By Scott Sobel, MA Media Psychology

Accused Tulsa Deputy Appears Live on TODAY Show

When making crisis public relations decisions and advising attorneys, affected clients and others should always do a risk/reward analysis. In the high-profile Tulsa video that recorded the volunteer deputy shooting case, the risk of putting the defendant on a live TV interview far outweighed the possible rewards, in my estimation, and in the estimation of at least one former prosecutor who heard about the event.

Accused of second-degree manslaughter, reserve Tulsa County deputy Robert Bates said live on the Today Show last week that he had heard of other officers around the country pulling their guns and shooting suspects by mistake instead of grabbing their Taser stun guns. Bates stood up on camera and showed NBC’s Matt Lauer that his Taser was secured on his chest a few days ago when he accidently reached for his gun and killed fleeing suspect Eric Harris who was being held down by other officers. Bates showed the TV audience his Taser was secured in a holster on his chest and his gun was holstered a distance away on his hip. His attorney sits next to him in silence.

After reporting on police matters for years as a journalist, I can’t remember a suspect involved in such a serious crime ever giving a live interview so soon after an incident and actually reenacting part of the incident. Amazing! I spoke to one former major U.S. prosecutor today who told me that the live interview would no doubt be a huge problem for the defense during a trial and that prosecutors will have a field day picking apart Mr. Bate’s TV interview, especially if they can get him on the witness stand.

Let’s look at the PR risk and reward though:

Risk. Defendant provided fodder for prosecution that also is a PR nightmare.

Showing the distance between his gun and Taser leads any reasonable person to see that the defendant grabbing his Taser instead of his gun was either deliberate or a mistake in judgment showing he should never have been along on any police incident, especially if he was armed. The defendant says his job when participating in police incidents was to clean up, take notes, and photographs – then why was he armed and able to make such an egregious mistake? Bates also stated live on camera that he heard of many other cases where officers grabbed Tasers instead of guns and then Bates says he couldn’t understand how that could happen (although he adds he knows now that could happen to anyone)? That statement raises the question in anyone’s mind … exactly, how did that happen to you since you said you were so highly trained?

Another key point on the interview is where Bates told NBC’s Matt Lauer that before the shooting he yelled “Taser, Taser”  and then he said, “the deputy below me ducked so I could (used my Taser).” Why is the volunteer deputy with duties to take photos, notes and cleanup even thinking about using a Taser during an arrest when the suspect is already in the process of being subdued? A lot of PR and legal explaining to do as the case goes forward.

There are a number of other very risky statements and visuals surrounding this live interview including credibility and believability. Of course, Bate’s family is around him, being supportive but how does Bate’s appear? Grief stricken. Deeply affected. Sorry. Bates says he has been deeply affected by the incident and apologizes to the victim’s family but some will undoubtedly question his demeanor and some will certainly question sincerity. If he testifies months or years from now, how will his performance look different than his TV interview? Does he do more interviews? Do the public – a potential jury pool – and a judge perceive him as putting on a road show for the media and is his sincerity during the interview contrived? Was he upset enough to meet the taste test of every audience?

Rewards. Defendant showed unfiltered willingness to talk the truth in front of a live audience and an arguably independent journalist.

Mr. Bate’s presentation is really in the eye of the beholder and his willingness to do this interview will be seen by supporters as being a positive. Those who are skeptical already or those on the fence could be swayed into his corner.

The interview also showed Bates as being unafraid of being questioned because he is telling the truth and not hiding anything. Some might also believe he was not prepped by NBC News before the interview and was willing to take questions as they came, a good perception if one holds that view after the interview.

On balance though, I believe common-sensically, the risks far outweighed the rewards for Bates to do a live interview, especially so soon after the shooting. There are just too many perception and legal downsides. Even if the judgment by the defendant and his counselors is that Bates is in a nothing to lose situation and why not do this interview, I say that kind of action could have been delayed for another time after we all see how the story plays out, after the kind of media coverage and legal actions become apparent.

I’m sure the gates have opened even wider for the flood of interview requests to the Bate’s family. What do the defense and counselors do now? Have they painted themselves into a media corner where they have forever made enemies because of  the NBC’s “get?”

Risks v. Rewards in this case? The choice for the live interview was a PR blunder. It remains to be seen if legal and other outcomes support that opinion as the white-hot glare of media scrutiny continues for probably a very long time unless some unexpected, or unfortunate, occurrence takes place.