This week came word of another Taser-related death of a person in police custody, just days after New London learned it likely will be sued in connection with a stun-gun homicide by police last October.

The intent of these weapons, which use an electric jolt to render a person helpless, is to avoid a dangerous physical struggle and provide a supposedly non-lethal alternative to bullets.

Yet they sometimes kill. The 41-year-old man who died Sunday night while in custody of Branford police, David Werblow, was the 16th unarmed person to die from a police stun gun in Connecticut since 2005.

These incidents raise questions as to whether police are too quick to use Tasers because they consider them non-lethal, which they are in the vast majority of cases. Also open to debate is the way Connecticut investigates deaths in police custody.

The most recent incident is particularly troubling. Branford police confronted Mr. Werblow after reports he was acting strangely as he walked along Burban Drive, including trying to halt cars.

At some point, he climbed into an unlocked parked car, refused police orders to exit and struggled to remain seated, according to the police account.

Police fired the Taser to subdue and remove him. Seeing Mr. Werblow in distress, officers called for an ambulance. Mr. Werblow was dead on arrival at the hospital.

Branford police policy prohibits Taser use on a person "solely based on verbal non-compliance and/or demonstrating passive resistance." Mr. Werblow was a troubled man, living nearby at 134 Burban Drive, a residential program for people with psychiatric, developmental or substance abuse issues.

This case definitely raises the question of whether police acted impulsively in employing a Taser.

According to police accounts, Lashano Gilbert, 31, also was acting bizarrely when arrested by New London officers on Oct. 4, 2014. Police subdued him with a Taser after he reportedly began fighting with officers in the station. Police also had used a Taser during his initial arrest. The second dose proved fatal.

The Connecticut Medical Examiner's Office issued a finding of homicide due to, "Physical altercation (restraint, electric shock, pepper spray) during acute psychosis complicating sickle cell hemoglobinopathy."

Mr. Lashano's family recently notified New London of its intent to sue, alleging wrongful death. The prosecutorial investigation into the Lashano homicide continues.

Last year the state legislature approved a new law requiring police departments to adopt policies governing the use of Tasers. Beginning in January, departments also must report any use of a stun gun to the state Office of Policy and Management.

Both steps were appropriate, though any policy is only as good as the adherence to it.

Also in need of reform is how the police investigate civilian deaths at the hands of police. State police conduct the investigation and the local state's attorney - meaning the local prosecutor - decides whether there is any criminal wrongdoing. The conflict is obvious. Local prosecutors work with local police every day.

Senate President Pro Tem Sen. Martin M. Looney has submitted legislation to require the appointment of a special prosecutor from outside the jurisdiction in all police use-of-force deaths. This makes sense to reassure the public that the findings are objective.

Police have a difficult job, sometimes facing split-second decisions in extremely stressful situations. However, they are not above the law. Investigations into the use of lethal force must be thorough, objective and transparent.