He was defiantly intoxicated. I am not sure the police needed to taze him, he did not respond to their commands in a timely enough fashion, and that was bad for him. Do I have any sympathy for him: no. Do I feel like he should not have been tazed, umm, yea probably needed it.
At the time he was being told to get on the ground he backed up and was not being combative, but was also not responding to the commands. Its my feeling that in a situation where no one is being injured at the moment, failure to heed a command within a few seconds is not a good reason to taze someone. (Edit: 5 seconds elapsed from the time he was told to get on the ground to the time he was tazed)
The technology is great, it allows officers a tool to prevent them the need to get within grapple range of a target, and possibly loosing there firearm. I think its use however tends to be slightly premature.
From the video it sounds like the officers arrived right when the kid was yelling, and that definitely set the mood, which is a factor. Overall, mission accomplished, could they have reduced the liability of a tazer mishap with a bit more prudence, yes.
That to me is the point of watching these videos, establish a proper doctrine for tazer usage. The local governments should not be spending money on litigation created due to early use of tazers on poeple with conditions which cannot be told from physical appearances alone, thus wasting tax payer money.
I did enjoy seeing the punk get tazed, but that is my emotional reaction, not my rational reaction.