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.

An interesting piece, although very one-sided. It starts out by covering the background of the early taser devices and then how they reinvented it in the late 1990s.Rather than give both sides of the argument, all they do is focus on the anti-taser one. They very briefly cover how Tasers are used 760 times a day in the USA alone. These are all circumstances where the taser may well have been used instead of a firearm. All potentially saving lives.But no, they focus on how all the cops that use the Tasers are using it for poops and giggles and didn't really need to do so. Also, they show the science for the Taser negatively affecting someone's heart, but skim over the research that shows it has little effect. A load of crap

Greetings again from the darkness. "Don't tase me, bro". In 2007, an incident at The University of Florida became a humorous viral sensation when a student, after asking John Kerry a question, was forcibly removed by police. His pleading became a catchphrase, but didn't prevent his being hit with the Taser. Now comes this documentary from director Nick Berardini, and he pulls back the curtain on the ethics of Taser International Corporation, the safety of tasers, and the protocol and use of this weapon by police officers.We learn Jack Cover invented the taser in 1969, and it was the Smith brothers (Rick and Tom) who founded the Taser International company in 1993, increased the voltage output, and began marketing heavily to police departments as a safe alternative to firearms. The Smith's claim the taser is "the biggest revolution in law enforcement since the radio", though they spend the bulk of the movie giving evasive answers to variations of the question, "Is the taser safe or potentially deadly?" Director Berardini documents tragic events where police use of tasers ended with suspects dying. Doctors and lawyers chime in, but it's the testimonies of Tom and Rick Smith themselves that provide a level of creepiness that would complement most any horror film. Actual video footage is shown of not just the Smith brothers numerous depositions, but also of some of the actual events. Two of the most devastating are a man at the Vancouver airport, and a young man stopped for speeding directly across the street from his own house. The latter died after being tased … while his parents looked on. Neither appeared to be an immediate threat to the police officers. The film recounts incidents where kids as young as 6 years old, and women in their 80's have been hit with police tasers.Reports show that more than 17,000 Law Enforcement Agencies utilize tasers, and one of the more interesting case studies is that of the Warren, Michigan Police Department. One of the early adopters of the weapon, this police department dropped the taser from use by their officers after a tragic incident. Since then, they have seen no increase in police injuries or shootings, drawing into question the company claim of a safer alternative.At a minimum, the film should instigate further debates on two key issues: the safety of the weapons, and the training techniques and best use for police officers. The key concern seems to be a direct hit to the chest area which can immediately impact the victim's heart. It's frightening to think that police could be Taser-dependent or Taser-happy in using a weapon that may not be safe. We see some fascinating video of macho tough-guy cops being dropped immediately by one second (or less) tasers, but it's the events with multiple prolonged zaps that seem to cause the biggest concern. Again … this research is necessary and should be done immediately, given the widespread use of Tasers. As a side note, Taser International is still in the taser business, but their biggest revenue source is now police body cameras. Say what you will, but the company is certainly opportunistic.

To take this movie seriously, you have to be willing to believe that our Home Office (like the Yanks FBI) is too stupid to see if the taser is doing more good than harm. This basketball playing filmmaker is arrogant enough to believe that he understand the science and statistics better than our top coppers. Based only on the interviews and trailer, this appears to be an advertisement for the Ambulance-Chasing Barrister Burton and his expert witness Zipes. I wonder if Nick is bright enough to even understand that he was worked by these smarter adults. Nick's arrogance more than compensates for his limited abilities since he has decided that he understands things that the Smith brothers did not. And Nick understands things better than 500 000 coppers that use these things. Amazing. What does Saint Nick want us coppers to do? Should we say, "Gosh we were too stupid to understand the pros and cons of these weapons, but now that Nick Bernardino has opened our eyes, we will throw them in the rubbish and go back to the club."The sad things is that people that are totally ignorant will cop work might take this film seriously and this could lead to more cop-hating out there.I gave it 2 stars (instead of 1 star) for good editing and great trailer)