News For You

Authorities At Brown Give Update

Five days after the deadly shooting at Brown University, the public still waits for answers—and confidence in the investigation is quickly evaporating.

Two students are dead. Nine more are injured. A campus shaken. A city on edge. And yet, the institutions charged with leading the response—Brown University, the Providence Police Department, and even state officials—have given the appearance of being consistently unprepared, confused, and disturbingly opaque.


At the heart of the mounting public frustration is the question of surveillance. How, in 2025, at a university with a staggering $7.2 billion endowment and 1,200 cameras across its campus, do you fail to capture the most basic footage of a gunman entering an academic building? How is it that a school capable of tracking pedestrian flow for architectural studies can’t tell you how many students were in a review session when bullets started flying?

Officials say the section of the Barus & Holley building where the shooting occurred lacked surveillance coverage due to its age. But that explanation crumbles under scrutiny. Other older campus structures, including the university president’s official residence, appear to have modern surveillance installed. A five-year-old addition to the academic building was outfitted with cameras, officials admitted, but evidently those didn’t cover the critical areas where the attack took place.


At Tuesday’s press conference, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha acknowledged this uncomfortable fact. But it was Wednesday’s exchange with a frustrated reporter that underscored the powder keg this has become. The reporter directly accused the university of prioritizing sanctuary city politics over student safety—alleging that surveillance cameras had been removed to avoid recording undocumented immigrants and, by extension, prevent cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The claim struck a nerve. Mayor Brett Smiley flatly responded that all available footage had been turned over and then abruptly ended the briefing. No elaboration. No clarification.

What’s clear is this: the response is falling short of what a grieving, frightened community deserves. That failure is being compounded by the appearance of institutional self-protection and bureaucratic aloofness. Students and parents are hearing officials say they don’t yet know how many students were in the room during the attack—days later—because it was an optional review session and they’re still asking students to come forward.


Why not directly contact the enrolled class list? Why rely on voluntary responses from students who may be traumatized, afraid, or simply unaware of the importance of their testimony?

Meanwhile, the suspect remains at large. A second “person of interest” has been identified, but little else has been made public. The first was released without charges. And while officials hinted that they may have recovered DNA belonging to the shooter, there’s been no confirmation of whether it matches any known individuals or databases.

The optics are grim. A world-class institution, in one of the most surveillance-saturated eras in human history, appears unable to produce footage, identify all witnesses, or provide a consistent explanation for why security measures failed in a building just steps from the heart of campus.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top
$(".comment-click-7706").on("click", function(){ $(".com-click-id-7706").show(); $(".disqus-thread-7706").show(); $(".com-but-7706").hide(); }); // The slider being synced must be initialized first $('.post-gallery-bot').flexslider({ animation: "slide", controlNav: false, animationLoop: true, slideshow: false, itemWidth: 80, itemMargin: 10, asNavFor: '.post-gallery-top' }); $('.post-gallery-top').flexslider({ animation: "fade", controlNav: false, animationLoop: true, slideshow: false, prevText: "<", nextText: ">", sync: ".post-gallery-bot" }); });