Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle

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?

Killing them safely is a brilliantly made movie that captivates the audience. The storyline is riveting, as it takes you through an incredible story. The movie does a great job of digging deep and looking at a bigger picture. Tying all of the recent incidents with TASERS, and tying it back to the founders was brilliant. The interviews in the movie were excellent, and they did a great job of getting great footage. It's not easy to get this type of content for a movie, but this movie does just that. They were able to ask the tough questions to the people at TASER, and in return got great content. Overall, as a non-fiction movie, Killing Them Safely has the intensity and intrigue of a great fiction classic. You are engaged throughout the entire movie, and can't wait to see what is uncovered next. Nick Berardini directed a true masterpiece, and I am excited to see what else he is able to come up with in the future. Definitely a bright future ahead.

This movie reminds me of if someone had made one about a tobacco company at the time they were still denying a link between smoking and related diseases. The legal-speak used by the company executives comes across as insincere and duplicitous.

It seems like a fairly honestly made film. Focusing on something proposed as a non lethal solution, that turns out not be.

That said, the overriding issue that seems to be highlighted by the film is that they can cause death - and that they are overused. Most instances where there was a fatality, it was where the cops used it to subdue someone, not to disarm or avoid an extremely violent / homicidal individual.

So I can't help feel that the investigation should have concentrated on the people using them, and why they did in seemingly the wrong circumstances.

Apparently when this came out the makers of the TASER were so infuriated that they review bombed it on Amazon. I can only assume the same happened here, too. How else to explain the strong feeling some reviewers have about the negative portrayal of a weapon that police are known and encouraged to abuse? There are some reviews that give weirdly low ratings and only seem to complain about the film being anti-TASER or not showing enough pro-TASER points of view. What a pathetic way to think about documentary filmmaking. If you want pro-TASER content it can't be that hard to find. To those who review bombed this: I can only assume that you are bad people.

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.