Skip navigation

murtcommentThere is a misunderstanding of my statement on Twitter regarding the disclosure of the name of the officer who shot the unarmed man in Missouri. One comment mistakenly took my comment to mean that I am against the various public records laws that are in place throughout this country.

If the individual who made that comment had been intelligent enough to follow the incidents surrounding the shooting, they would fully understand the context in which the comment was made.

ferchiefThe Ferguson incident is yet another example of trial by social media and also how many on both sides are getting their facts wrong and are rushing to judgment as a result.

Time will tell what the facts are and time will tell if the named officer will face criminal charges for the shooting or if he will be cleared. There is enough evidence out there that supports both sides. It is going to take some level heads to investigate the matter and seek the truth.

Returning to my comment for the moment. The wording should have been clear enough. I do not know of many occupations where the fear of having ones name made public due to the performance of ones duties would result in death threats and a threat to the safety of him and his family.

This is what the police officer faces today. His name is now out there. He and his family are now in personal danger. taxpayer dollars now have to be spent to protect him and his family.

I would think that there are many out there that are watching what is unfolding in Ferguson and may have second thoughts about becoming a law enforcement officer.

THAT was the point of my comment.

Stay tuned

MURT