Taser come well below CS or a baton strike on the use of force continuum - i.e. what tactic you should use in what situation. The theory behind this is that the effects of CS are non-discriminatory and will affect the Police and any bystanders just as much as the person they're trying to restrain - usually more so because drunks tend to have the uncanny ability of fighting through it's effects.
A baton strike - mmmm, how would anyone here like to be hit by a 21" of metal bar? the effects of a baton strike can be catastrophic and very long lasting if you hit the wrong part of the body - e.g. head, balls, neck etc. A baton is a very crude piece of equipment that is best kept fastened away. It has a very good tactical value when you arrive at a public order incident, but usually only when people are sober enough to think "ooo, being hit by a piece of shiny metal could smart". when they're drunk, however, people don't think like this - they usually fancy their chances. Also, a drunk feels very little pain. Couple a few shandies with a massive dose of adrenalin, with someone who's up for it and you've got a big problem, which could result in you having the baton took off you by the wrong person.
Taser, however, will only ever affect the person to whom it is attached. the effects last for 5 seconds, and if this doesn't work, you do it again. if this doesn't work, you do it again, and on it goes until you gain compliance. Because this is what Taser is - it is a method of gaining compliance. Post Taser deaths have been reported around the world, but these figures have never been put in comparison to say post bullet deaths, post beating with a metal bar deaths, post drink drive RTC deaths etc...
Nobody has ever claimed the device to be perfect, but in what i see as an increasingly violent society, where knives and firearms are routinely carried by a large section of the criminal fraternity, and there is a steady errosion of respect for the police and the work they have to do(possibly fuelled by the media's post incident feeding frenzy at the merest hint of Police use of force), something is needed for the Police to gain control over drunken violent louts.
Ask yourself this, how would you feel if it was you or your loved ones that had just been seriously assaulted by a violent drunk, with injuries that amount to GBH? How would you want the Police to deal with him? Would you have them follow him on CCTV, until he's lost from sight, or watching him smack anyone who gets in his way until he is identified; then the Police could wait until he was sober? hey, they could then ask him to meet them at the Police station which is most convenient to him, at some time in the future months - they could even make him a cup of tea on his arrival, then have nice cosy interview whilst respecting his Human Rights (just because someone chooses to withdraw from society and not contribute in any way except cause misery to law abiding citizens, don't you think they don't deserve all of the protection afforded to society). Is that how you'd like this person being dealt with, whilst you're having skin grafts on the facial injury you'll be carrying for the rest of your life?
No? Well me neither.
In my opinion the mistake Police in this clip made was to jump in too quickly to cuff him; I don't think they had fully gained compliance until they tried, and as a result they still had a bit of a fight with him.
On the topic of 4 Police onto 1 Person. try to realise that the Police are not there to knock someone on their arse and give him a good old kicking - many cops are capable, but the aim in these circumstance is to restrain the individual whilst causing least injury to themselves, members of the public and the suspect. You need a lot of people to do this safely, yet the same old crap seems to crop up time and time again that it is Police brutality. Could you do it?
Sorry about the epic post but sometimes you have to raise the head above the parapet