Commentary:
A police officer killed Amelia Baca. Maybe he had to. Maybe not.
LCPD knows his bodycam footage would help the public (and the family) start understanding this tragedy. LCPD knows state law requires it to give us copies of that footage as soon as possible after requests, and certainly within 15 days. LCPD is playing games to delay that.
Showing us this video is “an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties” of City employees. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently reiterated,in a police-shooting case, that IPRA requires “prompt and scrupulous compliance.”
By law, giving requestors this video is a high-priority task. The Sun-News asked for it April 19. The City said it needed 15 days. On May 4, the City said it needed 15 more. (Without labeling the request “unduly burdensome,” the City has no legal right to such delay.)
LCPD, fortunately, hasn’t claimed it can withhold the video because there’s an investigation. The City has provided seventeen related videos, some devoid of content, some showing post-shooting interviews of witnesses, including police officers (though not the shooter). One, in which a woman describes repeatedly begging the officer not to shoot her mentally “off” Grandma, is extremely saddening. My heart goes out to her.
The City has redacted witnesses’ birth dates and young children’s names. The City has also redacted, probably improperly, the shooter’s name. (IF officials answered my phone calls,they’d probably claim he’s been “accused but not charged” of a crime.)
Releasing selected footage from the bodycam video to affect public opinion makes this willful delay worse. First, it’s unfair and misleading. It also establishes that city official shave watched the video. (For some, not watching it would be incompetence.) If they had time to edit it, which was not required, they have time to release it, as the law commands. With redactions if necessary.
IPRA provides a narrow law-enforcement exception for “confidential sources, methods, and information.” Here, a demented female holding knives approaches a police officer and gets shot. Was she a confidential source? Did he fire his gun in some confidential way? (If he used some secret LCPD method of calming her, it tragically failed.) The law protects innocent witnesses or victims; but is LCPD protecting them from grandmother’s ghost or from the officer who shot the video?
This is a matter of great public interest. The City’s conduct is arrogant and illegal. It’s also unwise, compounding the tragedy. It’s unfair to the officer, who deserves a fair and impartial review of what happened. Rigging an inept dog-and-pony show to “defend” him undermines the credibility of whatever cogent points he may offer in his defense.
Even the video can’t put us in the officer’s shoes, confronting Ms. Baca in real time. The very wide angle of body cameras distorts distances, and thus speed. Folks should factor that in. But the law requires LCPD to give citizens that opportunity forthwith, not when it’s more convenient. People see LCPD violating the law to protect an employee who may have committed a crime or performed his duties negligently. Those duties are sufficiently challenging that the brass oughtn’t to complicate them by squandering community members’ trust.
Here’s one more reason we need a review board. And I’m disappointed the City is not only playing games but declining to discuss the issues – presumably because LCPD lacks plausible answers to our many questions.