This is nothing but a political hit by sick, amoral Alaskan political weasels (though there are probably other outstate politicos involved).
Her ex-brother-in-law (Wooten) claimed that his ten-year-old boy asked Wooten to use a stun gun on him, and he did.
Both ADN articles on this [by two different sets of writers] have a curious phrase describing this:
"An internal trooper investigation in 2005 found all but two of the allegations to be unsubstantiated -- an illegal moose killing and a tasering of an 11-year-old. Wooten was disciplined."
It looks to me like the ADN staff spent at least half a day in a meeting designing a phrase minimizing what Wooten did, so they could get on with the main task of the Palin hit piece.
The line appears to be crafted to confuse semi-literates [many recent American HS graduates] reading it.
I usually don't go off on allegations like these, but what kind of sick amoral freak would try to "gloss" what Wooten admitted to?
If the kid would have asked Dad to demonstrate his nightstick on him, would the dad have complied with that request also?
Where is the guy's judgment? Do I want this guy pulling me over?
Like Orrin hatch said, the feds had all info they needed on Stevens over a year ago. It could have been done and over with by now.