This is by far my main complaint about the widespread use of tasers in law enforcement (and probably everyone's I guess).

When you criticize tasers among any group of people you will inevitably get the witty comeback of "well, would you rather they shoot them?". This naturally seems like a good argument, because no one would rather we use lethal force of course.

But it seems to me that too many times the taser is used not as an alternative on the upper end of the "use of force continuum", as it should be, and replace the gun when tackling suspects armed with for example knives or bats, but instead is used as a replacement for much less invasive actions on the lower end of the spectrum, such as verbal commands or an annoying conversation.

I guess it can't be easy for the officers either, if someone who committed a crime - even just a speeding - tries to leave without identifying themselves they are of course obligated to stop them. All I really ask is that they TRY SOMETHING ELSE FIRST. Tasering someone really shouldn't come before grabbing them forcefully by the arm. Too many officers just seem to get, for want of a better word, lazy with a taser around and use it at any point when someone doesn't imminently follow their instructions. You can't very well tell me that if the option for tasering them wasn't there they would imminently go for their guns and shoot the person instead.

Then again, in many situations the taser is a damn good option to have, and I hope we only hear about the most outrageous abuses of it, but still, it grinds my gears, as apparently it does Colberts.

Unfortunately, tasering is MUCH safer for the officer than grabbing someone by the arm. TO do that, you must obviously be within arm's reach. This means that the cop is also within arm's reach of the suspect who can then go for the officer's weapon, or strike them. Is the Taser abused? Sure. but it is still a very safe alternative for subduing a suspect over a physical altercation.