Well, as long as you concede that the argument that "if you do right, no one will oppose you," is bogus, we can move on.
And the next question would be "'more-exposed' than what?"
Right now, the father could find out, either by simply asking or by filing a FOIA request the names of the officers who arrested him. So could the newspapers. One of the reasons LEO's are reluctant to arrest is that each such interaction requires reams of paperwork, and months of scrutiny -- and exposes them to harassment, as I saw in court as recently as yesterday, when an officer's competence was viciously attacked by a defense attorney (who was doing his job as he ought).
Once I was assaulted while I was rerouting traffic around a disabled vehicle and a fellow with a severe authority problem combined with racial hatred (and also the record proverbially as long as your arm) decided he didn't like what I was doing. I drew my gun to deter him.
He is still at large, and I had to write a 4 page report, spend an hour under review, and another hour or more at the magistrate's office. All for defending myself against the gratuitous attack of a felon. (I was too busy with the dangerous traffic situation to bust the guy.)
In any event, all this information is public knowledge, though not published in a newspaper. And since this happened, it is no longer prudent for me to go into certain parts of the county, and I am armed 24/7 because I anticipate "Direct deedback from members of my community, or of a wider community of interest." especially as that "feedback" might be directed to my child or my wife.
But the greater question (to me, at least) is whether we want our public servants to follow, to the best of their ability, the will of the people expressed through the legally constituted means of expression, or do we want them conscientiously objecting every time they deem that the situation (the details of which they may not know or understand until way later -- as I did not know the record, history, or character of my assailant).
We decry activist judges and rightly so, because they substitute their will for the rule of law. Can we decry them and at the same time encourage LEO's to do the same thing? I think not. The LEO's execute the will of the people. The better they do their job, the more transparest they are to that will. When the outcome is not as you would wish, I think your beef is with the people, not with the LEOs.
But the greater question (to me, at least) is whether we want our public servants to follow, to the best of their ability, the will of the people expressed through the legally constituted means of expression, or do we want them conscientiously objecting every time they deem that the situation (the details of which they may not know or understand until way later -- as I did not know the record, history, or character of my assailant).
...just amounts to "hold a bake sale, sign a petition, and go back to sleep, sheeple."
Cops have large discretion over enforcement priorities and policies, and even over the laws. Putting pressure on cops to de-prioritize or change policy on enforcement style for bad laws is perfectly legitimate and effective.
We live in a deeply imperfect republic, and many here would call that a generous assesment.
I make an audio recording of EVERY interaction with any government employee. That alone has saved me a couple speeding tickets. (I "accidentally" left my digital dictation machine running.) I look forward to the day when people can make video recordings just as conveniently.