I'm not sure that's relevant, for two reasons. First, the McCarthy and Stirling et al. already have this data, so if it is needed for criminal or civil cases, likely they would make it available and if not it can be subpoenaed. Second, the majority of these officers aren't involved and won't be involved in a fatal shooting or other serious matters.
I think this data is valuable for two things:
1. Discovering systemic problems. Why does department A have so many cases of use of force? It might be racism. It might be bad training. It might be underfunding/understaffing. Or any number of other things.
2. A complex analysis of individual police officers within departments. Is this officer outside a standard deviation in use-of-force with officers within the same department or patrolling the same beat or answering the same type of calls? Is the demographics of his use of force against individuals inconsistent with the demographics of the area? Is he largely using force against suspects who are not charged with a crime or are charged with a non-violent crime?
Publishing these names has questionable value and is unlikely to lead to any type of complex analysis. Already most of the arguments for publishing the names are doing so on the basis of a presumption of guilt.
You expect the reporters, who are likely continuing to pursue the project and related stories, to operate as a data warehouse for legal and other requests? Nevermind the work it takes to build such a service, journalists are usually extremely reticent to be an active participant for either side for a lawsuit. We usually hear about it in the case of the government demanding a reporter reveal their anonymous sources and unpublished notes. But it goes the other way too. https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/judge-r...
I expect that, given the reporters have already made the information available to the public, that they personally would not have been unamenable to giving it out when the situations you mentioned arose; and that even in the case they were, the existence of the information would make it easier to collect from the department itself and that in any case, the reporters could be subpoenaed for the information. That some evidence can be excluded as immaterial in a different context is largely irrelevant.
I also expect that, even in the worst case you are trying to imply, I would feel the same way about publishing the names for the same reasons. I think you are either trying to get me to admit that–which I do freely–, or you are simply uncomfortable that you and I have a different position on the tradeoffs.
But they haven’t made the names-part of the data available to the public, in your scenario. They’ve made an editorial decision that it’s not in the public interest to know the names of the officers — just like most news orgs don’t publish the name of rape victims even though it’s part of the court record. Virtually no news org will want to set a precedent of selectively releasing info that it previously decided it wanted to withhold.
Yes, we obviously have a different position about the trade offs, that’s why I replied to your comment in the first place. However, what I’m arguing is that your current position is untenable. It is not logistically or morally feasible for a news org to provide upon request info that it has used its editorial judgment to redact.
> Discovering systemic problems. Why does department A have so many cases of use of force? It might be racism. It might be bad training. It might be underfunding/understaffing. Or any number of other things.
I think this data is valuable for two things:
1. Discovering systemic problems. Why does department A have so many cases of use of force? It might be racism. It might be bad training. It might be underfunding/understaffing. Or any number of other things.
2. A complex analysis of individual police officers within departments. Is this officer outside a standard deviation in use-of-force with officers within the same department or patrolling the same beat or answering the same type of calls? Is the demographics of his use of force against individuals inconsistent with the demographics of the area? Is he largely using force against suspects who are not charged with a crime or are charged with a non-violent crime?
Publishing these names has questionable value and is unlikely to lead to any type of complex analysis. Already most of the arguments for publishing the names are doing so on the basis of a presumption of guilt.