Yesterday, Baltimore Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III clarified his spokesman's new policy of not naming officers who shoot people. In a letter being sent to the City Council's president and public safety committee chairman, he described it as an "informal policy" with several exceptions -- an officer who unjustly shoots someone would be named, as would any officer who the commissioner wants to name.

As I point out in today's print edition column, I find the new policy inconsistent. I note that this past weekend Bealefeld named a police officer who fired on two gunman who had shot his partner, calling him a hero. I have no doubt the commissioner is right, but what signal does that send to other officers whose names aren't made public?

I know most police disagree with me, but I think the department should go back to its years-long practice of naming every officer involved in a shooting. It sends a powerful message to the the city that these incidents aren't being covered up and is in keeping with citizens knowing what their protectors are doing.

The more information the better, especially as Mayor Shelia Dixon tries to restart community policing after years of a zero-tolerance strategy in which tens of thousands of people were locked up each year.

By coincidence, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., yesterday heard a a free-speech case brought by a Baltimore police commander who says he was removed from his position after a memo he wrote criticizing a police shooting found its way into the Baltimore Sun.

Lt. Col. Michael J. Andrew, who now commands the property division, was a major in charge of the Eastern District when he wrote the memo in 2004, when Kevin P. Clark was commissioner. A lawsuit he filed in federal court was thrown out when a judge ruled that Andrew's actions in giving the newspaper his memo were part of his official duties, meaning he was not protected by the First Amendment. Andrew is trying to get the case reinstated by arguing he was acting as a citizen when he offered up the memo.

Andrew had argued that tactical officers prematurely stormed an apartment and killed an elderly man in a gun battle. Police ruled the shooting justified but Andrew argued that officers could have calmed the situation without gunfire had they exhausted other options before barging through the door.

It’s important because sometimes justified shootings by police can be avoided with more training, and a thorough, public and consistent vetting of procedures should be a requirement of any agency hoping to instill trust in the citizenry it serves. In this shooting, the officers were neither heroes nor villains, and under today’s rules their names would not be made public.

I hope that Andrew's concerns were taken seriously (though the way he says he was treated after they became public leads me to believe they were not).

I understand the department being angry with Andrew, but his memo is the kind of debate we all should be having about police involved shootings. Police should come out after their investigation and say, 'Yes, we cleared the officers but we feel that tactical mistakes were made in how we handled the incident. Those issues are being reviewed."

Simple, direct, forthcoming and accountable.

The debate should be about the shooting, not about what Andrew did with a memo.

Here is the letter Bealefeld is sending about naming police officers: