I think if the kid wasn't 17 there wouldn't be much debate to it. I think that one fact alone is the only reason the taser is being questioned. How is the cop to know if he is 17 or 43?? Cop did exactly what he should have.

The second and third angles of this are great:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I have no problem with what the cops did. This kid had zero business being where he was. The cops/security had no idea what his intentions were, and reacted to stop a potentially dangerous situation. Unfortunately, in our society we've become soft and think the use of non-lethal force when someone is clearly breaking the law/rules.

Without watching the video and hearing nothing about it other than the discussion on here, the cop's reaction was fine. One of the big advantages of using a taser versus going hands on is that it keeps the officer at a "safe" distance while still being able to use less than lethal force. When you go hands on, no matter what holster you have or how well you can protect your weapon, there's always a chance someone could get their hands on it. Our continuum puts OC and hands on at the same level; given a choice, in most cases I pull my OC first. You still have to be ready to go hands on, but it's safer if you can avoid it.