I question the policy of these LEAs in withholding names and details of the "bad apples" every time there is an incident. While we know that there are some good apples (not many anymore, unfortunately), anonymity for the bad apples leaves the public in a position where they can only focus their outrage against "an FBI agent", or "an BATF agent". Since public outrage cannot focus on an identifiable individual such as Lon Horiuchi (perhaps rightly so), the entire agency and all of its agents get tarred with the same brush.
So what is the result? Public opinion of all LEOs generally falls, justifiably or not. Good officers are perceived as providing cover and anonymity for the bad.
I notice that in this case, the agents in question were quickly named, but not before the "anonymous officer" damage had been done. I guess they decided it was more important that the shooter take the fall for the FBIs lack of proper training and procedure, than it was to protect him from reprisal.
Am I giving them too much credit, or do you think that the double edged sword of anonymity is a well recognized dynamic within police and law enforcement circles?
I can understand not printing an officers name for a few days until everything quiets down, but if the paper prints the details of the shooting, the people can read through the lines and determine for themselves if the shooting is righteous or not.
In this particular case I don't believe it is. Another case that comes to mind real quick is the Modesto case where the SWAT officer shot the young boy in the back with the 12 guage. Innocent people are getting killed. I know that with human beings, guns and crime this is always going to happen but it has to be rare, and people need to be held accountable.
I was very relieved to learn that dept.'s are going away from no knock warrants. The risk has to be greater for us, not the public we are supposed to be serving. Our safety is important but it seems we've put our safety above prudence (if that makes any sense)and gone overboard.
I've seen harrasment by the media on police officers that they don't like. That also happens and an officer will get a bad name because someone at the newspaper doesnt like him or someone high up on the dept. doesnt like him.
But ulitmately I think that the people will know, they are smart enough to figure out if the shooting was good or if it was bad. And if it is bad, and the shooter has a history of such things, he needs to be dealt with and things need to be made right immediately; (as much as they can after a tragedy like this) not a circle the wagons mentality "your either for us or against us."
I think in this case the FBI knows they screwed up and they don't know how to admit it and they don't know what to do about it.