Matthews says Zimmerman’s claims are obvious!

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2012

The dog that finally howled: We never thought we’d get the chance to criticize a cable talker for this.

But last night, Chris Matthews showed his all-around skill at bungling in all kinds of ways. As he started his 7 P.M. hour, he launched an absurd account of the killing of Trayvon Martin—an absurd account in which he simply assumed the validity of the claims which are being advanced by George Zimmerman.

Here’s the transcript of what he said. The videotape sounds much worse than the transcript reads. To watch this segment, click here:
MATTHEWS (4/11/12): It seems to me, if this case, this matter occurred as so many people believe it did, an incident involving a neighborhood watch person, in this case the defendant now, George Zimmerman, and this victim, of course, Trayvon Martin, he suspected, perhaps, this man of burglary or something or it’s, whatever he was doing, he said he was up to no good in the tapes.

Then the question is, How did the incident develop, how did the provocation lead to a fight of some kind physically, some kind of back and forth that led to this guy pulling his gun and shooting him?

Where does the issue of “reckless disregard” get in here? Isn’t it clear, based upon the defense, that he shot him in self-defense? Where is— Why does that involve “disregard” when he is obviously shooting to stop a person from hurting him badly? Where does the reckless disregard factor come in here?
This was quite a surprise! For one brief murky ridiculous moment, we actually had a major broadcaster pimping Zimmerman’s account of the case as if it was “obvious” and “clear,” beyond dispute, basically proven.

Isn’t it “clear,” Matthews asked, that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense? He went on to say that Zimmerman “obviously” shot Martin to avoid getting hurt badly.

Did Matthews mean to say these things? Did he mean to assert that the claim of self-defense is obvious? We don’t know, and he quickly dropped this posture.

But there you see the sort of bungled work which has been absent in the past month. One broadcaster after another has offered tortured narrations asserting the obvious truth of anti-Zimmerman claims and narrations. Here, for just one brief absurd moment, you saw Matthews bungling, as he so typically does—but bungling in the other direction.

Briefly, it was obvious, it was clear, that Zimmerman acted in self-defense!

That’s the dog that hasn’t howled over the course of the past month. Matthews was wrong when he howled this way, of course. Many others have been massively wrong when they’ve howled in the other direction.

23 comments:

  1. Although many people support the Stand your Ground law, especially the NRA, they consistently ignore that it carries a fatal flaw.

    It is this: When there are no eyewitnesses to corroborate the shooter's testimony, the State is not required to prove there was wrongdoing.

    The law should read that in every case, the homicide MUST be investigated as thoroughly as any other fatal shooting, and the physical evidence must corroborate the shooter's story, or he will be charged with a criminal offense.

    At least the state of Florida is realizing the flaw in this particular case, and starting a (belated) through investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed; otherwise a man could, say, leave a safe place like the interior of his locked car, with a loaded gun in his hand, chase down (huffing and puffing) an unarmed boy who had nothing but candy and soda in his hands, shoot the boy to death, and then claim -- as the sole survivor of the incident -- that the killing was in a "self-defense"/"stand-your-ground" scenario.

      But of course, "no-one could have imagined that outcome" from the Stand-Your-Ground law...

      ... no-one except all those armed people with violent temperaments who were looking for a License To Kill, and were finally handed one on a silver platter.

      Delete
  2. What I hear is Matthews playing devil's advocate for his "former U.S. attorney" guest.

    But I'm not as good a mindreader as Somerby, so I have really no idea what Matthews was babbling about.

    All I do know is that right now, it doesn't mean a single bean, let alone a hill of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. You'd think somebody who's been paying attention to media for as long as Somerby has would have grasped by now that people conducting interviews do this. There's an implied but quite obvious "if" in what Matthews said.

      But Matthews is one of the top guys in the other tribe, so Somerby attributes the worst possible characteristics to everything he does or says.

      Feh.

      Delete
  3. It isn't perfectly "clear" but it is obvious given the known evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Well, Angela Corey obviously disagrees. But then again, what does she know. She is obviously a "rube" who watches MSNBC where Lawrence O'Donnell deliberately misled her.

      Delete
    2. Oh well if Angela Corey disagrees.....

      Delete
    3. Yeah, what does she know? Obviously not nearly as much as people sitting on the sidelines, hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

      Delete
    4. nomatter_nevermindApril 13, 2012 at 3:26 AM

      I think Angela Corey knows she doesn't have a case.

      The governor of Florida will appreciate her proceeding anyway.

      Delete
    5. I have no idea what Angela Corey knows or what her motives might be. Nor will I pretend to "think" I do.

      All I know is Trayvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder.

      Delete
    6. Alan Dershowitz thinks Angela Corey is unethical and her affidavit is a steaming pile.

      Delete
  4. Quaker in a BasementApril 12, 2012 at 12:57 PM

    Briefly, it was obvious, it was clear, that Zimmerman acted in self-defense!

    That’s the dog that hasn’t howled over the course of the past month.


    Wait, what? Is this thing called "Fox News" only in my imagination?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quaker, did Fox News really say that it clear that Zimmerman acted in self-defense? Do you have a cite for this accusation?

      Delete
    2. nomatter_nevermindApril 13, 2012 at 4:18 AM

      I'm a right-winger (libertarian variety) and I don't care much for Fox News. I've caught a little of their coverage, and some of it, on Geraldo Rivera's show and a show with a host I didn't recognize, has been much like MSNBC's

      What I've seen on Bill O'Reilly's show has been even-handed (much as I hate to say anything good about that blowhard). It's only on Sean Hannity's show that I've seen frankly pro-Zimmerman coverage.

      As I've said, I don't want see much of Fox News, and hardly at all in the daytime.

      Delete
  5. Come on Howler...I expect better from you guys. This is Breitbart-type BS. "Clearly" Mathews is addressing Zimmerman's defense NOT what Matthews believes or endorses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kind of agree with you, FA. However, Matthews' way of speaking is so loose that many watchers probably interpreted his comments as Bob did. Intentionally or not, Matthews did misinform people.

      BTW, although I'm on the opposite side politically from Willie Brown, I must compliment his presentation. It was impressive.

      Delete
  6. No one ever knows what Chris Matthews is babbling about, including Chris Matthews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly!

      So the only possible conclusion on the planet where Bob Somerby now resides is that Matthews is saying exactly what Somerby thinks he is saying.

      Delete
  7. Give it a rest with Matthews, Bob. Your blind hatred makes you incapable of evaluating what he says, and frankly grossly undermines your credibility when you rail about tribalism in *other people*.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make me sad, gyrfalcon. Only because your comments mad me watch that segment. Oof. A previous comment said that Matthews was playing devil's advocate, and I agree. But within a presentation, whichever side one is arguing for, some details are given more weight based upon how disputed they are. In my viewing, Matthews was awful in this regard. His voicing did imply that certain facts were clear that most observers would at least concede were still in doubt.

      What I thought was brutally bad about that piece was the cloying visuals. The slow pans, the soft focus, the enhanced photos made it seem like a Lifetime made-for-TV movie.

      Delete
    2. "In my viewing, Matthews was awful in this regard."

      Now there's a shock!

      Delete
  8. Worth it to read article. Esp. the actual stands accustomed to secure the head. I would not have noticed it alone. Must look carefully at aged photographs to determine this specific characteristic.

    ReplyDelete