What is Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson doing while the world watches the protests organized in response to his fatal shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown?
According to CNN's senior media correspondent Brian Stelter, Wilson is spending some of his time in off-the-record talks with "high-profile news anchors" at meetings so secret that the networks can't confirm they happened.
Only two anchors, CNN's Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper, have confirmed meeting with Wilson. But Stelter says Matt Lauer of NBC, George Stephanopoulos of ABC and Scott Pelley of CBS are also in hot pursuit of a sit-down interview featuring the elusive officer.
Reports of pre-interview talks between journalists and sources typically aren't (and shouldn't be) front-page news, but Wilson's case is unique. Since the August 9 shooting in Ferguson, Wilson has effectively disappeared from public view -- no small feat considering the cameraphone-wielding public on the lookout for a glimpse of him. Even when he testified in front of the grand jury in Clayton currently considering whether to indict him for Brown's death, no images surfaced of the 28-year-old officer.
Wilson's disappearing act is so complete, in fact, that St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch dropped five pending felony cases depending on his testimony. As Wilson proved last month, he won't even leave his hideout to testify against alleged criminals he's previously arrested.
See also: Without Darren Wilson's Testimony, St. Louis County Prosecutor Drops 5 Felony Cases
CNN anchors Cooper and Lemon took to Twitter Sunday to assure followers that there's nothing shady about their off-the-record meetings with Wilson. It's normal for reporters to meet with potential sources and negotiate possible interviews, they said.
Anderson says Wilson declined an interview with him.
Holy shitballs.
They had to drop FIVE pending felony cases over this guy??
What is Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson doing while the world watches the protests organized in response to his fatal shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown?
According to CNN's senior media correspondent Brian Stelter, Wilson is spending some of his time in off-the-record talks with "high-profile news anchors" at meetings so secret that the networks can't confirm they happened.
Only two anchors, CNN's Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper, have confirmed meeting with Wilson. But Stelter says Matt Lauer of NBC, George Stephanopoulos of ABC and Scott Pelley of CBS are also in hot pursuit of a sit-down interview featuring the elusive officer.
Reports of pre-interview talks between journalists and sources typically aren't (and shouldn't be) front-page news, but Wilson's case is unique. Since the August 9 shooting in Ferguson, Wilson has effectively disappeared from public view -- no small feat considering the cameraphone-wielding public on the lookout for a glimpse of him. Even when he testified in front of the grand jury in Clayton currently considering whether to indict him for Brown's death, no images surfaced of the 28-year-old officer.
Wilson's disappearing act is so complete, in fact, that St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch dropped five pending felony cases depending on his testimony. As Wilson proved last month, he won't even leave his hideout to testify against alleged criminals he's previously arrested.
See also: Without Darren Wilson's Testimony, St. Louis County Prosecutor Drops 5 Felony Cases
CNN anchors Cooper and Lemon took to Twitter Sunday to assure followers that there's nothing shady about their off-the-record meetings with Wilson. It's normal for reporters to meet with potential sources and negotiate possible interviews, they said.
Anderson says Wilson declined an interview with him.
Well least I have an idea for a new law - officers should not be able to profit from interviews surrounding the death of someone they have killed while on the force.
I will be mad as hell if the KKK or other ignorant people do dumb ish to taunt people. You know how they like to rub stuff in folks faces in the tackiest of ways.
Post by laurenpetro on Nov 24, 2014 16:53:46 GMT -5
guys, our new receptionist told me about the announcement. she immediately followed it with "i don't know why they had to bother that poor cop anyways."
guys, our new receptionist told me about the announcement. she immediately followed it with "i don't know why they had to bother that poor cop anyways."
fucking christ.
Someday you're going to hire good help. Sorry dude.
guys, our new receptionist told me about the announcement. she immediately followed it with "i don't know why they had to bother that poor cop anyways."
guys, our new receptionist told me about the announcement. she immediately followed it with "i don't know why they had to bother that poor cop anyways."
Post by sparrowsong on Nov 24, 2014 17:09:10 GMT -5
What is the strategy behind delaying an announcement until nightfall? I don't like stuff happening in the dark. I think it could make it worse. I almost wish they would just wait until the morning.
Does anyone clearly remember the LA riots following Rodney King? I remember it. I remember seeing air footage of the fires. I did not remember so many people had died during them. I was in high school and just oblivious then to what it all meant.
What is the strategy behind delaying an announcement until nightfall? I don't like stuff happening in the dark. I think it could make it worse. I almost wish they would just wait until the morning.
Does anyone clearly remember the LA riots following Rodney King? I remember it. I remember seeing air footage of the fires. I did not remember so many people had died during them. I was in high school and just oblivious then to what it all meant.
I don't understand nightime either. My guess is they are concerned about leaks and possibly some oot protesters not being able to get here with such short notice.
