This man, after having his dog shot, was charged with six felonies stemming from this incident. This is how law enforcement officers cover their bases. Not charging this man might be perceived as some indication of wrongdoing on behalf of the police. And, specifically, that no situation should have arisen where it was necessary to shoot the dog. (And no such situation should have arisen. If the man was not detained for no reason the dog would not have became upset.) Thus, the police department is incentivized to find something to charge the man with.
Where can the public find the names of the specific police officers involved in this shooting?
We know the name of the man. The media does not hesitate to publish the names of victims, suspects and witnesses. But the media goes out of its way to defend the status quo of the police state by protecting the identities of individual police officers.
This may be done under the pretext of protecting them from physical harm. And police departments do coerce journalists into compliance on this matter. However, individual police officers should not be protected.
And I am not even talking about protection from physical violence. There are many nonviolent, legal methods that society can use to punish police officers involved with bad behaviors. The practice of shunning, of ostracism, of denying service at public establishments, of perpetuating reputations, etc. are all a part of a legal, nonviolent repertoire that can be used to correct antisocial behavior. But first society needs to know who the antisocial police officers are so that said correction may be applied.