No, I'm not, and yes, there is. It's called common sense, wedded to the officer's training, integrity, prior experience, and situational awareness. Not that much of any of these were on display.You're ignoring the fact that cops deal with many such incidences. There's no way to predict which will escalate into a life threatening situation.
Not ruling out is one thing, assuming the worst without reasonable foundation is paranoia. Situations require dynamic assessment. It's a simple matter of competance.You can't rule any belligerent individual out as a potential lethal threat.
That simply isn't logical. The written policy is *or ought to be* the officer's reference for what constitutes a legitimate use of force in his jurisdiction, otherwise why have a policy at all? I'm sure that he's made aware of the department's policy in his training. It is clear you feel that he's entitled to essentially make it up as he goes along, but a clear line of accountability for police actions is essential for policing to be legitimate in a democratic society. A policy is not merely a tiresome piece of necessary bureaucracy, as you appear to think, but a fundamental aspect of this accountability. I'm sure his non-adherance to it will be highly significant if it goes to court.The departmental policy on Tasering really makes little difference to this discussion. We are debating on what level of force ought to be considered appropriate, not whether Tasering her was compliant that department's written policy.
Yes, indeed, nasty people, these nitpicking lawyers. On this occasion, however, I agree with them.I'm sure her lawyer will be quick to capitalize on any legal angle available when she return with outstretched hands to demand money.