[Sparks]

Considering the pain involved and the dangers of their use, I wonder why people don't look at someone being tasered in the same light as officers beating someone with a nightstick. Obviously, tasers are better for PR. For all the supporters of police officers' use of tasers in situations where they are not in any apparent danger (due to a subject having a weapon, for example), why don't you picture the cops beating the crap out of someone with a nightstick instead?

I just think that the combination of:

1. Tasers are PR friendly
2. Tasers look better than physical force, even when the level of physical force required would be much less excessive than the use of a taser. (This one's really important)
3. Use of tasers is up to the officer's discretion without clear rules for their use
4. Officers are subject to the same human failings and mistakes as we all are when going by intuition, and they're going by intuition.
5. The police force is much less transparent than we'd like to believe.

...is a recipe for trouble. (in some situations, for what I assume to be a small minority of police officers)

It seems to me that there should be very detailed, specific conditions that must be met before tasers may be used. And I'm not talking conditions like "when a subject is uncooperative." That's so open to interpretation that it's practically useless. Officers ignoring these conditions should not only lose their taser, but be subject to additional punishment from a more transparent police force. As for the last point, why aren't the details of police trials made public? It's ridiculous that they aren't.

Look at this Polish guy. They could have easily subdued him using a small amount of physical force - a claim backed up by a ciminal justice professor in the Edmonton Journal today. There seems to be a real lack of respect for the level of force that the use of a taser really is, for a select few police officers.