Police and Political Commentary
Traditionally, police kept their opinions about political matters, judges, elected officials, and suspects private. They no longer do that and that creates harm to the community.
There is a wall between the police and the expression of political opinions. This separation has been maintained to guard against the corruption of police personnel by elected officials. For example, police personnel are prohibited, by NYS law, from soliciting campaign contributions. Police may not wear political buttons, pins, or insignia on their person while on duty. Political bumper stickers cannot be displayed on police vehicles. Police are supposed to withhold their political opinions while exercising their duties. Police are also supposed to be neutral about the people they arrest. They are not supposed to try to influence public opinion about judges or other elected officials. Currently they are doing all of that.
There is a trend of police officials talking with local news media and on social media during which they inform us of crimes, suspects, and their political opinions. The expression of these opinions negatively impacts police community relations and can create problems for the District Attorney’s Office at trial.
The Twitter account “RPLC Safety Information for Rochester” (Rochester Police Locust Club) is very active. Tweets regularly disclose the names of those arrested, their birthdates, details about arrest records, and the names of judges who grant release without bail. While the police can no longer offer the media an arrestee’s mug shots, they are offering a wealth of other information, most of it intended to damage the person’s credibility.
Repeatedly the police present themselves as the heroes and the suspects as the villains. They blame judges and call them out by name when they release people without bail. They are insinuating that the judges are wrong when they release people back into the community without bail. This is false: the judges are abiding by the law.
The community supports bail reform whereas the police are opposed to it. Some police officers have forgotten that people posted bail prior to bail reform and not all arrests required bail. Often people were arrested and given appearance tickets.
People are not guilty of the crimes they are arrested for until they are found guilty. RPD would have us believe that everyone they arrest is guilty of every crime they are arrested for. Additionally, they believe that we, the community, would be better off if folks sat in jail until they were found guilty.
This belief promotes a system that is unjust. People arrested are considered innocent until proven guilty. Individuals sitting in jail for months, if not years, will very likely lose their jobs, apartments, relationships, vehicles, and private property. These losses are often insurmountable. It is extremely difficult for wage earners to dig themselves out of this financial hole. (Given the number of people arrested in the city, how has this contributed to poverty?)
On October 12, 2021, Chief Cynthia Herriott-Sullivan held a press conference about a police officer killing Mr. Simran Gordon at the Family Dollar store. The Media Release itself is innocuous on its face, but her additional comment at the presser was incendiary. She said that the man killed was a suspect in three homicides. When pressed about which three, she responded that she could not offer details. If he was really a suspect then he should have been arrested. Apparently, there was not enough evidence to arrest him. Since there was not enough evidence to make the arrest then he really was not a suspect. This comment will harm the prosecution of the three homicides.
She painted Mr. Gordon as “bad” person. The “good” guys made the right call and therefore we should not be upset by it nor should we question their judgement. It was an incident that requires nothing from the community. She wants us to turn our heads away from and accept her explanation at face value.
On October 17, 2021, Chief David Smith issued a media release in which there are details about a tragic car accident. This accident involved a stolen car which was traveling at very fast resulting in the death of an. Innocent bystander who had nothing to do with the stolen car and the hospitalization of five people. The media release also reported that one of the people who allegedly stole the car was arrested last month and was involved in three other stolen car cases over the last two years.
One of the suspects in the stolen car had three outstanding warrants. Apparently, the chief does not see the police culpability in this instance. They could have arrested this individual before the accident.
A few days later Captain Frank Umbrino, emboldened by the current chief and previous chief, spoke to local media about this incident. The highly publicized portion of what he said is on Twitter. He used it to attack elected officials. He said that county legislators and city council people don’t talk to these families and therefore do not understand the pain these families experience. Elected officials are part of the community, they do talk to families, and they know them. They also know their pain and struggles daily.
Captain Umbrino went on to say that it is the policy decisions being made that lead directly to deaths. Legislators have “blood on their hands”. He declared at the closing that he was not there to be politically correct but to speak the truth. What he does not recognize it that his truth is not the only truth.
What the police don’t realize is that they are capable of radicalizing people against their own best interests. They do not see their role in the current anti-police attitude. People become anti-police when they are treated unfairly and when others who they identify with look like them are mistreated.
