Recently released documents reveal Rochester (NY) police delayed release of body cam video of the arrest of Daniel Prude — who died of asphyxia a week later — fearing it would be misinterpreted and spark violent street protests based on a false narrative.
Does the public’s right to know trump public safety? Who decides what we can handle? Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren fired Chief La’Ron Singletary and sidelined seven officers as the case proceeds.
Background Resources:
Documents Reveal How Police Kept Daniel Prude’s Death Quiet
[The New York Times, September 15, 2020]737 Max Report Scorches: Does Capitalist Greed Kill, and Government Regulation Save Lives
[Bill Whittle Now, September 17, 2020]
Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8RSJxR-fI
Listen to the Audio Version
Bill Whittle Network · Protect or Serve? Rochester Police Hid Daniel Prude Video Fearing Violent Protests
2 replies on “Protect or Serve? Rochester Police Hid Daniel Prude Video Fearing Violent Protests”
In most cases the police release as little information as possible so as not to jepordize the case presented to the court later. Just because you have a right to information doesn’t mean you have a right to it right now.
I think a lot of police departments need to have their spokespeople at press conferences say “The justice system is not Twitter and does not respond in 5 second increments. The information will be available at the proper time, and justice does not care about your bottom line, prurient interest, followers’ clamoring for fresh blood on the sawdust.”
Bill at 2:54: “They can know later … right now it will get people killed”
I agree with that idea; as the public we need to know things to eventually hold our government accountable, but not necessarily in today’s news cycle. I could see where some legislation (probably at the state level) could allow the police/law enforcement to withhold such information for a specified time (say up to 30 days), with the ability to extend that restrictions for up to 2 more 30 day periods with the concurrence of a judge.
I also agree with Bill’s comment about taking the information to a judge for adjudication as to the merit of a public release; sort of a search warrant in reverse, where the public’s right to know (search and seize) about public action, etc., is temporarily curtailed. I could see releasing something sooner to the family and/or their attorney, but with a judge’s restriction not to make it public until date X, where X might be specified or still TBD.
I could also see where releasing or not releasing some information during an election cycle and near the election date might justify some modest deviations from the standard situation, but then I prefer to have a 3 judge panel making that decision, rather than just one judge, to minimize charges of politicization. [I gather in some cases judges are themselves elected and in other cases they are appointed and approved some how.]
“erg of energy” a phrase I have not heard in a long time