The Libs want it both ways

This item sparked a pondering by me.
Deleting officers' names now back on front burner
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3614441

Supporters of the Police Commission's move to reverse a long-held policy and remove officers' names from use-of-force reports have said cops' identities will still be made public right after violent incidents.
A Daily News review of city records, however, found that the Los Angeles Police Department issued public statements with officers' names in less than one-third of serious-force cases in 2005.
The findings are drawing renewed concern because without the full reports, news releases are the main way for the public to learn the identities of officers who shoot at, strike, choke or otherwise seriously injure members of the public.
While the LAPD investigated 91 such incidents in 2005, it put out public statements with officers' names in just 23 instances.
"It reinforces the need for disclosing those names," said Catherine Lhamon, racial justice director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which opposed the commission's decision to omit officers' identities.
Chief William Bratton defended the department, saying it is not withholding any information, just publicizing only the most serious incidents.
"We only put out press releases for officer-involved shootings," Bratton told the Police Commission recently.
The chief compiles a detailed report for each serious use of force. Before the officers' names were taken out, the news media and civil-rights groups used the comprehensive accounts to track possible misconduct.
Now the public is left with a patchwork of information gathered through the press releases the department issues, as well as possible lawsuits, certain disciplinary hearings and the now-anonymous force reports.
That piecemeal approach could lead to people confusing incidents and drawing the wrong conclusions, said Councilman Bernard Parks, a former LAPD chief.(Who lost all respect while he was Chief)

The conflict I see is this: While the Libs and Communism USA ( ACLU) wants to know every detail of what a police officer does ... they are foaming at the mouth when an authority finds out anything about a "Citizen". Ah, yes, we have to have "Privacy".

Lib Lie#!: Bush ( The National Security Administration) spied on citizens.
TRUTH: Only if you called Akmed in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq.

Lib Lie#2. They just want information to make the police department(s) better. B S!
TRUTH: They want to tear down all authority, and be the sole arbiter on how people live.
Their goal is there is NO WRONG,IMMORAL, or CRIMINAL conduct---unless you are a Conservative.

In my opinion, "Privacy" was invented by Liberals to shield criminals and parasites. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care if someone knows what you bought, who you called, etc. If you have children while you are married, you want a birth announcement. If you have kids as a single parent for another source of a Welfare Check, then you want "Privacy".

Another thing that irritates me. An accustation of "Excessive Force" is only that. Most of those who are not police or military assume that since an accusation was made, it happened, and the officer/soldier DID IT.

Personal experience is that about 80 per cent of "citizen" or "activist" complaints are total contrived, created BS. BUT-police departments and military units have to record these complaints. This is why I carried a tape recorder for 26 years of my 31 year career. You find that people caught diong illegal things are very talented at LYING.

Defense Attorneys KNOW that they have to allege an incident of "Excessive Force" BEFORE they can go exploring an Officer's record. Most attorneys have no problem with making this stuff up. Their goal is to see that the arresting/investigating officer has a "Record" of "Excessive Force". Their argument than is " Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury--My client has already been punished. He/she was brutally___(name the mistreatment the officer allegedly committed) --and you should find him/her "Not Guilty"."