The BBC Responds to Pre-Emptive Tasering on Traffic Cops

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the complaint I filed with the BBC regarding the presentation of a 'pre-emptive tasering' on the program Traffic Cops. To their credit, the complaints department has promptly replied with the following explanation:

Dear Dr Grayson

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Traffic Cops' as broadcast on 7 August.

I understand you were unhappy the portrayal of tazer guns in this programme and appreciate you felt we described the weapon as "non-lethal". I recognise you have strong views regarding this matter.

Having reviewed the programme in question I feel it is important to highlight that when introducing the weapon we described it as "less than lethal", as in less lethal than a regular ballistics based firearm.

We would simply have nothing to gain by incorrectly describing such an item and feel our description was accurate, balanced and allowed viewers to pass their own judgement on this often contentious weapon in their own time.

I hope this allays your concerns, with your complaint in mind I can assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

As you can probably imagine, this has done nothing to allay my concerns. So, I have sent another letter requesting that my concerns be pursued further:

Thanks for your reply.

I too have watched the segment again. At no time was a direct comparison made to fire-arms. 'Less than lethal' (uttered at 2.20 in the episode) was used to describe the Taser independent from fire-arms and implies that using the object on an individual will not lead to death full stop.

This, as I stated in my original complaint is simply not true. Amnesty International, for example, has compiled a list of over 400 people who have died in North America after being shot with a Taser. Taser International, the manufacturer of the Taser product, has also been found legally liable in a recent wrongful death proceedings in California.

Not to be too over the top, but what threshold in the number of deaths needs to be crossed before the BBC would feel compelled to drop the 'less than lethal' description?

If a comparison was being made to fire-arms--and one wished to make the argument-- the correct phrase would be 'less lethal than X'. Thus, the justification for the term that has been offered is neither reasonable nor convincing.

To be clear, at no time did my complaint imply that the BBC stood to gain from the way in which the Taser was described. My complaint was that the producers of the programme simply deferred to police descriptions of the Taser without presenting anything to the contrary--despite the large volume of evidence about the weapon's contribution to hundreds of deaths. If the BBC is going to show something controversial like this, it has a responsibility to give time to the other side, especially in a context where the deployment of Tasers is being implemented by several police forces across the country and pre-emptive Tasering of particular suspects is being considered as a standard operating procedure by many of these forces.

Moreover, the very real possibility that a human rights violation--under articles 3 and 5(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights -- was filmed has not been addressed. The argument that viewers can make their own judgement would be convincing if these types of issues had been presented to them. Instead, the perspective of the police--granted that the show is about policing-- was privileged with Tasers being presented as a tool that makes policing safer and easier. In essense it was an advert for the use of Tasers. There was not a single reference to the broader legal context which would have provided some balance.

And  the element of poor taste (i.e., the jokes that were made about the discomfort felt by the suspect: 'shocking surprises' and 'shock of his life') has not been addressed either.

While I greatly appreciate having received a prompt response to my complaint, I do not feel that there has been an appreciation of the seriousness of the issues raised. As such, I would like know what--if any--options are available to further pursue this matter.

Respectfully yours,

Dr. Kyle Grayson

When I receive a response, I'll let you know.

Photo credit: roland

Comments

[Michael]

I wathced this epidose and almost vommited at seeing that British police are allowed the use of pre-emptive torture. Morally, a taser should ONLY be used when the suspect is pointing a gun at someone. This is totally disgusting and shows how morally corrupt Britain is today.

[kyle@chasingdragons]

I agree Michael. Watching it from the comfort of my sitting room was visceral enough. I can't imagine the terror (let alone pain) of being electrocuted without warning on the street. And that doesn't even touch on how awful it would be to see the whole incident on television at a later date with the law enforcement officers who hurt you laughing about the entire thing.

As to what the use of pre-emptive tasering signifies more broadly, I'm not entirely sure. Whether it is a lack of awareness, apathy, fear, or an underlying vindictive streak in British society that makes these types of practices possible is still an open question. I'd be interested in hearing what you and/or others might think about what enables the acceptance of these policing practices.

I'll be giving an update in the next few days on what happened with my complaint. Unfortunately, the news is not particularly positive.