Well, I think the studies are all over the map. In terms of the results by trainers, for example, some of them say there are no problem. Some of them.... There have been people who have urinated, and some people have lost complete control. There are others who are concerned about the dangers after tasering, such as if it makes you drop to the floor, you're going to have subsequent injuries.
But you're right, the kind of people who are supposed to be tasered, even within Mr. Kennedy's proposal, are the ones you would otherwise have to resort to lethal violence on--pull your gun and shoot them. It is a weapon, and obviously it's a weapon designed to stop people from behaving in such a way as to present a public risk, to the officer, themselves, or other members of the public. The police argument that a lot of lives have been saved by use of the taser is because it was used as an alternative to lethal force.
On your question, though, the subjects in the test results are usually in good shape. Yet there have been complaints by them about burning sensations and other things like that.
The people that police officers find they need to taser are out of control; they are going to do harm. You don't know if they're mentally ill. You don't know if they're on drugs. You don't know whether they have some other predisposition. Yet you can't prevent them.... I mean, what's the alternative? Shooting them? There's definite predictability that there's going to be harm then.
The low incidence of after-tasering adverse effects, by common sense, leads me to think that a taser is a better alternative to lethal force.