I’ve watched the interview with Darren Wilson and George Stephanopoulos and all I got out of it was anger. During the interview all I kept thinking was… Liar. And while I get why he lied (Hello? Ongoing Federal Investigation), what I don’t understand is why he gave the interview so soon. Why not wait? Did ABC pay him? Payment is the only excuse I can think of for doing this interview so quickly.
Here’s why I think he’s lying in the interview. I also think he lied to the Grand Jury, and I’ll get to that later. Okay, here’s the big lie:
Wilson repeatedly defended killing Michael Brown in August, saying he did what he was trained to do that day and that wouldn’t do anything differently. Later in the interview, Wilson told Stephanopoulos he had a clean conscience, though he said he regretted the loss of life.
and…
Stephanopolous: Guess it’s hard to have a normal life after someone is lying dead. Is it something you think that will always haunt you?
Wilson: I don’t think it’s a haunting, it’s just something that happened.
Wouldn’t do anything differently? It’s just something that happened? Seriously? To me these are appalling statements, unless you’re a sociopath – and I haven’t taken the sociopath theory off the table.
There are a ton of ways to show remorse without incriminating yourself. How about… I wish I hadn’t gotten out of bed that morning? I wish I hadn’t driven down that street? I wish things had turned out differently because taking a life, even though I had no choice, is something that will haunt me forever? See? It’s possible to show remorse without incriminating yourself, but Darren Wilson, in his own words, shows zero regret for taking a life. Sorry, but that leaves me with him being a liar or a sociopath. Hell, even people who end up killing their attacker have trouble coming to terms with killing someone – no matter how justified. Taking a life is a big, effing deal. But not to Wilson. To Wilson it’s just something that happened. Like the weather.
I hope it comes out that he was paid big bucks because that’s the only reason I can think of to justify him doing this interview so soon. That, at least, would make sense.
And when you look at his Grand Jury testimony it gets worse. Let’s start with this: Wilson testifies that his first words to Mike Brown and Dorian Johnson were, “Why don’t you guys walk on the sidewalk?”
Know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the times someone tells you about an argument they’ve had and how they present themselves as calm and reasonable while they portray the other person as hysterical. They even change their voice and tone when relating the other person’s words.
So, I’m not buying Wilson’s politely worded request, mainly because taking the time to confront kids walking in the flippin’ street paints him as someone looking to harass kids for a stupid reason.
Here’s more of this incident (Via TPM):
From the outset, Wilson’s testimony painted Brown as an angry young man. The officer testified that when he first approached Brown and his friend to tell them to walk on the sidewalk instead of in the middle of the road, Brown responded “fuck what you have to say.”
“It was a very unusual and not expected response from a simple request,” Wilson told jurors.
According to Wilson’s account, the officer swung his car around to contain Brown and Johnson and opened his door a few inches before Brown slammed it shut.
Wilson said Brown then started swinging at him through the window of his police cruiser. He described feeling “small” when he gripped Brown’s arm to try to stop the blows.
Why swing your car around to block them? What was the point of that move? How close to Brown and Johnson did he move the car? Did Brown “slam” the car door shut because Wilson’s car was close to him? Or did Brown run up to the car and slam the door? And then Brown starts swinging? Why? If we believe Wilson’s testimony (which I don’t) then it’s because Mike Brown is a crazy, Hulk Hogan demon – after all, Wilson has been nothing but polite.
Then there’s this testimony:
He immediately grabs my gun and says, “you are too much of a pussy to shoot me.”
But is this true? Did Mike Brown grab Wilson’s gun. Well… we’ll never know, because:
Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson’s gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown’s hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.
Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.” [emphasis mine]
Which is it? Was Wilson in control of his gun, or not?
And I haven’t even dealt with the “Demon/Hulk Hogan/ Feeling like a 5 year old comment. “It looked like a demon.” It? Really? And then there’s this:
Well, after the last shot my tunnel vision kind of opened up. I remember seeing the smoke from the gun and I kind of looked at him and he’s still coming at me, he hadn’t slowed down. At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn’t.
I shoot another round of shots. Again, I don’t recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again.
At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I’m shooting at him.
Well hell, if we believe this then Mike Brown was either a demon or a super hero, because only a demon or super hero would bulk up (grow in size?) to run through bullets. Maybe Wilson meant the Incredible Hulk, not Hulk Hogan?
“If only our legal system offered some way to publicly weigh the testimony of different eyewitnesses who contradict each other—a sort of “trial” of the evidence, if you will.” I can’t remember where I read this comment (Sorry), but he/she makes a valid point. There are too many unanswered questions. This case should have gone to trial.