I actually support the equipping and use of TASERs by police forces. Giving officers facing sticky situations the option to use a tool that allows for an option between "hit with a baton" and "shoot to kill" seems like a no-brainer to me.
But I'm not an apologist for TAZER International. I think that some of their promotional campaigns are deceptive, to say the least. A TASER is not a harmless and 100% safe means to incapacitate someone. Anymore than a beanbag round for a riot gun, or tear/vomit gas is. A TASER is a less lethal device that is generally safe for people in good health.
Oddly enough, however, the police don't have the option of doing a full medical work-up on someone before they use these devices on them. For that matter, four or five simultaneous or near simultaneous shocks are going to be a different manner of beast, too. The cops need to admit that what they're using is a device that can kill, and recognize that the procedural controls for using the devices need to be codified in a similar manner to how there are procedures for the use of firearms.
When I read a story like this one, where a delusional 87 year old woman is tazed, and dies as a result of that, I get all stabby when the story mentions that the shooter involved is going to be the subject of an investigation, "Although the incident did not involve the use of lethal force..."
Odd, if the woman is dead as a direct result of the TAZER, I'd say that was lethal force. Wouldn't you?
To be clear: assuming the incident went down as it's described in this story, I have no great complaint of the use of the TASER. ISTM to have been a pretty clear case where the suspect was behaving in a manner that was credibly threatening, and the use of firearms would have been justified, not simply the use of a TASER. It's the attitude the story reveals towards the TASER that pisses me off.