What reason did the police have to use force to remove him from the building?

I'm talking about when they grabbed him and started hauling him out after he stopped talking. How was that called for? They were to quick to use force. Now, resisting any normal person who's dragging you about is normal. But if you do such a thing to police who have don't have a good reason suddenly you're a criminal.
Yeah, he was struggling and making a scene, but he wasn't posing a threat to anyone- was the tazer absolutely necessary, or just more convenient?
Exactly. It was a convenience thing - make him feel lots of pain until he complies.

The thing is, the police can use force against you when it isn't warranted, but if you should resist -even nonviolently- then suddenly the police get the nod to use even more force against you.

Yeah, he was loud - so what?

Things like this show a paradox:
The passivity with which some of you guys expect to obey authority ...
While at the same time having a constitution that says 'Guys be armed so that you can tell authority where to shove it'.
Sadly, many Americans choose false security over freedom.

I hardly consider a tazer torture.
Yet something makes me think using tasers against POWs would be forbidden.

CR