The recent death of a weapon-carrying man from shots fired by police — at least one of whom was wearing a body camera — provides the new recording system’s first test. The initial statement by the Anchorage Police Department wasn’t a good start.
APD now says that the statement that the man had raised the weapon before he was shot was based on a witness statement, not a review of body camera footage. At least one camera should have been operating given the circumstances and available for review without delay. If there was reason for delay, then APD should have said so.
The cameras are being worn to protect both residents and police from unsupported claims of wrongdoing. Reliance on a witness instead of body cameras to make the first public statement was foolish and only caused suspicion. This is not what body camera supporters expected.
— Peter Crosby
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.