77 Minutes

Brave victims tell their stories. Lot of information and footage from the time. Do not watch if you cannot handle crime scene footage. Director comes off as a guy looking for scandal and to blame the police. Asking victims if anyone could have grabbed the shooter. Why things took as long as they did. Comes off rude to victims who are speaking about a horrific experience. Very biased and misses the mark on what everyone involved went through. Director/interviewer is cold and clearly looking to be a person who's going to uncover some conspiracy. Asks a LOT of speculative questions that can't possibly be answered by those he asks.

I was 8 when this happened so I hadn't heard anything about it until now. It's absolutely heartbreaking. Unimaginable suffering in this community.

The questions Charlie Minn asked the police officers were ridiculous. I don't know if Charlie Minn was alive in 1984 when this tragedy occurred but knowledge of mass shootings was minimal. Every police department did not employ officers who had experience responding to them. It's not like it is today. People weren't carrying cell phones. Information was not received in minutes. Of course things could've been done differently, lessons were learned, protocol was changed. But to personally attack individual officers is so naïve and hurtful. No officer arrived on scene and thought "we'll just sit bank and let this play out". He makes it sound like they chose to let people die. These officers did what they knew to do at the time.

Clearly, the documentarian is biased, attempting to incite anger and blame against the police department for their delay in responding to the scene. Poor fact checking as he questions former SWAT commander, Jerry Sanders, for faulty beeper (from 1984!), being at a gathering where "alcohol was being consumed" (false), and not giving sniper "green light". Documentarian degrades the memories of those lost and traumatized by focusing his film on blame while he himself has no tactical training. Such a shame.

Learning from mistakes made in approaching a mass-shooting scene, trying to apprehend the perpetrator(s) is how imrovements are made, how new generations of law rnforcement are trained. In 1984, mass shootings were relatively non-existent. The interviewer seems determined to ignore the conditions and point out hypothetical 'what if' scenarios - who can know those answers, those outcomes?

It is very well done- except the obvious agenda of shaming the police that put their lives on the line for these people. It's not 20010 when everyone would have cellphones, telling the cops what they would need to help. Their reasons for not storming the building were totally valid for the time. I admire the director for giving the back story of the shooter but not the name. It would have been a much better documentary if the director had remained unbiased and realizes that the only blame lied with the shooter.

This could've been an excellent doco. It's an absolutely horrific tragedy and a piece of history that deserves to be told but it needs to be done with some class and sophistication. The director (who put himself in this more than he should have) who also interviews the victims and officers on the scene and is so incredibly ridiculous in his line of questioning.

There also should've been a content warning about the police crime scene video.