The police say they want community cooperation, but they do not comprehend that cooperation is a two-way street. They are not cooperating with the Police Accountability Board because they do not trust the community. The entire job of the police is around accountability, but not for them, only us. They are satisfied with their current level of non-accountability.
People do not talk to the police because they do not trust them. There has to be mutual respect, there isn’t. When police use rhetoric like “blood on their hands” or “he was the suspect in three homicides” they are telling us that they are not part of the community nor do they want to be.
I felt compelled to offer my own opinion on what I saw in the media because I am a retired Rochester Police Department officer. I worked in the department, and lived in the city, for 22 years rising to the rank of deputy chief. I am a city resident today and my views on the police come from my experiences as both a consumer and provider of police services. It is an unusual, but not unique, perspective.
BWC video indicates Mark Gaskill was holding his phone as police shouted "gun"
The Rochester Police Department shot and killed 28-year-old Mark Gaskill of Rochester early Friday morning. According to the RPD, the ShotSpotter alarm went off in the general area, indicating that a gun may have been shot. The RPD then pulled over a car with Gaskill in the backseat and began questioning the driver and front passenger. Both stated that they were driving to the hospital because the driver was pregnant and experiencing pains. After about 15 minutes, one of the officers asked to open the back door to talk with Gaskill who had been on his cell phone for most of the stop. As the officer opened the door, he suddenly shouted "there's a gun", at which point the officers fired at least 9 times at the car. Gaskill was pronounced dead on the scene.
After the shooting, the RPD claimed that Gaskill was "brandishing" a handgun, but it's unclear what that means. Are they saying that he was he holding the gun or that a gun was visible in the car? It's extremely unlikely that he was pointing the gun at anyone since the RPD has not specifically said that.
The police released body worn camera footage from the incident during the weekend. The BWC footage does not conclusively tell the story of what happened inside the car, however an analysis of the video seems to indicate that Gaskill was still holding his cell phone when the officers began yelling "gun". Presented below are still frames from the video WROC posted to YouTube.
Just before the fatal shooting, Gaskill can cleary be seen holding his phone. At this point one of the officers can be heard saying, "You good if I open this door to talk to you?" (timecode 24:33:09).
At that point, the camera shakes as the officer moves to open the door. The next frames that show Gaskill are blurry and difficult to see, but position of his hands appears very similar to how you would hold a phone. Also, the object in his hand certainly seems phone-shaped. It's not clear from these images if one or two hands are holding the object, but when viewed frame-by-frame it certainly seems like two hands. The officer begins shouting "gun" right when these images were captured (timecodes 24:54:81 and 24:54:85)
After this point, the camera goes shakey again as the officer runs for cover as other officers open fire and kill Gaskill. At the end of the footage, one officer goes into the car with evidence gloves on, presumably to retrieve a gun, although I couldn't see what they took out when watching the video.
I'd like to note again that the footage is difficult to intepret and the video quality is not ideal -- especially since it has been re-encoded for YouTube. Rochester Indymedia has made a FOIL request to the City of Rochester for a copy of the original file.
How the NY Attorney General's defended the police who killed Daniel Prude
Earlier this month, the NY state Attourney General's office released the transcripts of the grand jury trial investigating the death of Daniel Prude. While reading through them, I was reminded again and again of a Noam Chomsky quote: "In political discourse every term has two meanings: an official meaning and it's opposite and it's the opposite meaning that's normally used". The official title for the lawyers from the NY Attorney General's office was "prosecutor", but the reality was they acted as the defense for the police. A dig through the transcripts shows how they did it.
Present Highly Questionable Evidence as Fact
The prosecutors presented Dr. Gary Vilke as one of their two expert witnesses. Vilke's is a highly controversial researcher that frequently provides testimony in defense of the police. He has testified in dozens of cases where suspects have died while being restrained by the police. Vilke nearly always finds the same result: the police officers did nothing wrong. Vilke has stated that it was doubtful that Derick Chauvin's actions caused George Floyd's death, whch was highly disputed by the expert witness for the prosecution in that trial. In the grand jury trial for Daniel Prude's death, Vilke testified that the police were justified in their actions as expected, but didn't stop there. He further claimed that it was basically impossible for them to be at fault, because it is always safe for human beings to have up to 225 lbs of weight on their backs for over four minutes. He followed than one up with the even more unbelievable claim that the police were actually helping Daniel Prude.
