Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle

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.

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.

Killing Them Safely is an eye opening, moving, detailed, bold documentary. Some of the footage is so shocking that you will want to shout at the screen.

Before seeing Killing Them Safely, I knew almost nothing about tasers and Taser International. It's not black and white and it's not simple. While this film is incredibly focused on it's subject, it's not just about use of force and the police. It explores family and business, human nature and authority.The filmmakers crafted Killing Them Safely into not just a movie about young entrepreneurs, but a movie with complicated life or death stakes.

I've seen this film twice now and would recommend it to anyone.

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?!

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?