How Trayvon Martin's Murder Changed my Ideas about Surveillance

The George Zimmerman trial has challenged some of my beliefs about surveillance in the 21^st century.  On one hand, I’m like many of you and feel that the NSA, CIA, and other governmental institutions have far too much access to our private lives.  I also catch myself feeling the panoptical gaze of friends, co-workers, and random people on Facebook and other social media. In my personal dealings, I usually lament the disappearance of privacy.  Christina Nippert-Eng’s insights in Islands of Privacy are both timely and right on the money.    

But, the George Zimmerman trial raises interesting questions about how crime fighting might be better with better surveillance technologies.  

What if we had the shooting on video?  Would this case already be closed?

Most of the state’s case against Zimmerman has been built on witness testimony.  In addition to having Rachel Jenteal take the stand and testify that Trayvon was being stalked by Zimmerman, the state has called Trayvon Martin's mother and brother who have testified that the grainy voice screaming for help on the 911 call was indeed the voice of Trayvon Martin.   

The defense team, meanwhile, is trying to poke holes in this argument.  They are arguing that Zimmerman was the person calling for help.  If we believe this story, then, Zimmerman’s decision to use his firearm was justified and legally protected under “Stand your Ground Laws” in Florida. 

While watching this case unfold, I can’t help but wonder how much of this back-and-forth about “who said what” and "who did what" would be moot if we had video surveillance catching the fatal shooting-in-progress.  Imagine if there was a video of the shooting.  We might be able to see the way that this shooting unfolded in real time.  Zimmerman's defense might fall apart if the video showed him stalking and shooting an already subdued Trayvon Martin.    

For what it’s worth, law enforcement have already begun to use surveillance videos to help apprehend suspects.  I remember how the LAPD used videos of looters to arrest suspects after the Lakers won the NBA Finals in 2009.   Federal law enforcement also solicited videos from retailers and civilian smart phones while investigating the Boston Marathon bombing.  And most recently, a nanny cam helped capture a man who staged a brutal home invasion beating of a New Jersey woman.  Surveillance, in these moments, seems to be a real boon for crime fighting.  When it's not our Internet history and personal lives on the line, we all seem to cheer about how the criminal justice system can use surveillance technologies to apprehend and convict criminals.  

This is not to say that videos are inscrutable evidence.  We can all remember how trial attorneys selectively played back and interpreted grainy home video of police officers beating Rodney King.  Videos that show "what happened" can still be interpreted differently by different parties. This is one of the key lessons from Charles Goodwin's classic article, "Professional Vision," which looks at the ways that attorneys used/manipulated the Rodney King videos.  

During my time in Philadelphia, I also attended various gun cases where videos had caught someone shooting someone else on tape.  These tapes rarely had audio and were often of such poor quality that prosecutors had a difficult time using them as strong pieces of evidence against defendants.  Defense attorneys could easily poke holes in these videos, claiming that the camera angle didn't provide visual confirmation that the defendant was indeed the shooter.  

Like many of you, I'm weary of living in a world that feels like a scene from Orwell's 1984.  But, is there a greater good that justifies ramping up surveillance?  In some moments (like now), I tend to think so.