Vilke testified along with many others about "excited delirium." Like Vilke himself, this medical syndrome is surrounded in heavy controversy. Excited delirium is not recognized by vast majority of medical professionals, including the American Psychiatric Association and American Medial Association. Critics of the term argue that it should be called "sudden death in restraint syndrome", since it's frequently used to explain deaths that happen while police or other authorities are restraining someone. They also point out the parallels between traits of excited delirium and stereotypes of black people used to justify violence against them: super-human strength, immunity to pain, animalistic behavior, etc. Finally, they point to the term's dubious history. Medical examiner Charles Wetli, a promoter of the modern use of the term, claiming that excited delirium killed 32 black women in 1980s Miami. Many of the women work were sex workers and Welti told journalists the women died from having sex during excited delirium (although males were never affected). In 1992 police identified the serial killer who actually killed the 32 women.
Many other outlets have already done excellent stories on these issues. Vilke was discussed in the Evan Dawson interview with attorneys Natalie Ann Knott and Don Thompson. Current Affairs also recently published a great article on excited delirium.
Let the Police Tell Their Narrative
The grand jury transcripts contain hundreds of pages of testimony from the police. Almost all of them involve the police simply telling their point of view, with little to no pushback or aggressive questioning from the prosecution. This invited the jury to see the world through the eyes of the police. In this world the Bad Guys frequently escape handcuffs while being pinned to the ground and the police pin people to the ground for their own safety. The prosecution's role was generally to assist the police in constructing this narrative by asking helpful questions. In some cases they redirected questions from the jury so that the answers could fit the narrative.
Of course, the attorneys still had the official title of "prosecutor," so they needed to at least act like they were doing their official job. At some point they needed to ask some tough questions.
There are a couple things to note about this line of questioning. One is that it was extremely rare. The there was over 150 pages of testimony from the two accused officers, maybe 20 pages of that consisted of questions like these. There were also testimony from around 20 other police officers and they never faced tough questioning. Secondly, this questioning seemed to be solely focused on issues that didn't affect the guilt or innocence of the officers. The above example tries to establish that the officers weren't empathetic enough, but the prosecution's case doesn't rest on that question. The critical questions, which were given as jury instructions after all testimony was over were: 1) were the officer's actions part of a chain of causes that resulted in Daniel Prude's death? 2) was the officer's use of force justified because it was necessary to effect the arrest? There were plenty of critical questions that could have been asked along those lines, but the prosecution focused elsewhere.
Mixed in with the tough questions were more questions designed to help the officers construct their narratives. For example this question where the prosecutor and officer construct a narrative together where the police always need to "control" a suspect, since any signs of complains could just be fake.
Distract From the Autopsy
The medical examiner's first finding on the autopsy report was "Complications of asphyxia in the setting of physical restraint." This could be quite damaging to the police officer's defense so the prosecution highlighted the other findings on the autopsy report: excited delirium and PCP intoxication. The argument was basically that all of the things should be weight equally since any of them could potentially kill someone. The medical examiner seem very happy to go along.
This argument ignores a couple of serious issues. The first one is the specifics of what happened to Daniel Prude. Danial Prude was not simply "restrained", he was pushed face down into the pavement on a freezing cold day and held there even after the police noticed that he was having medical issues. The second is it ignores the key medical question: was the police's pinning of Danial Prude part of a chain of causes that resulted in his death? Theoretical questions like "can PCP kill someone" are irrelevant to that question. The prosecution choose to not to ask this question to the medical examiner. In theory the jury could have asked a question like that, but they were not informed of its importance until all testimony was over.
