I know much of the Reg's comment appear to be from the UK, so I'll take this opportunity to provide the standard operating procedure of a taser by an LEO (Law Enforcement Officer).

1. To control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary;

(The subject was deemed NOT ARMED, and the officer who had his firearm drawn quickly holstered it after acknowledging this fact. Deadly force was not required. Proceed.)

2. If attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand; or

(The subject continued to resist arrest after first refusing to leave the premises under his own power and then escalating the situation by belligerently continuing to make a scene. This is considered 'disturbing the peace' and is an arrestable offense.)

3. If there is reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject, see also the Use of Force continuum, Attachment A..

(The subjects hands were not visible during this entire fiasco, and while it was unlikely he was carrying a weapon, an LEO will not assume that risk. Additionally, he was attempting to kick and otherwise strike the officers while being escorted out. This is considered an unsafe situation.)

The LEOs were within their rights to apply the use of taser equipment in this situation. LEOs equipped with tasers are required (by federal law) to be tased themselves during training, for a better understanding of what the effects will be.

Many of our counterparts are quick to call 'police state' when something like this happens, but I make the suggestion that you are misinformed or refuse to be informed, therefore jumping to conclusions that are false.