Earlier today, Baltimore Police Department's chief spokesman, Anthony Guglielmi, send me some links to a police shooting in California to demonstrate its violent aftermath. He argues that this helps prove his case -- that names of cops who shoot people should be withheld from the public.

I still disagree -- dozens of people have been shot by officers over the past few years and rarely has there been unrest. The closest came was in the 1990s when police officers shot and killed a man in the Upton neighborhood. A struggle over a gun between a man and two officers led to shots fired, an officer struck by friendly fire and a dead man tumbling down stairs to an open door where a crowd could see.

Demonstrations led to rock throwing and several police cars and TV trucks were damaged. When police asked the media to move to another location, the demonstrations subsided but the anger did not. The police commissioner addressed residents and calmed fears. Open dialogue, not hiding names, calmed tensions. The names of the officers were quickly released, the head of the homicide unit and his sergeant gave interviews -- including a telling statement that the gunman had gotten hold of a cop's gun, pointed it at his chest and fired. Only the gun didn't go off, and his partner shot the man after hearing the click.

Powerful. Open. Responsive. Let people talk and describe what  happened and you'll go a long way toward resolving problems.

But for full disclosure, here's an email I got today from a reader who disagrees with me. Jim Higgins wrote:

I have found your articles of interest but must disagree with the conclusions you have reached in this article.
 
Too many times in this world, half-truths are published about a person and these half-truths never receive the attention of the original piece of news. I don't believe with-holding an officer's name in a shooting is the root cause of mis-trust between citizens and the police department.
 
The question you raise but don't address is why do many residents not trust "the cops." Why do the residents in high-crime areas think the cops are out to get them. Perhaps you could do a piece on that before you jump to the conclusion that with-holding an officer name in a shooting is not a good policy in establishing trust between citizens and police officers.
 
Maybe the root cause is that the citizens in high crime areas are treated differently that those in low crime areas during the police investigative process. Perhaps things are reported but never addressed?
 
From my vantage point, the Baltimore City Police Department Leaders need to act upon what is right, rather than what is popular. Maybe the thing to concentrate on is how are police officers protecting the safety of the citizens of Baltimore. When a shooting occurs, normally more than one officer is present, perhaps we need to pause and reflect on how the "team" of officers involved are performing their duty. And then there's this cartoon from the California case:

Guglielmi sent me this email earlier today: "You should talk to officers and get their perspective and see firsthand how real threats and concerns of personal safety are. You or I as civilians can't even pretend to imagine these experiences so I urge you to get their point of view.  I did some basic digging and we've investigated 23 cases of threats against officers last year."

As per policy, police officers respond to reporters' questions by sending them back to Guglielmi's office. But I'm going to take his advice and hit the streets this evening.