We have … folk instruments!
I guess this didge had “bark” and bite 
heres the cheese for your sammich
According to the SDPD, this is a “didgeridon’t”. 
The cabbie drove off but the man allegedly chased the cab and whacked it several times with the didgeridoo, denting it.
Oh no! The didge was dented!
“Officer, arrest that man! He just broke my fist with his face!”
Bloody hell. Just when we’re getting the TSA to lighten up about our instruments, who ruins things? Yeah. A choob with a tube.
Boy, that paper is able to drum up some odd stories:
Officers Round Up Suspect, Missing Chick-fil-A Cow Costumes
Drunk Youngsters Take Circus Llama on a Tram Ride in France
Bears Fan Tasers Wife Over Lost Packers Bet: Cops
(Is the correct term “tasers” or “tases”? Lasers lase, I would assume tasers tase.)
Depends on you, I guess, but I’d say the back-formation “tases” is more correct-ish. Thus passes civilisation. Expect the Goths to come calling.
Well, firstly, I don’t agree that the back formation from laser is “to lase”; I think it’s “to laser”. Secondly, the word “Taser” comes from the name of the corporation that makes it. So it make no sense at all to use a different word for the verb. An analogy would be if we used “to hoove” as the verb back-formed from Hoover.
Having worked in laser labs, I can say with 100% confidence that the commonly used verb is to lase. It doesn’t necessarily make sense, but is much easier to say than “undergo stimulated emission,” which is the literal verb formation from the acronym LASER (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation).
I accept the rest of your post.
Yes, sorry, Ben. I think the physicist has it right. 
The supposed backronym “Tom A. Swift’s Electronic Rifle” is pretty clearly ex post facto. When the taser device was conceived in 1969, lasers were still hot, new technology and much in the public eye, and pretty clearly the source of the name. And by the time the Taser company appeared in 1993, the verb “lase” to describe what lasers do was well-established, first intransitively, then transitively.
So lasers lase and tasers tase. Though, of course, the whiff of British spelling about “tase” instead of “taze” is intensely disturbing. Then again, it’s not Light Amplification by Zombified Emission of Radiation.
I’ve checked, and it does seem that “lase” should be the “correct” form of the verb formed from “laser”, however daft that seems to me. The verb, in any form, is used so seldom that it’s hard to remember what people actually use. However, the use of the verb “taser”, as in “he tasered the suspect”, is so common here in the UK that there seems no doubt in my mind that “taser” is the correct, and accepted, form of that verb. It also makes sense to me. Which is a bonus.
Just don’t let your lasers laze.
Wait, are you all talking about those newfangled optical masers?
Don’t mess with Brits either:
I thought the story sounded like the reporter was trying to make the story family friendly. I don’t think I’ve ever seen “bottom” and “himself” used that way here in the USA.
Might be regional, because I have.
In the lobby, Small again urinated in front of tourists, shouting: ‘I come from Sheffield in England.’
That was an epic moment, beyond question.
Oh, I’ve heard those terms plenty. I’ve just never seen them used like that in a news story. It was like my Mom was the reporter.
There is Sheffield, Pennsylvania. How nice of him to be so specific.
Makes you wonder if he knew where he was. English guy, from England, in England.
If I were cavorting in a hotel in, say, Los Angeles, I don’t think I’d feel the need to say: “I’m from San Diego in California!”
But I don’t think I’d feel the need to do the other stuff he did either. 
At least he didn’t end up in Paris: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/luke-harding-_n_4319588.html