A plea for the officers name. . . what do you think ATS?

What's in a name. . .


Gawker

Yesterday, the Ferguson, Mo. police department announced that it would not release the name of the officer who shot and killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown on Saturday. "The value of releasing the name is far outweighed by the risk of harm to the officer and his family," said Thomas Jackson, chief of the Ferguson police department.

We disagree. We believe Brown's family, and the public at large, have the right to know the name of the man who killed their son. For this reason, we're asking readers who know the identity of the officer to share it with us, either below this post or over email. If we can confirm a name, we will publish it ourselves. We are looking for legitimate information and tips, not jokes or false names.

We want to publish the officer's name because we believe that transparency is the price of power, and that trust is earned and not demanded. The people of Ferguson have been asked to trust the chief's decision not to release the officer's name, but why should they? The Ferguson police department has not earned the trust of the citizens in whose name it operates and with whose power it is invested. Mike Brown was asked to trust the police, and he was utterly failed. For trust to exist—for it to be built—there must be absolute accountability. Every bullet must be explicable; every life must be answerable.

It's a simple question with a complex answer, though some may differ.
What do you think ATS, is this a plea for justice or condemnation of more innocents?

AB

a reply to: AnteBellum

Then you dig, until you uncover the mans name ... after that, you make them a public figures ... everything they do, every mistake ... you make public. Don't harm the man, that's for the courts to do.

We must strive as individuals to separate ourselves from our basic desires that stem from animal instincts - revenge, etc.

The officer needs to see his day in court - but releasing the name is only going to be a possible death sentence on this man, which stems from revenge.

a reply to: AnteBellum

My attitude to this is, unless the dead man is a gun runner, a drug dealer, or any other organized crime figure, the name SHOULD be released. The name of a man who shoots an innocent man dead, is not something that ought to be protected. It is for every officer and law enforcement agent to ensure that their conduct does not inspire righteous fury amongst the population he or she serves, and when their actions DO inspire such fury, to deal with that consequence as the cost of the power vested in them by the state.

Yes. If the man wasn't a police officer then you better believe that his name would already be plastered all over the news. Being a police officer doesn't automatically make the person exempt from the same standards as everyone else. It's not like we are stripping him of due process.

a reply to: AnteBellum

I think that until the violence has died down, and the officer has time to secure his family the name should NOT be released. The crowd mentality and the capabilities of hate crazed individuals do anything but guarantee the safety of this officer's family.

I'm all for a legitimate investigation, conducted by an outside investigator and a trial. At that point the name will become public.

Well, the rule is they do not release the name unless there have been charges filed. I do not believe that has happened. With this idiotic mob mentality going on there, with a bunch of hoodlums acting the way they are acting,DEMANDING this mans name? Not a good idea in my opinion. I am sorry that someone died by the hands of this officer, but we do not know the entire story as of yet, and unfortunately he has already been found guilty in the eyes of most of the residents.

I'm of two minds about this

On one hand I do feel it needs to be known.

On the other I fear retaliation on his family when they had nothing to do with it

I also feel he needs his day in court. On the other hand I've also seen that too often officers aren't subject to the law

No easy answer honestly imho

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AnteBellum

My attitude to this is, unless the dead man is a gun runner, a drug dealer, or any other organized crime figure, the name SHOULD be released. The name of a man who shoots an innocent man dead, is not something that ought to be protected. It is for every officer and law enforcement agent to ensure that their conduct does not inspire righteous fury amongst the population he or she serves, and when their actions DO inspire such fury, to deal with that consequence as the cost of the power vested in them by the state.

I agree with your comment.
The people have a right to know.
And you have put it so elegantly.

On a side note:
Boy, are you a man of words!
If I'm ever in a pickle, I'm not calling a lawyer, I'm calling you.
lol

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's not like we are stripping him of due process.

No, just possibly his life and his families. Have you seen the attitude that cops have been getting for the last few years? Even here at ATS? Do you think there's no possibility that someone would take it upon themself to exact what they think is justice? They hold names back all the time for various reasons. If this have been a civilian who's name had been withheld no one would be saying anything. Thus my point.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
What's in a name. . .

Gawker

Yesterday, the Ferguson, Mo. police department announced that it would not release the name of the officer who shot and killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown on Saturday. "The value of releasing the name is far outweighed by the risk of harm to the officer and his family," said Thomas Jackson, chief of the Ferguson police department.

