What a scoop for George Stephanopoulos and ABC News — getting an exclusive hour-long interview, no questions barred and no conditions — with Officer Darren Wilson.
I’m sure journalists all around the country, maybe the world, are tipping their hats to the former Bill Clinton adviser who jumped from politics to news after Clinton was elected to a second term in 1996.
I recall many journalists saying that Stephanopoulos’ had no qualifications for the move to journalism, and I, too, was very skeptical. That’s the way we hard-core, veteran news people are — suspicious of those who jump to the head of the line without having paid their dues.
But, by God, Stephanopoulos has certainly proved himself. He is a solid news person, both as an analyst and an anchor. No one is questioning his bona fides now.
…From the excerpts of the interview I have seen, Stephanopolous did a great job.
I was particularly impressed by Stephanopolous’ pointed question to Wilson about why he didn’t simply stay in the patrol car when Brown ran from the officer after Wilson had shot him in the thumb.
Wilson paused for a second and looked a little taken aback before answering: “My job is not just to sit and wait. I have to see where this guy goes.”
“So you thought it was your duty to give chase?” Stephanopoulos said.
“Yes it was. That’s what we were trained to do.”
I don’t know about that. I understand (but don’t necessarily agree with) law enforcement’s training of officers to shoot to kill, but I seriously doubt that they are trained to give hot pursuit after a fight and when the officer is no longer in danger.
Back-up support was on the way (and in fact arrived moments after the fatal shots were fired), and Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson (who, by the way, lied about what happened) wouldn’t have gotten very far before being apprehended. This isn’t deer hunting, after all, where you chase down the wounded prey, finish the job and toss the animal in the back of the pick-up.
So, why jump out of the car, pursue Brown and likely provoke (as occurred) further escalation?
Well, we all know why: Wilson had made a mess of the confrontation from the get-go, and by the time Brown took off running, Wilson was really pissed off and incapable of self-restraint. His mindset had been honed by being a small-town cop in a city where the cops were accustomed to running roughshod over young black men and imposing their wills.
…As I said yesterday, I do believe, considering all the evidence, that Wilson was justified in fatally shooting Brown, but only because Wilson let his emotions get the better of him and didn’t opt for discretion. When Brown stopped running and turned back toward Wilson and came at him menacingly, he made a terrible decision and a fatal mistake.
As I said in the previous post, I think a guy named Josh from New Jersey got it exactly right in a comment he posted on a New York Times story this morning.
Here it is again:
“What the courts and grand jury fail to address is the context of interaction that led to young man’s death. Any adult in a position of power who interacts with adolescents in today’s world needs to have a skill set that includes a tremendous amount of empathy and restraint. And for adolescents, essentially every adult represents someone in a position of authority. If you happen to be in law enforcement, consider that to be a position of particular importance and also one that requires tremendous skills in being able to talk with people, especially the most vulnerable and at-risk members of our society (which includes adolescents). I have no doubt that a more skilled, engaging, and community-connected officer in Ferguson would have had a completely different interaction with Michael Brown on August 9. The question as to whether there are officers like that in Ferguson and beyond is one that needs to be asked now and going forward.”
Amen, brother Josh. Amen.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
If I forget Thursday, Happy Thanksgiving, Fitz, you’re one of the reasons folks in Kansas City have to give thanks. By providing an open dialogue between people who might not ordinarily communicate with one another, you have taken a step towards decreasing the polarization that infests our society. Have a great day.
Thanks, John…I’ve learned a lot about blog administration the last four and a half years, particularly that, just like in society at large, tolerance and openness are important elements. You, Jason and others on the conservative side help keep a healthy balance of ideas and perspective…You all make me think about that other side when I’m writing. And, thankfully, there’s a lot to write about these days…
Happy Thanksgiving!
So are you saying that Wilson should have greeted a robbery suspect with a salutation and chit – chatted with him about the weather, before getting to the business at hand. Brown is completely responsible for what happened and what is still happening.
Wilson did call for backup before confronting Brown and Johnson, but how was he to know when help would arrive.
Hindsight is 20/20 Jim. You make a lot of assumptions, but you weren’t there. If Brown hadn’t resisted, he would have simply been taken into custody. Which is exactly what a police officer is supposed to do when confronting a robbery suspect. Brown had committed two assaults in less than a half hour. You don’t let a person walk away in that situation.
Difference in opinions, I guess.
At any rate, have a safe and happy Thanksgiving!
I’m shocked that you would misconstrue what I said, Jason. You must have started in on the stuffing 24 hours too soon and gotten too comfortable. Get back to work, where that incisive mind has to be “run” all the time.
But even if you have started early, Happy Thanksgiving. (Just stay away from the pro football tomorrow. We don’t need to be complicit in the promotion of a league that renders 28 percent of its players with early onset dementia and other brain-related problems.)
