"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.
Look, read the article. He was only touched with the taser. That means he was zapped like a common stun gun. It doesn't cause a total motor control lock up as when the darts are fired into the body to create a circuit. I realize that you really don't know how a taser works, but it can be used as a common stun gun as it was in this case. Other posters have made the point that there is never a reason for an officer to risk his own safety and the safety of the public when a person physically resists a lawful arrest. There is a “use of force matrix” that officers in Florida have to abide by. The fact that this encounter was witnessed by countless people and their camera equipped cell phones makes it clear, at least to me, that the officers acted well within their authority in this case. BTW, verbally resisting arrest is not the same as verbally threatening a policeman with harm.