At the risk of suggesting policies that are tied to my specifics, I don't believe that tazers are an appropriate weapon for use by police or individuals. For those of us with heart conditions, many of us have a greater chance of surviving being beaten soundly with a police club than being tazed, and many of us have been killed by use of this "less violent" weapon. At least with a club, people have an instinctual notion, however weak, of how much of a beating someone can take. Less lethal weapons, applied sparingly, are worth developing, and I acknowledge that any weapon might hit on some particular person's weaknesses - there is an occasional need for personal or police power to subdue people, and that is always a risky process. Things based on electricity are potentially deadly to a non-small percentage of society though.
Use of weapons like this have the potential for bizarre escalations of force - if I thought someone were likely to taze me or anyone else with heart problems, I would potentially have to respond with a much greater amount of force than people would expect to protect a life - the yuppie or light criminal who thinks they're just disabling someone is, as much as the policeperson using such a tool, actually using deadly force, and particularly vulnerable people have to treat them like guns held by psychopaths (in the sense that they're likely to be used as if they're not deadly).