LOL Sorry for the misunderstanding, Jim. ;)
Oyster dressing is my choice over stuffing!
You’d sooner get me away from the turkey, than Football, but in the spirit of fairness, here’s a poke at one of your favorite sports…
If it is indeed true that the New York Times published Officer Wilson’s home address, they should be sued out of existence and their managers and editors put in prison. This is one of the most vile things I’ve ever heard of. If that doesn’t meet the definition of malice, I don’t know what would.
At first, I thought, “That’s impossible,” and fired off an angry reply to you. I apologize for that. Took it down in less than five minutes after getting my reporting legs under me and doing some Googling. What I found is that The Times published Monday a story that included the name of the street and St. Louis County suburb where Wilson or Wilson and his new wife (Ferguson police officer Barbara Spradling) own a home.
Here is the link to the story that reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson wrote… http://www.nytimes.com/news/ferguson/2014/11/24/quiet-wedding-for-darren-wilson-police-officer-in-ferguson-shooting/
The correction at the bottom refers to an image, which was published initially, of Wilson’s marriage license. The Times took down the image because it contained an address, although the address turned out to be the address of a location where the license was issued. The names of the street and city where the home is located were still up on the website, as of 11:36 a.m. today.
The Washington Examiner quoted a Times spokesperson as defending the publication by saying that the name of the street and the city had been “widely reported” elsewhere. Those reports came months ago, however, shortly after the shooting, when curiosity about Wilson, who hadn’t even been identified at that point, was at its peak. Now, in the wake of the “no true bill,” he is public enemy No. 1 for some people, along with St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch.
Two mitigating factors are that The Times did not publish the street address and that Wilson and Spradling moved out of the house shortly after the Aug. 9 shooting.
Still, I agree with you that this is a terribly irresponsible thing for The Times to do. The Times has a reputation for responsible reporting, and this doesn’t seems very inconsistent with The Times’ overall philosophy of taking care not to expose information that could lead to harassment or worse…It would be relatively easy, I would think, for reckless people to pin down the exact address. They could start by simply knocking on doors and asking people — and then go torch the house. From my calculations on Google Maps, it appears that the street is only about 500 yards long, with just two crossing streets along the way.
…I must say, however, that you’re wrong about the error meeting the definition of malice. The courts have defined that, for lawsuit purposes, as putting out information that is not only untrue but disseminated with malice — that is, with the intent to smear someone.
In my view, this is an egregious error in judgment by the reporters and editors. I am extremely disappointed in The Times, and I would bet that many editorial staff members are shaking their heads in disbelief.
One thing still unclear to me, Jim: why, with Brown unarmed, was Wilson fearing for his life? By the time Brown came charging at Wilson, the officer knew Brown was unarmed or Brown by then would have been shooting at Wilson. In all the coverage I’ve read and seen, this has never been made clear. I think it is because the coverage rarely has made clear that Brown was a giant of a man–6 foot 5 or taller and well over 250 pounds, In other words, the size of an NFL defensive lineman charging at him. Perhaps that’s why he feared for his life, even though he was the only one with a gun.
I read back around the time of the shooting (and included it in one of my posts) that Brown was 6-4 and 292 pounds. If that’s the case, I can understand how he looked like “Hulk Hogan” to the officer. And if Brown was indeed charging at him (that’s in dispute), I can see how Wilson feared for his life. I have no doubt, after seeing the video of the convenience store robbery, that Brown was riding high, so to speak, and feeling invulnerable.
My problem is with the actions and decisions Wilson made in the moments leading up to the shooting, not the shooting itself. He made many decisions, granted under great pressure, but I think his mindset was “I’ve got to win this confrontation whatever the outcome.” I think an officer with better judgment and urban experience would have been thinking, “How can I defuse this so neither he nor I dies?”
…I’d be very interested, Mike, to get your opinion on The New York Times’ decision to publish the name of the street and city where Wilson formerly lived.
I stand partially corrected: today’s NY Times has a lengthy story about Wilson’s testimony at the grand jury and how he feared for his life. But once again the story never offers the size of Brown. Wilson, it says, is 6 foot 4, a large man himself. As for the Times publishing the name of the street and city where Wilson formerly lived, I can’t imagine any journalistic reason to report that information.
How refreshing to read comments by those who respond to evidence rather than continue to flog a long deaad horse. if this damn thing had a thumb icon it would be up.
You’re de-aad right, John. (Two syllables, you know.)
I do not feel we should judge. I have lost a brother to murder. I forgave and pray for Gary’s murderer.
Exchanging opinions from blogs to the media is fine. But some of it is wasting time, after the sad incidents and the verdict not to indict the Police Officer was rendered.
The violence has slowed, thank God.
Likely on the horizon, an unfortunate Federal/political prosecution. And of course civil suits, books, documentaries and movies.
Jim,
I agree Stephanopoulos is proven as a television journalist.