Nope. I disagree all the way around. I would much rather have complete transparency all the way around. It's completely unfortunate when an officer is involved in a shooting, justified or unjustified, but transparency in such cases is important to me. I don't care if they withhold it to a later time, when all of the information is presented in a coherent fashion instead of being leaked piece meal. But I think it's important that not just the names of those involved are provided, but what steps were taken in investigating the incident, what was found from that investigation and the reasoning or rationale for whatever decision is made. If an officer is going to use lethal force, which they are perfectly entitled to use and should use under the right circumstances, I as a citizen want it to be confirmed as transparently as possible that he not only was acting within the color of the law but that he is not a threat to step outside of the law down the road.
Oh, and I want to know his name in case I'm pulled over by the officer down the road.
Oh, I agree. I like transparency too. I was just making a point that it would seem unfair to release MB's name (or any police shooting victim) and not OW's (or any police shooter). Either both, or neither, would seem fair. To allow MB to be judged in the public eye and investigated by the media, but not extend that to OW, the guy who actually shot him, would not be fair, IMO. And as you alluded to, if all police shooter's names were allowed to be kept hush-hush, I think that would reduce accountability. IMO, it might even result in more police shootings as police would possibly think they had a license to kill and get away with it.