So you are suggesting that if the “drunk moron” had been voilent before being stripped, handcuffed and put on the ground (there are no charges against him to explain why he was stripped, handcuffed and put on the snow covered ground) they then have the right to beat him? I missed that in my constitutional law class. Can you explain?
I am saying the drunken moron might have well given the cops serious concern for their safety during the arrest. And they had a reason to Taze him when he wouldn't roll over because they feared for their safety if trying to force him over - a handcuffed guy still has his legs free and a guy on his back can deliver a very strong kick that can break bones.
I do agree that they should review procedure after Tazing - the guy might have been physically unable to roll over at that point. But given that he had initially refused, the cops probably thought he was still voluntarily refusing.