Names of police officers shouldn’t be kept secret
Police officers have a tough, dangerous job. Each day they go to work never assured, like most of us, that they will likely will return home safely at the end of their workday. Think about it. Would you want such a job? And let’s face it. The pay, particularly for law enforcement officers in small towns, doesn’t match the risks.
Last year, 135 police officers weren’t greeted by family or love ones after spending their day protecting and serving the rest of us. They were killed in the line of duty, a five year high. Nearly half of them were fatally shot, including 21 in ambush-style attacks. Those incidents and numbers are shocking.
The same year, 963 people were shot or killed during a police-involved incident. Those incidents and numbers, too, are staggering.
Something clearly needs to be done. To help cops. To assure the public that those dedicated to serve and protect can and do exactly that. Legislation introduced by a Pennsylvania lawmaker, though, isn’t the answer. Rep. Martina White, R-Philadelphia, recently introduced a bill that would keep the names of police in officer-involved shootings or use of force cases resulting in death or serious injury secret for at least 30 days or until an investigation is completed. Rep. Ryan Warner, R-Perryopolis, is a co-sponsor of the bill.
The proposed legislation is tenuous. It just doesn’t make sense. For starters, legislation can’t keep pace with technology. Cell phone cameras that record high-quality, visual detail of everyday events or happenstances are ubiquitous.
The shooting of Keith Lemont Scott by a North Carolina cop, recorded by his wife, is just one example. Pass all the laws you want, you can’t, won’t, stop someone posting the unedited images and video, no matter how gruesome, on a social media account and have the incident go viral.
A police officer may not be immediately named in the unedited photos or video, but someone will say, “I know that cop,” and his or her identity will be revealed. Rep. White’s House Bill 27 won’t stop that. It may stop police from identifying one of their own, but it won’t stop anyone, no matter their intent, from publishing their captured images or video and identity.
The argument can be made that public identification is a double standard. Law enforcement often uses the same public identification tactic to capture suspects, for example distributing images of the two brothers involved in the Boston Marathon bombings to William McLaughin, who was arrested for bank robbery in Connellsville after being identified on social media. Few of us would argue releasing those identifying images was unwarranted, that their public release unnecessarily harmed them or their family. Yet House Bill 27, hides, if only temporarily, the identity of the cop and his or her family from public scrutiny or scorn. Double standards don’t work.
Transparency and accountability are important, particularly for and among public employees whose salary is paid by taxpayers and on whom we trust our safety. A tenant of community policing is that cooperation among the public and police is vital in order to for it to work, for the community to be safe and for the police to effectively to their work. It goes both ways. It can’t work if the public is less a partner in combating crime.
Cops wear a badge. Justifiably with pride and honor. And they deserve our utmost respect for their service. But their badge isn’t a shield from accountability. House Bill 27 provides just that.
A resident of Uniontown, Richard Ringer can be reached by email at ringer.mwgroup@gmail.com.