Nonureva Really Surprised!

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

MartinHafer A documentary that talks about the dangers of the use of tasers is an important topic. After all, since they were first introduced, there have been a few stories on the news of folks who died after the device was used...and no one wants that. So I was actually looking forward to seeing this one...and was left feeling frustrated because the film ended up looking like one-sided documentary evidence for folks suing the taser manufacturer instead of really educating the viewer. It contends that tasers can kill...no duh, Sherlock! We KNOW that they can kill. But the film never talks about OTHER supposedly non-lethal methods...how do they compare to the taser?! How about stun guns, batons or other methods?! This IS a very important omission...and one that left me baffled unless the film had no intention in telling the whole story. This is never explored because the film appears not to care in the least...it just wants to attack the taser. Are there many witnesses that discuss other methods law enforcement should be using instead? Nope. It's just a long attack on the taser and they quickly say (with no evidence to back it up) that the taser doesn't save many police officers' lives?! I am NOT pro-taser (and have no real involvement in the argument) but it still sounds better than having cops going into potential problem situations with their guns drawn!I might have been convinced that tasers should be eliminated had the film bothered to present an intelligent and well-documented case. Sadly, after seeing the film what I really know is that the taser manufacturer has deep pockets and there are lawsuits...and several are listed at the end. Not filled with good empirical evidence or comparisons...just, what appears to me, to be a hatchet job. I am still waiting and still want to know...should the police be using them? And, if so, when? And, if improvements can be made to make them safer, what?!

vex86bird First off I'm giving this a 5 out of 10, because the filmmakers did a good job with the one side to this story. I also think it is a bit curious that all the other reviewers that gave reviews that pointed out the film was extremely biased were overwhelmingly "unhelpful" reviews. Meanwhile the "This film changed my life!" reviews all got glaringly "helpful" reviews. This leads me to believe the filmmakers had all his or her friends "thumbs downing" all the negative reviews. For shame!So I watch a lot of documentaries and sometimes you have to take a bit of bias with a grain of salt and sometimes it is warranted when atrocities are involved. The entire premise of this film hinges on the original claim that TASER International made that TASERs couldn't kill a human being. Well "armed" with the fact that over 128 people have died in the 15 or so years the modern TASER has been out, the entire film paints TASER as merchants of death. This is a prime critical thinking fallacy in that of 10's if not hundreds of thousands of people who have been "tazed", some have died while the filmmakers frame it so that it appears that there is an epidemic.With that the filmmakers highlight several stories of either people misusing the devices, or the fluke instances where people reacted poorly and died. It's a shame, but as far as less lethal ways of stopping someone who is liable to hurt you or their self, having a 99%+ chance of "no" adverse effects? It's the most ideal tool out there. People lose sight that this is a tool intended for stopping someone who is going to harm others or their self. It's a tool for stopping further loss of life, not something that has a mind of it's own that goes out, hunts down victims, and purposely murders people. Removing the instances where the devices were used improperly there have been less than a dozen fatalities? As one of the TASER International brothers pointed out, more people are accidentally killed by falling coconuts than properly used TASERs on non- complying law breakers. Hey maybe law enforcement agencies should move to using coconuts? Although the exporter of coconuts would face litigation every other time a coconut resulted in a fatality.I anticipate getting "thumbs downed" by all the filmmaker's friends for pointing out this might be one of if not the most biased film I've ever seen, but I have to support all the other "negative" reviews of this. Kind of interesting the exact same percentage of people that "thumbs up" the praising reviews are the exact same percentage that "thumbs down" the negative reviews huh? If the filmmakers highlighted how the TASER's have been misused and then illuminated how effective of a tool it is and has a remarkable safety record, then the viewer could make the logical deduction that the TASER is a valuable tool. Only showing the negative points and blatantly painting TASER International as villains will only serve to have people falsely make opinions of that company or product.

dbborroughs This is an examination in to the safety of tasers. The film examines the creation of the weapon and it's use by law enforcement. The film looks at several cases of death and injury as a result of their use.For the most part this is everything you want to know about tasers. It goes into every thing you could ever want to know about the weapon, then men who created it and the company that manufactures it. The film also questions whether Taser's are safe to use......the problem is that if you watch the film and listen to what it's saying all the questioning about the safety is wrecked when you realize that all of the deaths and the result of misuse-the injured and killed were either tased repeatedly or for tased for much longer than is recommended. I don't know about you but I can't really question the safety of something if it's being misused.I saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2015 and you could feel the air go out of the audience when everyone realized the film was essentially cutting it's own throat.Worth a look, but take what it's saying with a grain of salt.

allendutch This movie draws you in with (a) a catchy title (apparently the first one had to be re- named); and (b) a glossy movie trailer with review quotes from every reviewer you have never heard of - and then this movie goes where the easy attack on any company would go -- corporations suck -- police suck too -- non-lethal methods suck -- Benjamin Franklin is a fraud too... More regulation is always the answer... As with any large organizations run by humans instead of machines, police and the technology they use have their limits and potential for abuse, but where is the film's final conclusion? Is the film's better idea to give police foam noodles... or really promoting an option that will remove a lifesaving tool from their arsenal?I have to admit I didn't make it through the credits, were the trial attorneys who funded the film listed? What about the board-certified physicians who took a pass on this because of the faulty science? What about Ralph Nader?