S

o Birmingham Mayor William Bell's security detail got into a gun battle over the weekend, a Hollywood-style shootout right there on the interstate between city hall and the civic center.

Just another day at the office? Not.

We're not that far gone yet.

But the mayor's cops did shoot two people. Bang, bang. We are told the suspects opened fire - apparently at the mayor's car -- in Smithfield. One thing led to another thing led to the OK Corral. Now two of the mystery folks, a man and a woman, are in the hospital. A third is in custody.

And we don't know who those people are.

We don't know the shooters. We don't know - officially, anyway - who shot them. Much of what we know is what reporter Carol Robinson found out from witness accounts and unofficial sources.

Because the police won't say.

The city won't say.

The Alabama Bureau of Investigation won't say.

Because of policy and procedure, protocol and practice.

"Our policy is to not release the names of the involved officers," Police Chief A.C. Roper said today. "It's important for us to be consistent and not treat these officers any different. The public understands it was the security detail."

And the shooters?

"In regards to the suspects, their names will be released when charged in this incident," he said.

Which will be ... Lord only knows. Cops aren't supposed to hold suspects for more than 48 hours without charging them, and the incident occurred on Friday night. Which is, last time I checked, more than 48 hours ago.

Roper said he hoped charges would be filed this week, but said there are "no guarantees."

The longer it drags out, the more this story, this shooting, this legend takes on a life of its own. The rumor mills and radio waves have already been awash in speculation as to what really happened on the streets of Birmingham because, left with a vacuum of information, people fill in the holes.

"The conspiracy theorists are hard at work," Roper said. "But there's no truth in it. I was at my desk when I received notification around 7:50 p.m. so I was on the scene in less than 5 minutes. I also watched part of the interview of the suspect who was not injured and he never mentioned a woman, drugs or any other external factor.

"According to him it was a circumstantial encounter involving our officers who witnessed a violent crime in progress."

Which is good to hear.

But not good enough.

Because, while the department has bundled up its case in an air-tight bag and shipped it off to the ABI for investigation, it has also thumbed its nose at the city it is sworn to protect.

It has told the public it is none of your business. In a city with a history of police distrust, it has said ...

Trust us.

Which I would like to do. But this incident is as public as an incident can be.

It involved the most public man in town, on his way home in a vehicle owned by the public, with a security detail paid by the public. It happened on a public street, shut down a public interstate, and created a public danger for hours.

It is true, of course, that Birmingham Police followed their procedure of not naming officers in shootings, of withholding the names of suspects until charged.

They didn't initially give the names of those involved when a Birmingham cop shot a guy wielding a barbecue fork a few years back. They did not initially name another officer or the guy he shot in August during a liquor store break-in.

But that doesn't mean the policy is a good one.

Transparency, particularly in cases involving people paid by the public to carry guns and serve as authority figures, is vital to maintaining trust. And just because an incident remains under investigation does not mean it is private.

In the interest of transparency, in fairness to both the mayor and the suspects, these names need to come out.

For the good of the city.

John Archibald's column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays in The Birmingham News, and even more often than that on al.com. Email him at jarchibald@al.com