Ignore the expert witness testimony of police misconduct
The last piece of evidence that the prosecutors needed to deal with was the testimony of Geoffrey Alpert, a PhD of criminology. Alpert is not "anti-police" in any sense, but he does have mild criticisms of them. For example in an Atlantic article he pushed for ending qualified immunity, better data collection, and more police training. Alpert testified that the police actions were "unreasonable and against police practice," in other words they were unlawful. According to Alpert, the police behavior has reasonable at the start of the arrest, but once they officers had Daniel Prude on the ground, with his legs controlled, there was no more reason to pin him down and he should have been moved to the "recovery position" on his side. He further argued that once Daniel Prude was vomiting on the ground there was "no excuse" for not rolling him over on his side.
The main way the prosecution dealt with this was to ignore it. They didn't dwell on Alpert's statement that the actions were "unreasonable and against police practice." They didn't use his arguments to question the police officers. For example, they would ask "have you ever seen someone in handcuffs escape," rather than "how likely is it that Daniel Prude would have escaped if you would have rolled him over and held him by his legs." In general, they just dropped the themes of his argument, in contrast to things like excited delirium and PCP which they brought up over and over.
No Idictments
The jury voted 15-5 in favor of no charges for any of the police officers. Would this be different if the prosecution employed a different strategy? That is an open question. What is abundantly clear though is the strategy that Letitia James' Attorney General's office employed was not designed to indict anyone. The strategy was designed to defend the police and, in this case, it worked.
Hats off to Kropotkin!!
Facebook Posts Lead to Federal Rioting Charges for Justice for Daniel Prude Protester
- A link to a Huff post article, with the comment “burn this shit to the fucking ground”.
- A recipe for a Molotov cocktail, with extra steps: light wick, aim at cop, throw.
- A greeting of “Good morning to everyone ready to burn this whole fuckin country to the ground”
- An smiley face emoji holding a Molotov cocktail
- A profile picture with the words "Antifacist Action". This was an anti-fascist/anti-racist organization active in the 80s and 90s and disbanded in 2001.
- A picture of them dressed in black with a helmet and goggles. Wearing black is a common protest tactic used by many groups who want to avoid personal identification. Wearing a helmet and goggles is common sense when the police are shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at the crowd.
- A circle-A picture and the words and "Anarco-communist". Anarchism is a political wide-ranging political philosophy that is general opposed to facism. Some strands of anarchism advocate violence for political ends, while others advocate pacifism.
Youth Sports Leagues, Personnel Files, and Journalistic Peddling of Copaganda
During a summer of citizens uprising against the racist Rochester Police Department, as well as against police departments across the world, Rochester's Democrat & Chronicle is demonstrating whose side they are on. On Aug. 22, Rochester's only daily circulated newspaper published a story by James Johnson on two youth sports organizations who reached out to, rather than turned their backs on, RPD officers. The piece detailed an annual local youth basketball clinic. This year the clinic includes members of the RPD. Also named in the piece is the Rochester Hispanic Youth Baseball League, which received recruiting and suggestions from an RPD Crime Prevention Officer. RPD Officer Moses Robinson wrote to the paper the initiative "demonstrates the close working relationships between the Rochester Police Department and our community partners," and, "We believe that to increase the law enforcement community policing concept, sports interaction will help with that introduction."
The article quotes a city firefighter, who received an invitation to the annual basketball clinic; "With the current climate that we have, it's good that we facilitate positive interaction through sports with our community and our youth," and that, "It's been a lot of negative behind police officers, in general. If people are talking about the bad, then we have to highlight the good."
Nine days later, the D&C published a story by Will Cleveland detailing RPD Chief Laron Singletary's personnel file. The story described the personnel file as portraying Singletary as "patient and professional," and that, "Two decades worth of monthly and yearly appraisals portrays Singletary as a compassionate and dedicated police officer." Singeltary, who in the past served as Deputy Chief of Community Engagement, as well as the Community Affairs Bureau, is depicted as the ideal well-rounded officer.
Like other depictions across the nation, these fluffy stories describe positive interactions between community members and police, while painting officers as wholesome community servants. The problem with these stories, as noted by leading abolitionist lawyer Alec Karakatsanis, is that the reports are anecdotal when compared to the brutal nature of our nation's carceral state, as well as when compared to vast depictions of officers brutalizing community members long before, leading up to, during, and after protests.
