Ideally, providing law enforcement (LE) personnel with “non-lethal” (actually, less-likely-lethal because certain people can still die based on their body’s physiology) should mean that cops will have better control of a situation. Not having a gun means they, theoretically, have more options available. (Actually, I’m not completely sure of what rational LE uses but I’m taking a guess). It also means that, if the situation warrants it, cops can use a weapon but not kill the suspect.
However, if you read the news you’ll notice that LE simply loves to use tasers. They almost seem to use them at the drop of a hat. Have an unruly suspect? Just taser him. Is someone mouthing off? Break out the taser.
Unfortunately, the “rent-a-thug” campus police seem to like tasers more than regular cops, probably because they can’t carry real guns. And they also seem to like using them on individuals they have already subdued; the UF incident is the second time I’ve seen a video of a student being tasered after he has been dragged to the floor and the handcuffs have been taken out.
Providing LE with tasers instead of guns, I think, makes it more likely for them to be used. If I can “shoot” someone but not kill them, chances are very high that I will. Whereas if I had a regular gun, I would definitely have to decide whether the incident warranted pulling the trigger.
Apart from internal investigations and paperwork, there’s effectively no bad consequences from using a taser. There may be lawsuits or whatever, but the victim is still alive.
If it’s easier to subdue an individual with electricity rather than use psychology and police training like in days past, people will choose the easier path. Hence, I think LE will continue to use tasers as a line of first resort, rather than last resort.