I'd need more to go on, but likely - the man was in the middle of a sting operation, selling a gun to an undercover cop. It would be a safe assumption that such a person is armed. Since he was running from plenty of cops, I'd consider him armed and dangerous until his hands were clearly secured and his person searched.
I wonder, the 73 year old volunteer made his personal call that a tazering was the thing to do, but was it?
I'd need more to go on, but likely - the man was in the middle of a sting operation, selling a gun to an undercover cop. It would be a safe assumption that such a person is armed. Since he was running from plenty of cops, I'd consider him armed and dangerous until his hands were clearly secured and his person searched.
But a taser isn't necessary any time someone is "armed and dangerous." What was the guy doing at the time he was tazed that warranted being tazed?
Tasers really ought to be returned to their rightful place as a less-lethal alternative to deadly force. Too many officers and departments use them as just another tool to gain compliance. Treat it like deadly force, and you won't have "mistakes" like this one.
An earlier article reported that the suspect was on the ground, and had been subdued by other officers. “Subdued” usually means the guy is pretty much under police control.
If other cops are wrestling with the suspect and the suspect gets tased do the cops get tased also? I would think so, but I don’t know.