For example, the past summer saw countless documents of use of force by the officers during protests. One only needs to look back on May 30 to see RPD's brutal response to local community members. RPD violently and indiscriminately shot pepper balls into a crowd and sprayed chemical gas on protestors to disperse "the rowdy crowd."
As Karakatsanis writes, politicians respond to these brutal acts, and subsequent good press from 'good cops’ by, "pledging more recruitment and training of 'good cops,' better 'community policing' practices, and rewritten ‘use of force’ policies. These pledges are then followed by increases in police budgets after the unrest subsides. The police bureaucracy keeps expanding, and police keep killing Black people.” Unsurprisingly, leaders in Rochester are calling for these exact policy changes.
Local Reverend Lewis Stewart called for allocating more resources to training RPD officers through the “reallocation of resources” as a response to the ongoing protests and calls to defund the police. City Council Vice-President Willie Lightfoot pushed back at the notion of defunding the police stating, “I'm talking to citizens every day. They're not telling me to defund no police. They're calling me to say you better not defund our police”. Mayor Lovely Warren stated the city should not defund the police but that her goal was to work in partnership to uplift the community while also improving police and community relationships. She also, now infamously, stated, “…I can tell you that by light years Rochester is ahead of the curve and we will continue to do what is necessary to make sure that our community feels safe and that our officers feel safe…”
According to Karakatsanis, “This cycle is the result of the gulf between the image and the reality of the role that police serve in our society. In order to preserve the massive (and profitable) policing bureaucracy in this country, police must conceal what they actually do on a systemic level.” The positive stories published by the D&C provide additional shade for the policing bureaucracy feedback loop. The two pieces place neatly into the former half of the feedback loop, which calls for additional ‘community practices’ and ‘good cops.’ The stories emphasize hollow interactions between police officers and youth athletes and uplifts the mythical ideal cop, who sports constructive qualities for the community. The writeups, of course, never mention the brutal subjection of policing, which is akin only to that of a colonizing army.
Take the youth sports story as an example. The story presents officers as aiding several community sports organizations. The story never mentions the cases of David Vann, Benny Warr, Sylvester Pritchett, or any other victim of the same police force that brutalizes black bodies for merely living in that same community.
Additionally, author James Johnson, in paraphrasing the basketball clinic’s director, gloomily states, “Latino and Black men and women are going to remain a part of the community in Rochester. And no matter what reforms take place, there will be a police department in the city.” Such a statement purposely or ignorantly ignores the current uprisings across the nation, in which police departments face mass disinvestments. Such a view ignores the continuing rallies in Rochester that are calling to defund the RPD. If there were ever a time when police departments could cease to exist, now would be that time. The take it or leave it notion of police-community relationships also means trust is not the intention, but rather compliance.
The coverage of Laron Singeltary’s personnel file is another example of this disturbing copaganda. Mentioned in the story are Singeltary’s positive traits as assessed by RPD superiors over the past two decades. Not mentioned in the coverage is the fact that RPD cleared only 27% of crimes during Singeltary’s first year as Chief. Although 2018 and 2019 data are not available, 2017 data indicates only half of gun homicides and 20 percent of gun assaults in the City of Rochester result in arrest.
Also not mentioned is the fact that Singeltary sustained only 19% of allegations against officers, while 61 allegations of excessive force were filed during his first year as Chief. In fact, in 2019, only 1% of excessive force complaints were sustained or determined by a preponderance of the evidence that alleged misconduct occurs. The 61 allegations of excessive force did not include the 83 other claims of procedure, courteously, and other misconduct. The 144 total allegations equate to under 3 allegations per week. All the while, Singeltary states he ought to be the sole power to discipline. [Note the total number of allegations is almost certainly inaccurate, given the abundance of missing data in the criminal justice system].
Additionally, Karakatsanis mentions that while various police chiefs, such as in our case Chief Singeltary, have risen through the ranks throughout the decades, the US cages Black people at far higher rates than South Africa at the height of Apartheid. The personnel story makes sure to document Singeltary’s rise, mentioning Singeltary’s long-term goal of “excelling to the highest rank I can.” By not citing any condemnation, such as the low clearance rate or the lack of substantiation of allegations, as well as the story’s general absence of criticism towards policing, the D&C is providing credulously positive coverage of the department and its Chief.
