Killing Them Safely (2015)
In the matter of Nick Berardini v TASER, I find in favor of the defendants. For a long portion of the documentary, there was a slight sense that it had an agenda, but it is only in the second half that the editing really makes it look like a plaintiff's case against TASER. The thing is, as a device used most prominently by police officers (though courts have found the 2nd Amendment to cover civilian rights to carry), they are an intermediary factor between the taser's design. It seems more of a police matter than a product liability issue if the police use it too readily or for too long.
If there is something there (and I'd have to know the specific causes of action), it concerns figuring out exactly what TASER's obligation was to convey slight risks. The other thing that is missed here is realistic alternatives. If the police officer who shot Oscar Grant pulled out his taser, as intended, instead of a gun, it is overwhelmingly likely Oscar Grant would be alive. I certainly would rather be tazed than shot. With as many people as cops are killing with guns, do we really want to take away an alternative? Of course, left unsaid is the potential for future development. Can the concept be tweaked to provide greater safety without a resulting loss of efficacy? Are there alternatives that slot comfortably into the same place in the escalation of force. It makes me think of environmentalists who say they want to get off of greenhouse gases but then object to wind power because it kills birds. You can't just say no until something perfect comes around, you have to balance the tradeoffs.
Wait, changed my mind, the TASER lawyer threw in the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit as an example of ridiculous tort lawsuits, so CINECAST! that guy.