I'm not as naive as I might seem & I realise there's a lot of little scum-bags out there. If they're causing a real problem then of course they should be dealt with. Even so, this doesn't give anyone the right to shoot them with one of these taser (tazer?) things for no good reason. I can only go by the article Scott quoted but it seems like unnecessary violence to me. If the cop had beaten him with his stick or even clipped him round the ear with his hand he would would probably have been charged with assault. I don't see how one of these things makes it OK especially if he was cuffed at the time.
You can't judge these things without all the facts & this news report is probably biased one way or the other. Not knowing much about how these taser things work I find two statements in this brief report confusing.
Joanne Bishop said, "He was bleeding from the chest. His back was all swollen from these tasers. It was horrible."
Stephen said, "My friend reached over to get his book and the cop told him not to. But the cop grabbed his arm when he reached to go get it, and he shoved him into the table, put cuffs on him, and then proceeded to taser him in the leg."
Now, the way I see it shooting him in the leg wouldn't cause bleeding from his chest or bruising on his back. Either one or both are lying or he was shot more than once.