For me the issue here isn't the taser. As one of the judges quoted by the article says: "“There are only so many ways a person can be extracted from a vehicle against her will, and none of them is pretty,” he explained. “Fists, batons, chokeholds, tear gas and chemical spray all carry their own risks to suspects and officers alike.”
For me the issue is, why were the officers arresting this woman? Because she didn't understand what signing the ticket meant? For that she had to be forcibly removed from her vehicle, subdued, and arrested? I'm not sure that fits my definition of protecting and serving the public good. Even if she became belligerent, does the offence warrant the actions that followed? Not in my view.