[oldfart]

"He is protecting people who tried to kill a man by fracturing his skull."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is still to be determined, isn't it? One side (the government) says they want to know who did this and that information is on the tape, the other says it isn't on the tape and the government just wants to know who was there.
I don't know who's right here and I doubt you do either, but allowing government 'fishing expeditions' into private waters is risky business. Until I know more about the situation I would have to lean toward the side of privacy.

[monday]

"One side (the government) says they want to know who did this and that information is on the tape, the other says it isn't on the tape and the government just wants to know who was there.
I don't know who's right here and I doubt you do either, "

Oh, but I do know who's right. Using logic I can deduce exactly who is lying and who is not. If the information isn't on the tape, as our stupid little propagandist claims, then that information cannot be used against those who were there, and so knowing who was there would be of no use to investigators.

Since he refuses to show the tape even though he claims it would be useless to investigators, we know that he is in fact lying and that the information would, in fact, be useful towards finding the criminals who assaulted that man.

This is how we know that he is on the side of the violent criminals who tried to murder the victim.

I have no problem with people who protest the government. Politicians in general are wasteful, venal, corrupt, two-faced, lying weasels. I am on the side of anyone who brings attention to that fact, but when you attack someone physically, you go immediately from the side of the righteous to the side of evil, and make no mistake, there is no gray area.

The people who attacked that police officer are evil and deserve to be punished severely. If this guy wants to protect those criminals then he deserves the same punishment as they.