What is peculiar about the coverage of Singeltary’s personnel file is the framing of how the newspaper received the records. Cleveland mentions the D&C filed more than 60 open request records with the city of Rochester to gain access to police personnel files and that most are still pending. Not mentioned are police unions fighting journalists and the NYCLU from receiving those same records. Nor is it mentioned that 60 open request records are a drop in the bucket compared to the several hundred on-duty officers per year. RPD had 500 police officers in 2019, with 660 total officers in its Operations department. Compare this to the ACLU of NY, which filed a FOIL for every police officer in the RPD, and one can see that the paper is dedicating little in comparative investigative coverage to the personnel files.
To D&C’s credit, the newspaper published a recent story critical of two officers’ personnel records. However, digging into the account reveals more of the newspaper’s peddling of police nonsense. The D&C published a story by Cleveland showcasing the records of two toxic officers previously lauded by the Mayor and Chief of Police. The toxic records include one of the officers damaging six fleet vehicles in thirty-six months, while the other officer was suspended multiple times.
The incident tying the two officers together was the arrest, and eventual dropped charges, of a person during a “routine patrol." Cleveland writes, “during the ensuing confrontation, a loaded handgun was knocked to the ground and the officers eventually gained control of it.” Charges were dropped after a judge found the officers had no probable cause for stopping the individual. The officers also did not turn on their body cameras during the confrontation.
Conspicuously not linked nor mentioned in the officer’s personnel records story is the D&C’s initial writeup of the arrest. Published Jul. 24, 2019, the initial writeup contains the disgusting headline, “Convicted felon charged after scuffle leaves two cops injured.” Written by Cleveland and Victoria Freile, the writeup reads like a press release for the cops. Neither the defendant nor witnesses are interviewed for the story. The police are quoted eight times in the initial report, with direct quotes making up 94 words and officer paraphrases making up 84 words. In total, police speak 178 out of 427 words, or about two-fifths of the story. The headline labels the innocent-until-proven-guilty defendant a convicted felon. The newspaper suspiciously mentions their past charges, even though the past felony is seemingly independent of the alleged act.
This initial writeup is uninterrupted coverage for the cops. The writeup never questions the veracity of the alleged weapon, even though the department has a credible history of planting weapons on victims. The writeup never examines the merits of the suspected ‘scuffle,’ even though RPD has a history of violence against community members.
Even the newspapers revealing story on the dropped charges is oddly written. Written by Cleveland, the report paraphrases the defendant's Attorney as stating, “once [Judge] Moran decided to suppress the gun as evidence, the Monroe County District Attorney's Office asked for a monthlong adjournment to research whether it could appeal the decision. The DA's Office decided not to move forward at a Dec. 19 hearing and that's when Guerrieri and his co-counsel, Melissa Wells-Spicer, asked for the charges to be dismissed. Moran agreed.” The paraphrased quote frames the charges as dropped after the DA's Office vaguely decided not to move forward a month after the suppression of the gun as evidence and the cops not turning on their body cameras.
The problem of this framing comes to light when one takes the time to read the transcript of the case. Judge Moran ruled the officers had no probable cause for stopping the defendant. The case was initially dismissed because of this lack of probable cause [“My ruling is this. There was no probable cause. Your case is dismissed unless the People want to do something about it in the future”]. The DA could not move forward because there was no evidence to move forward, not because they vaguely ‘decided not to move forward.’ The DA had no case, as the officers admittedly stopped the defendant even though the defendant had not committed a crime. [ “Q. He was talking with him, right? What did my client do? A. He began to run. Q. So, he runs away. He hadn’t committed a crime, right? A. Not at that time. Q. So, in essence, you guys chase after him without him having committed a crime, right?” and, “Q. You stated you don’t know what individual, if anyone, had marijuana, correct? A. Correct. That was part of our investigation. Q. At that point, Mr. Hawkins hadn’t committed a crime, right? A. No, he did not. Ms. Catalano: Objection. The Court: Overruled. Let him answer. What was the answer? The Witness: No, he did not commit a crime at that time.]
