He was charged with resisting without violence (a misdemeanor) because he probably did not verbally threaten or fight the officers (a felony) or maybe they just cut him a break because he was drunk.
You're making my point for me. Thanks. Your words, "he probably did not verbally threaten or fight the officers", yet, they tazed him anyways.
I see you've adopted the motto of the statists - comply or be punished.
Bootlickers are loathe to admit that the application of a taser comes with inherent risk. The police, while not threatened themselves (according to you) applied force that is known to have caused death in victims that have some preexisting conditions.
If the guy becomes violent, then I have no problem with the police escalating. But it FIRST has to escalate, at least it should in a free republic. The police responded violently to a non-violent disturbance and that in and of itself is troubling, or at least it should be.
Wrong in so many ways...public drunken idiocy would be cut down if drunks were NEVER cut a break for being drunk. It should unconditionally INCREASE the penalty!
And resisting arrest should be *so* painful and unpleasant no one ever so much as *thinks* about doing it a second time.