Is Documentation the New Intervention? Debrina Kawam's Story.

Written by a Gathering Currents intern, edited by Co-Executive Director Lilly Fellows.

Recent trends in New York City subway violence indicate that there has been a slight decrease in general violence on the subway, with fewer robberies and murders reported at the beginning of 2025 compared to the same time period in previous years (amNY). Even as more New York City commuters have been funneled into the subway system following the implementation of higher vehicle tolls on January 5, 2025, under the Central Business District Tolling Program (CBDTP), premeditated crime has not seen any increase. Despite evidence for improvement, public perception of underground safety has been rattled by several high-profile, shocking incidents on the subway.

One of the most notable of such events was the murder of Debrina Kawam after being set on fire while sleeping on a train car in Brooklyn by Sebastien Zapeta. Following reports of Kawam's status as an unhoused individual and Zapeta's status as an undocumented immigrant, this horrific incident has prompted conversations around homelessness and immigration as causes of crime and interpersonal violence (Independent). However, as videos of Kawam's murder have surfaced, examination of people's reactions to the incident reveals another social issue that likely contributed to her death: the contemporary prioritization of documentation over action.

What Happened?

On December 22, 2024, Debrina Kawam, a 57-year-old woman from New Jersey, was sleeping on a train car at the Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue subway station when 33-year-old Sebastien Zapeta used a lighter to set fire to her clothing. Video evidence of the incident from security cameras, officer body cam footage, and a video taken by a bystander reveals that there appeared to be several onlookers to the murder, including two police officers, none of whom made any attempt to rush to Kawam’s aid (Antelope Valley Press). Furthermore, Zapeta is seen casually observing his actions unfold, and even going so far as to fan the flames using a shirt. 

Following public backlash for the lack of police intervention, Joseph Gulotta, the New York Police Department (NYPD) Chief of Transit, announced that he believed the onlooking officers did their job appropriately and effectively (USA Today). Regarding the reactions of the average citizens who witnessed Kawam’s murder, while immobilizing fear and perceived powerlessness against a fire are understandable obstacles to bystander intervention in this situation, the true horror lies in the witnesses’ apparent indifference captured in the video footage, as well as one bystander’s decision to press record. This appalling series of events sparks a discussion about how urban apathy and internet culture have altered the nature of the bystander effect in our modern environment.

What is the bystander effect?

The bystander effect, originally coined in 1968 by Bibb Latanè and John Darley, is a phenomenon in which the presence of other witnesses to an incident inhibits an individual from personally intervening in a harmful situation. Latané and Darley identified several psychological factors that contribute to this effect:

• Pluralistic Ignorance: Devaluing the severity of the situation because others are not helping.

• Diffusion of Responsibility: The belief that multiple witnesses make you less accountable.

• Evaluation Apprehension: The fear of public backlash.

Empirical evidence of the bystander effect reveals that people are more likely to step up and help when they are the sole witness to a harmful situation, but this impulse to intervene decreases in the presence of additional witnesses. While this phenomenon is seemingly instinctual to humans and appears across diverse conditions, the murder of Debrina Kawam sheds light on how the widespread emergence of technology in the form of security cameras and personal phones has changed the way people react to and attribute responsibility in harmful situations.

Why Did Nobody Help?

The precise mechanisms by which the bystander effect unfolds are conditional to the setting, the sociocultural atmosphere, and the type and number of bystanders present in a given situation. In examining the case of Debrina Kawam, the presence of security cameras and police, New York City norms of public behavior, and urban apathy co-produce an environment of exacerbated bystander passivity.

Videography as Bystandership

The role technology played in inhibiting active bystandership to Kawam’s suffering suggests that practical intervention has been replaced by digital participation. In some ways, this serves a beneficial purpose. Security camera footage was used to help identify Sebastien Zapeta, and the witness who began filming the incident may have felt in a moment of crisis that capturing evidence was an effective form of bystandership. However, the benefit of documentation is insufficient when the cost is human life. The appalling apathy displayed by onlookers indicates that filming is an action to appease an audience within a desensitized, voyeuristic culture that prioritizes social media clout over communal responsibility. Panicked immobilization and helplessness are normal reactions to witnessing a woman burn to death, pressing record at the expense of her life is not, or at the very least should not be. The “keep your head down” culture of New York City is the ideal precondition for apathetic individualism, making the addition of technological bystandership particularly dangerous. 

More than a testament to the inadequacy of subway safety precautions, Debrina Kawam’s murder is a powerful wake-up call to the way we have dehumanized members of our community to mere spectacles that will satisfy our desperate search for attention in a world of likes and views.

Ethical Documentation

When considering bystander responses to Debrina Kawam's murder, documentation of the event feels like an entirely unethical reaction. However, documentation can be an important tool for active bystanders when it is used correctly. It is critical to understand when it is okay to document and when it is not.

Documentation of the harmful behavior may be a helpful intervention tactic in order to provide evidence and act after the moment. However, documentation should not be a first step action. Active bystanders first responsibility is to see to the safety of themselves, other bystanders, the target, and even the harmdoer. Documentation should only be used with another action, or if no other action is possible, and the recording should only be provided to the police for follow-up or the target to decide what to do with it. When we post harmful videos online, we not only add harm to the target by taking away their autonomy and privacy, we know that when we uplift harm and passive bystandership, it only leads to more harmful and passive behaviors. In this case, bystanders could have recognized and analyzed the harmful action sooner, recruited and directed allies, approached the police officers, called for help, or stepped in themselves.

This is not to blame or shame the bystanders present that day. This situation was a horrific incident where shock, fear, diffusion of responsibility, and uncertainty were all at play. And, in this case, the attack reportedly unfolded extremely rapidly.

We use this example to highlight the importance of active bystander training, practicing, and preparing for harmful situations that might arise. We need to ask ourselves, ahead of time, "When something happens that feels impossible to respond to, what are the different ways we can be an active bystander?"

What Else Can We Do?

As conversations implicating immigration and homelessness have taken the center stage of public reaction to Debrina Kawam's murder, it is critical to consider not just what caused this incident, but also why nobody helped in order to understand how to prevent a situation like this from happening again. We must put in the work to:

• Improve public safety precautions by promoting mental health services and emergency response protocols

• Protect vulnerable populations through systemic change

• Hold the police accountable for mistakes, harmful actions, and oversights

• Combat the culture of individualism by strengthening community relationships and responsibilities

• Reflect on our priorities and biases, and start a dialogue around how these social attitudes have failed our communities; difficult conversations are necessary for change

• Educate ourselves and others about how to become active bystanders and overcome the physical, social, and psychological inhibitors to safe intervention