Brazilian Man Shot by Trigger-Happy Police

-CTF Editorial: August 17, 2005

As I understand it from a report from ITV, the Brazilian man who was shot, Jean-Charles Menezes, simply lived on the same block as someone who was under surveillance for suspected terrorist activities.

The cop on the stakeout, left his post to go urinate in an alley, and on the way back, he saw this man, who was NOT wearing a bulky jacket despite initial reports submitted by the police. The officer had no idea WHICH house the man came out of, but just his BEING BROWN was enough to turn him into an insta-suspect. And he remained one as he calmly walked to work, got a newspaper, paid for his subway ticket, picked up his pace when he saw the train had reached the platform - as EVERYONE does in such a situation - but ultimately WALKED onto the train and calmly sat down.

A cop ALREADY ON BOARD the train saw him, heard about the search on his radio AND GRABBED THE GUY, he HAD BOTH HIS ARMS RESTRAINED, when the cop who was following him from the house walked up and shot the poor guy 7 times in the HEAD, and once in the shoulder just for good measure.

So basically, my first fear about this whole thing has been realized - this young man was KILLED FOR BEING BROWN, then the police lied about it.

There are several ironies about this.

First, racial profiling has been seen as logical because all the 9/11 hijackers came from the Middle East and had a certain look. But the problem with this is that their crime - terrorism - ITSELF isn't racially based. In other words, if I want to catch a KKK terrorist, the chances of them being white - pretty good! But THIS terrorism is RELIGIOUSLY BASED. And while this is certainly a perversion of Islam, this is a heretical movement WITHIN that faith. A WORLDWIDE faith. Which means there are Asian Muslims, and White Muslims, and Arab Muslims, etc. In fact, one of the guys who was a part of the first WTC bomb plot in 1993, was of Irish descent, and had flaming red hair.

So while general guidelines like "an Arab is MORE LIKELY to be a terrorist" MIGHT hold up, it also has problems because there are others such as Hispanics who have similar coloration. So I.D. purely on sight is inherently faulty and completely impractical in this case.

Additionally, on the reverse side of this overbroad targeting or random searches can be equally ridiculous. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the 90 year old grandmother merits a cavity search before boarding the flight. I think if she starts some shit on the plane - we can take her.

Another aspect about this, is the use of cameras.

On an average day, you are on camera at least 50 times. It is a definite violation of your personal privacy. But the camera is similar to what Bishop Desmond Tutu said when referring to religion - "It is a sword which can cut either way. Religion is neutral. How it is used, is not." Similarly, a camera is neutral, how it is used is not.

On the one hand, companies do not have the right to monitor you in the bathroom, lunchroom, or company locker room. But many companies have abused the use of employee surveillance and done exactly that - usually on the excuse of trying to find drug use - with huge lawsuits resulting when employees discover they've been photographed changing clothes and such on what was ostensibly private time. But do they have the right to monitor the work areas to ensure performance? Perhaps, again with limits.

What about building security? Does an apartment building have the right to put up cameras that monitor your movement in the garage or lobby? Yes. But to put cameras in your actual apartment? No. Has this abuse still occurred? Yes.

But cameras also caught terror suspects before during and after the subway attacks. We have footage of the 9/11 hijackers before they boarded the plane. And in the London case, the camera footage also led to the arrests of other suspects.

Then again, they also caught every bit of this tragic police shooting.

So while it monitors us, it also monitors those with positions of authority. Two way street. It'll capture the guy robbing the 7-11, but it'll also capture the cops gang-beating Rodney King.

The REAL area of concern isn't WHETHER there are cameras out there, but WHO OWNS THE IMAGES they photograph, and WHO CONTROLS THEIR REVELATION to the rest of us.

Yes, a camera may catch a cop beating a suspect, but if the police department can seize the footage and refuse to release it, we have a problem.

Similarly, if someone photographs you against your will say, in your apartment or some other private space and you are not committing a crime, and then broadcasts your image on the internet, he has not just taken your privacy, he has taken your right to your own image - your own likeness. Your image is a currency. Your property in the most personal sense. In a strange sense, he's almost "stolen your spirit" with his camera just as some indigenous people used to fear.

But if cameras capture a crime like say, TORTURE AND MURDER in Abu Ghraib prison, and only low-level functionaries are being punished for crimes authorized by higher-ups, and those same higher-ups are refusing to release the images of those crimes so that THEIR performance may ALSO be evaluated, again, we have a problem.

So after all that, what are we back to, when pursuing any criminal - terrorist or otherwise? EVIDENCE. Old fashioned police procedure type stuff. PROBABLE CAUSE. And how you look? Not evidence unless there is a SPECIFIC description of a PARTICULAR suspect.

Frankly, though this is just as problematic, logic would dictate that your membership in a mosque that has a mullah who preaches hate makes you more suspect than the color of your skin. And while that alone certainly isn't enough to lock someone up much less shoot them seven times in the head, if that was combined with recent purchases of nails, flammable materials, pipes, explosives, etc. You might have someone worth watching.

But overall, all these methods can morph into violations of people's rights unless a BASIC respect for civil liberties is inherent in the mindset of EVERYONE involved, from top government officials on down.

Terrorists, the real ones, do have a tactical advantage here (but in some sense don't ALL criminals?). They can use this system of rights to hide - but the consequences for abandoning those civil liberties? I think are far worse.

Then the terrorists really DO win. Because they don't even have to do anything. We'll terrorize OURSELVES.