerman to the ground, and had the ability to carry on the assault, lethal force is allowed.
Not exactly BBC-approved thought. And it’s pretty much what I said.
And here’s the rest of the quote from Ceris Feakes, all of which appears before the closing cherry you picked:
Whilst I am very sorry for the family of Trayvon Martin, the verdict is the right one.
Both Zimmerman and Martin made huge judgement errors. This isn’t a case of taking sides though – both sides have lost in their own way.
The evidence overwhelmingly supported Zimmerman’s statement of self-defence. The police released him after ascertaining that his actions were taken in the belief that his life was in danger.
It was up to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman was guilty, and they couldn’t do that.
If this was a black-on-black crime, or a white-on-white crime, the media wouldn’t have been so interested.
That first line is an unequivocal support for the verdict. What more do you want? The rest of it supports what I’ve said.
You can’t take the first line in isolation…. the quotes are qualified by what is said about the verdict….and that is the point…the BBC choose quotes which even as they support Zimmerman have a ‘sting in the tail’ blaming him for challenging Martin, or for ‘profiling’ him, or claiming that he only got off because the justice system isn’t good enough to provide a true verdict.
The BBC aren’t prepared to allow Zimmerman to be ‘home free’….it’s always going to be his fault really.
It seems that ‘civil rights’ groups – led by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP – are calling for the verdict to be overturned. Because, of course, ‘civil rights’ applies only black racists, not to ordinary people going about their normal business who are attacked by a black thug.
Disgraceful! But the bBBC is giving them a platform for their views.
This gives the timeline of how the race hustlers and the liberal media – including the BBC – started and maintained its witchhunt against George Zimmerman.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet
Lie after lie after lie. And the bloody BBC continues the lies.
By far the fullest account of the trial is at the LegalInsurrection.com website. With hours of live video clips of the proceedings. Anyone with a fair mind would have acquitted George Zimmerman.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet
The prosecution counsel and the leftie media like the BBC are slime. Their Narrative takes precedence over natural justice and the rule of law.
It is appalling that in the UK we have such total dominance of the news by a single organisation. It is dangerous in a democracy to have such dominance – especially when there are so many supine trolls such as we see here.
The Zimmerman case has been a long object lesson in how the BBC behaves, how it abuses the tax it imposes on every UK household.
And even after the verdict the BBC continues its spite, its lack of balance, its targetting of an innocent man.
Here’s a personal example of how intelligent, decent people are being brainwashed by the BBC. My father was round for a drink of whiskey tonight (a fine single malt called Old Singleton from Muir of Ord, Scotland) and was commenting ‘how awful it is that this poor young, innocent teenager was shot by the racist thug in America’. I tried to say that the jury, having looked at all the evidence, acquitted the man and that our media haven’t presented the whole story… when people like my father are swallowing the BBC’s nonsense then I’m afraid we’re in trouble.
Sharpton and Jackson, are simply the black equivalents of those Danish Imams that simply just HAD to get over to Mecca to tell their betters about those dreadful scribblers, popes and what have you.
Yet the sappy Danes let them come and go out of the country.
Black race hustlers find their match in Islam supremacists…Malcolm X was a while back, but they`ll be much nastier round this time when they get going.
Maybe whites should begin to riot when Tommy Robinson is arrested, or an OJ gets acquitted…only then will the BBC see that their one-sided racial stirring entails an equal and opposite reation at some stage.
“Young black men are constantly the victims of violence” whined some old sow at the start of the News 24 coverage of Zimmerman’s acquittal.
These facts must’ve slipped their mind –
“Bureau of Justice Statistics data show that from 1976 to 2005, white victims were killed by white defendants 86% of the time and black victims were killed by blacks 94% of the time.
Then there is the matter of who is dying. Although the U.S. murder rate has been dropping for years, an analysis of homicide data by The Wall Street Journal found that the number of black male victims increased more than 10%, to 5,942 in 2010 from 5,307 in 2000.
Overall, more than half the nation’s homicide victims are African-American, though blacks make up only 13% of the population.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577496501048197464.html
The BBC are now just making it up as they go along, so long as it fits the Black Panther Movement narrative. Same old crap they use when ‘reporting’ on London black gang violence: if you were an alien visiting for the evening and had to rely on the BBC for news, you’d be forgiven for concluding that the Met police are evil bullies who target poor, innocent and oppressed black people in London just for the hell of it. Blacks and Muslim are always innocent, even when they guilty.
