Ivanice and the 40 Bullets: The Case That Did Not Trigger Social Alarm

In November 2017, journalist Fernanda Câncio brought to the public’s attention, through a forceful article in Diário de Notícias, a reflection on the case of Ivanice Costa, a 36-year-old Brazilian woman who was shot dead by the Public Security Police (PSP) in Lisbon. The piece, titled “Ivanice and the 40 bullets”, exposes inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions in the authorities’ official account, as well as the apparent apathy of society in the face of a lethal act of violence committed by State agents.

In the early hours of 15 November, Ivanice was in the car with her partner when the vehicle was hit by 40 shots fired by seven PSP officers, 20 of which struck the vehicle, causing Ivanice’s death from a gunshot wound to the neck. The police action was justified by the alleged resemblance of the car to a vehicle involved in a robbery in the South Bank area. It was also claimed that the driver failed to comply with the order to stop and attempted to run the officers over, which was said to have prompted the use of firearms.

Fernanda Câncio highlighted the speed with which the PSP’s official statement endorsed the version given by the officers involved, justifying the shots on the basis of an alleged attempt to run the officers over. The journalist dismantles the logic presented, noting that, under Portuguese law, the use of firearms is lawful only in situations of self-defence where there is an imminent danger of death or serious injury. Thus, firing at a fleeing vehicle, especially after the alleged “danger” had passed, amounts, at the very least, to excessive use of force.

The journalist goes beyond the legal analysis and addresses a profoundly moral and social issue: the normalisation of police violence, especially against vulnerable populations. Ivanice was a woman, Brazilian and poor, and her death seemed to prompt more resignation than outrage. For Câncio, it is revealing that, while cases such as a dinner at the National Pantheon caused enormous scandal, the killing of a woman by police action did not trigger a “social alarm”, as the then Minister of Justice acknowledged at the time.

The article also brought to light the recurrence of justifications based on “attempts to run officers over” by drivers fleeing the scene, often accepted without judicial challenge. Citing decisions of Portuguese courts, Câncio reminds readers that failure to comply with an order to stop does not, in itself, justify firing at a vehicle, least of all when the alleged danger has already passed. However, holding officers involved in such deaths to account remains exceptional, reinforcing the idea that there is a kind of licence to kill.

The official narrative of Ivanice’s case, as with others like it, is a portrait of how justice, the State and society often treat lives that carry little “social weight”. Câncio ends her text with a bitter criticism of the complacency surrounding the death of a poor woman, who became merely another number in the statistics. A death which, as she rightly noted, did not generate enough outrage to call abuses of authority into question.

Ivanice Costa’s case was not merely an isolated incident. It raises fundamental questions about the use of police force, the transparency of institutions and equality in the treatment of human life. Thanks to the work of journalists such as Fernanda Câncio, Ivanice’s memory remains alive, serving as an uncomfortable reminder that justice cannot be selective and that “social alarm” should not depend on who dies, but on the circumstances surrounding the death.