Once again, any choice to use force is predicated on the threat the person presents. And the threat has to be a threat against somebody's safety—the police officer's, the individual's, or a member of the public's—before really any force option can be used. So the choice of the taser is then determined by the specific threat. If somebody is simply acting in a bizarre and curious manner and not posing an immediate threat, force is probably not justified, regardless of the instrument of force used. Now, if the police officer is required to make an arrest and must take physical control of somebody, and the person reacts in an assaultive manner, that would justify the application of some use of force. And that could very well be the taser.
The benefit of the taser, of course, is that, unlike pepper spray or the baton, you have that distance. There's a tactical advantage to using the taser. But once again, as the chair has pointed out and as my chief has said, if the situation is not threatening to anybody, no application of force is warranted. The police officer has to move in and make the arrest, but if the person is simply passive, an application of force, beyond taking control of them physically and putting the handcuffs on, isn't justified.