What is the strategy behind delaying an announcement until nightfall? I don't like stuff happening in the dark. I think it could make it worse. I almost wish they would just wait until the morning.
Does anyone clearly remember the LA riots following Rodney King? I remember it. I remember seeing air footage of the fires. I did not remember so many people had died during them. I was in high school and just oblivious then to what it all meant.
Partly due to the schools issue. One of the school districts presented a case, they have x# of school buses with x# of students (I forget the exact numbers) that pass through the major protest zone. If protests block the street, the buses cannot get through and then ahve to attempt to take side routes, etc. It takes longer for the kids to get home and they cannot guarentee the safety and have no way of communicating to parents these last minute changes or even give them an estimated time of arrival causing more drama and confusing then necessary. They requested after 4:30 so that buses can get students home and back to the depot.
Are kids in school this week? Maybe giving folks a chance to go home is a good idea.
Yes. Most schools are in session today and tomorrow. My kids are today, tomorrow and half day on Wednesday. We recieved an email to check our accounts in the am, but for now school is on.
The fact that they're delaying it so much tells me it's not good.
Is there any possible outcome that would be considered good? There is not going to be a murder one indictment and anything less is going to make people angry.
Post by sparrowsong on Nov 24, 2014 17:27:57 GMT -5
I thought they cancelled area schools mon and tues when they declared the state of emergency, with the rest of the week already being off for thanksgiving. Can't even remember where I saw that though.
I just don't like the darkness giving the vandals and trouble makers cover. And I don't like that it will be harder for people to film the interactions between cops and protestors.
The fact that they're delaying it so much tells me it's not good.
Is there any possible outcome that would be considered good? There is not going to be a murder one indictment and anything less is going to make people angry.
Not really but something, anything will mollify people to a degree. I'm thinking it's going to be nothing.
Is there any possible outcome that would be considered good? There is not going to be a murder one indictment and anything less is going to make people angry.
Not really but something, anything will mollify people to a degree. I'm thinking it's going to be nothing.
I think it is too, based on the evidence. But it's not even about this specific case anymore, which is why I don't think there is any possible positive outcome here.
I thought they cancelled area schools mon and tues when they declared the state of emergency, with the rest of the week already being off for thanksgiving. Can't even remember where I saw that though.
I just don't like the darkness giving the vandals and trouble makers cover. And I don't like that it will be harder for people to film the interactions between cops and protestors.
Regardless of what time the (presumably bad) announcement is made, people were going to protest all damn night. As well they should.
Do you really think that if the announcement was made at 2, people would just protest for a couple hours, then go home when it got dark at 5 pm, and that would be it?
As much as it pains me to say, pushing the announcement back a few hours isn't really the worst idea. Between people being very rightly upset at the findings, a violent and unstable police force drunk with the power of exoneration for their racist use of force, and the KKK planning on making an appearance, we are in for a very scary night. Let those who don't want to get caught in the crossfires get home or get out of the city.
Not really but something, anything will mollify people to a degree. I'm thinking it's going to be nothing.
I think it is too, based on the evidence. But it's not even about this specific case anymore, which is why I don't think there is any possible positive outcome here.
I agree.
Even in the best case scenario, there will still be protests. I mean, let's say there's a verdict that there's enough evidence to charge a cop with shooting an unarmed black teenager. A validation of those suspicions wouldn't make me feel relieved that someday, justice might be served, it would make me even more angry at the injustice that had already occurred.
Post by sparrowsong on Nov 24, 2014 17:49:10 GMT -5
True, it's gone for three months so of course it will go all night. I guess I'm just expecting some if the worst immediately following the announcement, if he walks that is. So tomorrow morning made more sense than late evening to me.
I thought they cancelled area schools mon and tues when they declared the state of emergency, with the rest of the week already being off for thanksgiving. Can't even remember where I saw that though.
I just don't like the darkness giving the vandals and trouble makers cover. And I don't like that it will be harder for people to film the interactions between cops and protestors.
Regardless of what time the (presumably bad) announcement is made, people were going to protest all damn night. As well they should.
Do you really think that if the announcement was made at 2, people would just protest for a couple hours, then go home when it got dark at 5 pm, and that would be it?
As much as it pains me to say, pushing the announcement back a few hours isn't really the worst idea. Between people being very rightly upset at the findings, a violent and unstable police force drunk with the power of exoneration for their racist use of force, and the KKK planning on making an appearance, we are in for a very scary night. Let those who don't want to get caught in the crossfires get home or get out of the city.
This is my thought. Even if you only anticipate peaceful protests, letting commuters get home from work and kids get home from school is STILL a smart idea to allow for minimal disruption.
The bottom of the local networks show all the pm closings and school closings for tomorrow, just like if a snow storm were coming. I'd take a snow storm over this unknown any day.