In any event, I don't think the differing perceptions about that matter as to the use of the TASER.

   He was on the floor with a half dozen cops  surrounding him when TASERED. Even if he had been a "threat of harm" a few seconds earlier he was not at the time he was zapped. Thus it was unecessary and therefore excessive use of force.

Particularly when used, as mainly intended, to shoot the two barbed probes several feet before the current discharge, they can produce what the Taser manufacturer refers to as "Neuromuscular Incapacitation" ("NMI"). That's painful, but its main purpose is incapacitation through means other than pain. With the incapacitation comes risks of falling, striking one's head, drowning, and such. There have also been a number of deaths from Taser shots, although the manufacturer insists that in each of these there have been complicating and overriding factors. I don't know enough to evaluate that claim, but I do think it's pretty obvious that, even taking the critics' claims at their maximum extent, a Taser isn't a deadly weapon in the same sense as a Glock 9mm.

Meyer was not shot with a Taser. He was merely shocked. "Merely" in this context doesn't imply that the shock wasn't painful. And indeed, the usage made by these police officers was to put the end of the Taser pistol directly against the subject as part of its "drive-stun" mode, without firing the probes. The shock delivered is indeed very painful, but much more localized to the particular area, and much less likely to create disorientation, falling, or other NMI effects. From some of the videos of Meyer being Tasered, it's obvious that he never lost control of his voice, and he was on his feet moving under his own power (albeit now under effective control of the arresting officers) quite literally within seconds of being shocked.

I don't mean to suggest that there was no risk of harm, perhaps even fatal harm, in Meyer being shocked. However, the risks were objectively and substantially smaller than if he'd been shot instead of just shocked. And all of the alternatives available to the police officers also involved risk. Doing nothing while Meyer continued to resist with all his strength, flailing his arms around and resisting handcuffing, put both him and the officers at risk of broken bones, torn cartilage or ligaments, perhaps even something fatal like a crushed windpipe. In past eras, his resisting arrest would have been ended by much more crude and dangerous means -- a nightstick to the ribs or the back of the head, or perhaps a broken arm or wrist.

It's unclear whether the officers originally intended simply to eject Meyer, or instead intended to arrest him, but the former seems more likely -- up until the point when he began violently resisting arrest. He did not use his fists, but he made threatening motions, jumped, twisted, danced to and fro, flailed, and attempted to run -- all while a mix of supposed (and almost certainly feigned) surprise with screaming abuse and profanities directed to the officers, who he claimed would "kill" him as soon as they got him out of the building. His behavior was indistinguishable from someone psychotic, perhaps high on PCP or amphetamines.

And even if he was "arrested" and it was an unlawful arrest (both doubtful propositions), he nonetheless had no lawful right to use violence and force to resist arrest, unless and to the extent that was necessary to prevent an unjustified and unprovoked use of excessive force by the arresting officers. No such argument can be made with a straight face; it was Meyer who escalated the confrontation at every point, and he had no legitimate self-defense rights.

The officers spent almost 20 seconds after they'd finally gotten him onto his stomach and cuffed his right wrist trying to get his left wrist close enough to cuff it. Meyer, cursing and screaming, fought like the proverbial python, twisting back onto his right side and keeping his wrists as far apart as he could, which included more flailing (flexion and extention) of his left arm. During that time, he was explicitly warned that he would be Tasered if he continued resisting. He replied by screaming "Get the f**k off me!" and continuing to fight; there was no realistic prospect of escape, but certainly plenty of prospect that someone would be injured. That's when he was Tasered.

Within seconds, the officers had cuffed his left wrist as well and hauled him to his feet. As a means for deterring further violent resistance to arrest, the Taser worked exactly as intended, and neither he nor any officer was permanently injured.

I don't know enough about police procedure to dispute assertions that there might have been other, and even safer, ways to handle Meyer's continued unlawful resistance. But even if their chosen means were not the best of all possible ones, these officers' means were obviously effective, and almost certainly they were within the realm of reasonable alternative choices in these circumstances.

I'm glad no one was injured, but I expect that Meyer will do at least several weeks of jail time for resisting arrest -- unless the university administration wimps out on its own police force.

Bostain: The term Use of Force continuum is one name for a visual model that depicts progressive escalation and de-escalation of force based on a subject's actions. They have been a mainstay in law enforcement for many years. They are also known as Use of Force Models, Use of Force Ladders and Subject to Control Matrices.

Solari: John, is there one visual model or continuum that is used by every law enforcement agency?