Also not mentioned in the revealing story is this golden nugget from the judge: The case wasn’t the first time the judge heard prosecutors press charges without body-worn camera evidence [“I’m starting to see a pattern that I find deplorable. Every time I turn around now, oh, it didn’t work, I don’t know what happened, my camera didn’t work, it didn’t work, it didn’t work”, and “You can do whatever you want, but I’m telling you, it’s not going to change my mind. This is absolute wrong. This is like the fourth time in the last month I have heard this line. Come on. Who are you kidding? This is not my first cruise. You can say whatever you want. I’m not changing my mind. I got to be honest with you. I’m mad as hell about this.”]. The disturbing ‘pattern’ is never interrogated by the paper, even though its claim potentially means defendants face charges without evidence.
All of this goes without bringing up the recent news of the killing of Daniel Prude and the subsequent coverup. The unfortunate irony of the case is that news of Daniel Prude’s death broke two days after the publishing of the Chief’s personnel story. The same newspaper that published the puff piece called for a new Police Chief within five days of their initial report. The paper makes little acknowledgment of its role in disseminating the uncritical coverage of the Chief. The editorial calling for the Chief to resign merely states, “Chief Singletary might have had an exemplary record as an officer. He might not have been on Jefferson Avenue that fatal night. But the mayor says he misled her by saying Prude died of a drug overdose. If it walks like a coverup and quacks like a coverup, it's a coverup.” The paper is either ignorant in its role or unwilling to admit its role in the police bureaucracy it calls to reform.
The editorial, which calls for ‘total reform’ of the RPD, arrogantly states, “Police agencies have some of the most robust public relations efforts in America. They churn out news release after news release about how much cocaine was seized in a drug bust or how some guy was arrested for burglary or tax evasion or whatever. And yet no one…saw fit to put out a news release that Daniel Prude had become brain-dead after three Rochester cops pinned him to the ground?” Of course, the editorial board never acknowledges that police agencies churn out news releases because media, such as the D& C, are willing to regurgitate those same releases. The repulsive “Convicted felon charged after scuffle leaves two cops injured” writeup is a prime example of this journalistic arrogance.
In its editorial calling for ‘total reform,’ the board never mentions defunding, abolishment, or any form of ‘less’ policing. The editorial does call for the ubiquitous ‘reordering of police training,’ which again places the editorial neatly in the former half of the policing bureaucracy feedback loop. To paraphrase Karakatsanis, what does it say that when an editorial board sees a police force systemically targeting people in our community, they conclude, “We need more training”? The editorial is all the writing one needs to read to see which side the Democrat and Chronicle is on.
Related stories from over the past year:
Keyoni Adams tells her story of police violence
Judge on gun case: no body-worn camera footage, no probable cause, case dismissed
RPD officer Michael Sippel found guilty
On camera: another case of racial profiling by the RPD
Feel free to email me at robertmeek2020@gmail.com with any questions or concerns
Behind Those Giant Messages at the Protests
If you have been to any of the rallys for justice in Rochester you no doubt saw those giant cinema-size messages projected on the sides of buildings above the crowds. For those we have to thank Bryan Agnello, a local audio-visual producer. He has been able to avoid traffic congestion and keep everyone safe by pulling the equipment on a trailer behind his bike. Thank you Bryan for keeping our messages in focus, so to speak.
More photos in the gallery below
Justice For Daniel Prude - 12th night (Sept 13)
- For more info, see Free the People ROC: facebook.com/ftproc
- This is already 2 nights old. Events are moving faster than we can cover them. For up-to-date info, go to facebook.com/ftproc
- As of Sept. 15, protesters are currently occupying City Hall. Go to facebook.com/ftproc for how you can get involved.
Justice for Daniel Prude: Activists achieve major gains, push for more
Local Rally in support of US Postal Service
A crowd of about 45 people met on Saturday morning, August 22 2020 in front of the Metro Post Office on West Main Street to show their support for the US Postal Service. The event coincided with three others in Monroe County and over 800 nationwide.
Speaking was Jeremy Cooney, candidate for New York State Senate in district 56.
President Donald Trump's hand-picked Postmaster General Louis DeJoy is accused of intentionally sabotaging the Postal Service to make it more difficult to cast ballots by mail in the upcoming election.
