It is generally consider preferable to shooting them with a 9mm Glock.

Duh- obviously they should. Not in every case obviously, but if someone is violently resisting, zap 'em!!

Yes, it is a non-lethal method of forcing someone to submit to the police. People are aware that if they resist arrest force will be used and it's better to be shocked for a moment than to have wounds from being hit with a baton.

Yes and then shoot if necessary cuts down on the population.

I would prefer that Police Officers used dart guns filled with a mild hypnotic or sedative. I mean, when we want to "subdue" an animal in the zoo we worry that tasers are not "humane" enough, yet we allow citizens to be electrocuted, clubbed, beaten or shot into submission. It seems to me that tasers, bean-bag rounds, pepper spray, billy-clubs (etc) all share one thing in common: They're generally non-lethal if implemented properly but the create desirable levels of pain or discomfort. Part of policing is about preventative intimidation and while non-lethality is preferable to lethality (because inmates are essentially a slave class) we still want to keep people intimidated or terrified of policemen. The psychological aspect of it is simple: fear breeds compliance.

Yes. The use of a Taser not only prevents injury to the office; but it prevents injury to the arrestee. When you consider the types of force that an officer can use to overcome resistance to a lawful arrest, the Taser is the most effective non lethal device available to the officer. It is effective regardless of the amount of alcohol, drugs or combination that might be present in the arrestee's system. It is also effective when used to subdue a violent, mentally disturbed individual. A full deployment of the Taser lasts for 5 seconds. That is enough time for the officer to gain control of the arrestee and apply handcuffs. In most cases, the probes of the Taser can be easily removed from the individual without injury. Tasers also record the number of times it was discharged into the individual. This feature prevents abuse by the officer. And, before an officer is issued a Taserhe must complete a training session approved by the department and the manufacturer. This training includes being subjected to a Taser hit on the officer, when to use the Taser, how to subdue the suspect, how to remove the probes, when to have the probes removed by medical personnel, and how to file a "use of force report" that is subject to review by a departmental use of force board.

"AH, Does somebody have a cam quarter? Don't touch me I'm a vegetarian!" Lol I think they should only zap people if it's really necessary, but otherwise no.

Yes. Its much safer than the alternative use of pepper spray or being hit with a baton. After a person, who resisting a legal arrest, is struck by a taser, the officer has approx. 15 seconds to secure the handcuffs. this method is much more preferred, since pepper spray effects everyone and the baton can cause serious injury. The taser is one on one and a much safer choice for everyone.

The cops are too eager to use the taser on people that they do not need to use it on. I think cops should be put on trial for stunning people without cause.

Because the police never use the stun setting they are required to use! They always turn it to full power and apply multiple stuns from the same device and/or use multiple guns simultaneously! Most cops are complete Nimrods that will fire a weapon with no concern where the bullet is going to end up! The fact that they need half a dozen patrol cars to pull over one speeder shows they are a waste of humanity! When they are one on one with the violator they are worthless! They always require the support of their army behind them! When they lose their weapon, they go all to pieces instantly! This is what is ensuring the peace these days!