Does everyone understand this starting point?

Looking over some of the on-line arguments about tasers, it seems that some people are missing what should be a common sense starting point.

Let me explain it by way of an example:

A 20-something young man gets excited about some disagreement. Police are called. Police arrive. Minutes later the young man is dead. The natural question would be, "What the heck did you do to him?" The officers might reply, "Nothing. He just keeled over and died."

Such a story is improbable. It might happen once in a long while, but it would be asking us to stretch the bounds of incredulity to accept that such an event would be anything but extremely rare; and I mean rare in an absolute sense. I've seen many people in an excited rage, and I've never seen anyone keel over and die from it. Plain and simple, it's exceedingly rare.

Now add a taser deployment to the story.

"Nothing. We just tasered him and he coincidently keeled over and died of natural causes at the same time."

Does adding the taser make the original (unbelievable) story more believable, or less believable?

Like I said, this should be common sense.

And because so many people seem to lack the basics of logical thought, it makes arguments about tasers very tough sledding.