We disagree. We believe Brown's family, and the public at large, have the right to know the name of the man who killed their son. For this reason, we're asking readers who know the identity of the officer to share it with us, either below this post or over email. If we can confirm a name, we will publish it ourselves. We are looking for legitimate information and tips, not jokes or false names.

We want to publish the officer's name because we believe that transparency is the price of power, and that trust is earned and not demanded. The people of Ferguson have been asked to trust the chief's decision not to release the officer's name, but why should they? The Ferguson police department has not earned the trust of the citizens in whose name it operates and with whose power it is invested. Mike Brown was asked to trust the police, and he was utterly failed. For trust to exist—for it to be built—there must be absolute accountability. Every bullet must be explicable; every life must be answerable.

It's a simple question with a complex answer, though some may differ.
What do you think ATS, is this a plea for justice or condemnation of more innocents?

AB

Who cares if they released his name? The ghetto trash never go after the source of their anger anyway. They will just burn and loot more stuff totally ignoring the true cause of their rage. "we be mad at the courts and the police, so do we attack them? No, now we attack 7-11 and everyone NOT involved in what be happened"
Firepiston

a reply to: TrueBrit

That is the problem right there!!! How can you say that the man shot was innocent?!? How do you know this? IF and I repeat IF, there are charges filed against the officer, only then would it be necessary to release this mans name.

Personally I think there would be bad things happening if his name was released.

A person can be smart. People however tend to be stupid.

He could be gunned down or lynched......before he has his day in court. I know many would say: "Well that will teach LEOs!"

But what if they go after his family?

LEOs should be held responsible for their actions. Understand what their actions can bring.

But should his family and friends be held accountable for HIS actions?

No. No they should not be.

I know many might feel otherwise, or might say: "Oh well. His family was murdered, house burned down, etc. That will teach them!"

But no. It won't teach anyone anything. It will simply affirm that names in these cases shouldn't be released.

Just my humble opinion.

a reply to: TrueBrit

But we do not know the facts do we? Unless more had come out that I'm aware of? Do we know the details of the shooting and if the man was innocent?

I honestly can't say I know

Isn't that up to the courts to decide and not mob rule? Since when is the court of opinion the way justice should be served?

We need facts before making a judgement call

Again I worry about the retaliation on this guys family. They are innocent in this.

However I do think if he is guilty he should be sentence to the furthest extent possible...

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I'm of two minds about this

I'm also of two minds ...

On one hand, the man should be given due process and put in jail ...

On the other hand, I'm fed up with this crap ... if they regard the populace, in this manner, then it's time for a revolution. You think, that using silk gloves on this man is going to help his comrades respect the people, they are supposed to serve. No, it won't ... they'll only feel "outside the law".

Let's see how much guts and glory, the American people have. When it comes to everywhere else on the planet, the American people put arms in the hands of criminals, for the purpose of having them kill and oust their leaders. Because their leaders are bad characters, and they get murdered by the police.

Now, I wonder ... what does the American public do, when the roles are reversed. Chicken out? Do they have guts to stand against an enemy, that is domestic?

Has the family pressed charges yet? I keep on hearing the out roar but nothing on a case filing.

I also believe the longer they hold out giving a name will not let things blow over but build pressure up.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I'm of two minds about this

I'm also of two minds ...

On one hand, the man should be given due process and put in jail ...

Um, what if he's innocent?

a reply to: AnteBellum

I say no. They are correct about it making him a target. Plus who else might have that same name???

If he's guilty and there is still some justice, he's not going anywhere. There is no need to put him, someone with his name, or his family in danger. Obviously someone will try and get justice the old fashion way once he's exposed.

We don't need to know.

The article stems from a percieved lack of accountability and responsibility for police action.
They may have a valid point.
But

By naming and publicizing his identity does this organisation practice what it preaches?

By that I mean will they accept responsibility for anything that happens to him or his family as a result of their action.

If you are willing to accept being an accessory to murder then name away.
If your editorial team possibly want to go to prison, and have your organisation sued into history by his family, name away.

If not then don't.
Push for clarity and don't let it be sidelined. Justice must be seen to be done.
The cop(s) must be held accountable and pay for their wrongdoing, but mob justice is not the answer, no matter how justified it seems.
Increasing tensions will only deepen this potentially dangerous confrontation. Down that road is disaster.