The BBC and leftists in general never let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good narrative, they just ignore them. When you’ve got a 70% coverage of news and current affairs and a public who still have blind faith in your impartiality, not to mention a governing hierarchy who are accountable to nobody, you can do what the f-f-f-f-frigging hell you like – just ask Marcus Brigstocke.
i dont live in the usa,but if i did i would like to know this,what are the breakdown in stastictics for racial crime in the usa,are whites more likely to be vctims of black racist crime,rape,robbery.murder etc than blacks by whites,we all know in the uk that the police cover black/asian on white crime and murder for politacaly correct reasons,is the same going on in the usa.
Come on, every one knows that if you have brown skin then you’re incapable of experiencing the emotion of ‘hate’.
Just ask any judge.
“Homicide trends in the USA” is freely available on the net and gives very detailed data by race, age, and sex
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31
On average (2008), African Americans are
– six times more likely to be murdered
– seven times more likely to be a murderer
– 84% of white victims were killed by white people
– 93% of black victims were killed by black people
Young (18 – 24) black males were 27% of all US homicide offenders in 2008 and when they represented 1% of the US population
Data for other crimes is similarly available in the USA.
No such data is published – as far as I can see – by any UK statistical body despite such data being collected.
To be honest those figures don’t really tell the story that those reporting want to be told…they are trying to suggest something that isn’t there and yet their own graphs, with a tiny bit of thought, highlight what other crime stats also highlight.
Span Ows says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:27 pm
this was in reply to another post that has disappeared.
I have found it hard to get any real facts of this case from the media. I have resorted to wiki, one point of the trial it reports is the forensic evidence of the angle of the shot and the way clothing would lay due to gravity. The evidence supporting Zimmerman’s version of events. Thus Martin was on top attacking. In bBC interviews, the bBC NEVER raise this point. There is another strange event and that is the girl who was talking on the phone to Martin and how the family lawyer did not tell her to go straight to the police.
The reporting of the trial, i.e. lack of detail, seems a typical lefty plan, so that unsubstantiated myths can be propagated. i.e. typically bBC.
BBC Stephen Nolan had a phone in about this last night. All the usual BBC techniques were used to steer the audience. The “wrong view” was talked over, cut short , faded out , interrupted,screened callers,the last word.
The Bishop was especially disgusting,all whites are racist bar him. America , Whites , The Jury, all racist.
The peculiar Stephen Nolan is a safe pair of hands for the BBC.
From 2:06.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036x3cd
Every media outlet sang the same song in Stalin’s Russia. Are you suggesting a consensus of the cowed is a Good Thing?
The threading on this comments section is bizarre. I’ve replied to Mr Stables’ disingenuous remark, but it appears a few comments above.
Mr Stables’ makes a disingenuous remark? How shockingly out of character.
Absolutely zero chance of the BBC reporting it but anyone who has taken an interest in the Zimmerman trial really should read this.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/ben-kruidbos-it-director-fired-headed-information-technology-for-the-state-attorneys-office
Since Ofcom can apparently go after the BBC for having Choudary on expressing extremist views after Lee Rigby’s
murderpossibly accidental running onto another man’s bread knife while he was cleaning his fingernails with it, seventeen times, backwards, with enough force to accidentally create a bit of distance between his head and his body (is that okay, lurking journalists and lawyers and defenders of the indefensible?), can Ofcom go after David Willis for his blatant lies about the Zimmerman trial, and the generally appalling, dishonest and misleading reporting on the entire story by the BBC?I’ll gladly write up a nice complaint full of evidence if the BBC legally falls under Ofcom’s scrutiny.
if i was politacaly correct and worked for the bbc i would describe mr zimmerman as a dark skinned white hispanic
On the Radio 4 “PM” prog’ at circa 17:45 today, Carolyn Quinn interviewing Clarence Jones (speech writer for Dr King among other things) about the Zimmerman / Martin verdict.
Jones said there was an “800-pound gorilla” [sic] in American living-rooms that everyone was trying to avoid mentioning: the race issue and Blacks. He said Zimmerman thought it was ok to shoot a young Black man wearing a hood. The USA needed a kind of truth and reconciliation process, as pioneered by Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
Leaving aside the fact that the BBC did not put up anybody to give any other view, Ms Quinn let Jones speak without challenge or interruption. No awkward questions were asked, such as: was Zimmerman acting in legitimate self-defence? Did Martin double back and attack him, rather than being stalked? Was Martin’s race the main factor until the media made it so? What would have happened to Zimmerman if he had not had a gun?
Here again was the BBC prejudging the issue and lazily signing up to the “Blacks as victims” narrative, without any effort at balance or even mention of the evidence revealed in court.