Generally speaking, a LEO in the US is allowed to use reasonable force to prevent harm to himself, or to others, including the subject. An example of this sort of thing might be using a Taser to subdue a suicidal person. The ruling in this case notes that traffic was apparently light and the nearest witnesses were 50 or so feet away. (The opinion puts, in my opinion, rather too much weight on a person being 20 to 25 feet away... but that's another issue. Look up Tueller drill or the 21 foot rule.)I'm curious about something...
On the surface, a LEO tasering a subject in a traffic stop where the subject isn't threatening the officer and isn't trying to flee can be painted as an overzealous that for some reason just has to use the TASER on the guy.
But aren't there still risks in that situation? JKS wrote in the LEO forum that in an encounter, the police are responsible for the subject's safety. IIRC, intersections are where the most accidents occur.
Could there be a situation where the subject isn't directly threatening the officer, but is still placing himself or the officer in danger by behaving erratically enough to place himself or the officer in a position where they are at substantial risk of being accidentally hit by oncoming traffic?
Again -- my reading of the situation suggests that Officer McPherson had every reason to believe that he was dealing with a dangerously irrational person, and that force was needed to subdue him to protect both Bryan and the public.