Bostain: No, not here in the United States. Canada uses a circular model called the National Use of Force Framework in all of their agencies, but here in the United States it's much different. Continuums vary from state to state and agency to agency. They come in a number of different forms. Some look like time lines, some look like pyramids and some even look like doughnuts.

Solari: Are Use of Force Models an effective tool for training officers?

Bostain: You know, I think we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves here. Before we can start a discussion about Use of Force Models and continuums, let's first address the legal standard for use of force by law enforcement officers in the United States.

Solari: Ok, great, who sets that legal standard?

Bostain: It's set by the United States Supreme Court, and its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

Solari: Well, then, has the Supreme Court said when law enforcement officers are allowed to use force?

Bostain: Yes, they have. The Supreme Court has expressly stated the right to make an arrest or an investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some level of physical coercion of threat thereof to affect it. In other words, if the officer has the authority to conduct a seizure, he has the authority to use force or the threat of force to accomplish that mission.

Solari: So then we know when an officer can use force. Has the Supreme Court told us how much force a police officer can use to control a suspect?

Bostain: That's an excellent question, Jenna. According to the Court, in a 1989 case named Graham v. Connor, police officers may use the amount of force that is objectively reasonable to control subjects during a lawful seizure. Objective reasonableness is based upon the totality of circumstances known to the officer at the moment force was used.

FLETC UoF Instructor

This program will show students how to develop and implement Use of Force training using dynamic and interactive principles. The student will learn via hands-on participation and demonstration about use of force applications, documentation, court testimony, expert witness, safety issues, scenario development, non-lethal training ammunition use, logistical support, performance testing, planning, design and the proper execution of interactive use of force training. The students will be expected to not only demonstrate proficiency in use of force principles and case law, but also articulate both verbally and in writing facts that justify a particular use of force. The students will evaluate other student's use of force incidents, teach a 30 minute class and answer questions during an oral board.

Around 2:30 of the video, the kid is ASKED to step away from the mic; he refused.

He rambles on another :20 and states that he has two more questions, and it is at 1:50 in the video (it counts backwards), his mic is cut and he is TOLD to leave.  He then says he is not going as they are physically trying to ESCORT him using the MINIMAL amount of force to do so.

AT 1:40 in the video, he is actively yanking away from the officers yelling "get off me".

And the video cuts from him being pushed back towards the door at 1:21 to him ON the floor getting tased.  What was cut out of the video?  What wasn't shown?

At :40 left in the video, he FINALLY complies with the officers AFTER being tased.

There is another video that shows the beginning at the Chicago Tribune.

But it doesn't show where the police were standing.

But what had he done to warrant physical restraint in the first place?

I will also say that miscommunication and human emotion leads to people making mistakes. Happens to me and people who I interact with every day.

There may have been confusion during the actual event that we are not aware of, and we may not be privy to other significant things that occurred despite the videos. Not that that excuses the cop's initial actions, and I'm not excusing them.

 I doubt a "strict liability"  defective product theory would be found applcable. One who makes sells or sells a "defective product" can be found liable for injuries resulting from its use without a finding of negligence. That requirea a finding that the product is unreasonably dangerous when used as intended due to a defect in design or manufature.  (e.g., I make an explosive  device that when used according to instruction causes an injury either because my design was flawed and did not account for the probability of premature  explosion or the manufacturing caused it not operate as designed.)

  Then one could consider, the "dangerous instrumentality" theory which is also a "strict liability theory but that applies to the person who uses the "dangerous instrumentality" not the maker or seller. Essentially that means one who uses a "dangerous instrumentality" is laible for injuries proximately  caused by  the use even in the absence of negligent use. (e.g., If I use explosives and despite my  using all prudent precautions someone gets hurt I am liable.)

  Next you have negligence theories. Some of which we simply have no information upon which to speculate. Most likely applicable though are those roughly grouped as "failure to warn" meaning negligence in informing users  of potential risks, negligence in providing instructions as to how to use the device safely in light of risks, etc.  

  I'm by no means an expert in this and don't know the specifics of the warnings and advisories, instructions etc., provided by the maker but here it seems on the surface that the device did exactly both what was it was supposed to do and what the user expected it to do and i don't see any obvious indications of any relation between the company having failed to warn of the risks or to instruct as to the way to use it to get the desired result and the injury.

  also, if i'm the lawyer, I'm not going to be eager to exponentially increase the cost and complexity my case by bringing in the manufacturer when my client was not catastrophically injured. The case against the cops and university is tough enough in terms of both factual defenses and qualified governmental immunity issues, etc. in a case wherethere is no severe let alone permanent injury.