Blaming
threats against the police officer who killed unarmed Michael Brown
on Saturday, Ferguson, Missouri, Police Chief Tom Jackson
says he won’t release the shooter’s name unless charges are
filed or he’s ordered to by a judge. Does anybody believe he would
be so reticent to point the finger if the situation were reversed
and an officer was killed by a civilian?
In fact, when have police ever been especially cautious about
naming people they believe have targeted one of their own?
Ferguson doesn’t have any officers listed at the Officer Dowm Memorial
Page; hopefully that accurately represents the safety of the
job. But when St. Louis Police Department Officer Daryl Hall was
killed in a gun battle in 2011, officials were quick to name
Asif Blake as the suspect. True, Blake was also killed in the
incident, but he certainly had family who might have been subject
to “threats.”
The St. Louis Police Department did withhold the name
of Antonio
Andrews until he was charged with the shooting death of Officer
Norvelle Brown in 2007—but Andrews was 15 at the time, and
initially subject to rules regarding young
offenders (he was charged as an adult).
The Missouri Highway Patrol named Lance Shockley “a
person of interest” in the 2005 murder of Sergeant Carl Dewayne
Graham Jr. (he was later convicted of the crime).
University City, Missouri, police, quickly
identified Todd L. Shepard as the suspect in the 2008 shooting
of Sergeant Michael R. King (he was later convicted).
And it’s not just common practice in Missouri. Just weeks ago,
Mendota Heights, Minnesota police promptly
named Brian George Fitch Sr. as a “person of interest” in the
shooting death of Officer Scott Patrick. (He was later
charged.)
In 2011, Forth Worth, Texas, police
named Joe Nathan Haywood III in the shooting of Officer
Clifford Hankins (he was later convicted).
In general, law enforcement agencies are more than happy to name
suspects, or mere persons of interest, and let the people and their
associates take their chances. The leave the named, like falsely accused
Olympic bombing suspect Richard Jewell, to pick up whatever
pieces they can after the fact if it turns out that their hands are
clean of the crime to which they’ve been linked.
Jackson’s concern for officer safety isn’t isolated. Salinas,
California, was
called out earlier this year for refusing to release the names
of any officers involved in 2014 shootings because “disclosure
might compromise their safety.” This even after the state
Supreme Court
ruled against blanket anonymity for police involved in shooting
incidents.
The fact that the court had to rule on the matter is a statement
in itself.
The police chief in Hope Mills, North Carolina, withheld the
names of officers involved in a shooting over a”concern
for retaliation.”
In 2010, Baltimore, Maryland, officials announced they
would begin releasing the names of officers who discharge
their firearms—after
a 48-hour delay “that allows police to put safeguards in
place.”
Not naming, or delaying naming, uncharged suspects in crimes may
be acceptable practice if it’s applied to everybody. But it also
has special risks when practiced with goverment agents, like police
officers, since it allows officials to control the flow of
information. Ferguson’s Chief Jackson says the officer who killed
Brown
has facial injuries from an altercation that let to the
shooting—but the public has no way of independently checking that
claim. His department also says it’s
waiting on a toxicology test on Brown, allowing police to
insinuate that he may have been high (and to use any positive
results in their favor if he was).
Meanwhile, Brown’s family, friends, and the public at large
can’t so much as Google the name of the officer who shot him.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rrURN0
via IFTTT