shooting to wound vs kill
I’d been reading a bit more of the proper methods of taking down a dangerous person, and some of it does make sense, specifically when the attacker is using a gun themselves.
If the police fears for their safety, they shoot for in the middle of the attacker’s body, instead of an appendage (the common thought is that hitting an appendage will stop the perpetrator and prevent a death), however no one has perfect aim, and hitting a smaller target, of course, is not desirable when your life is on the line. The second reason is that the perpetrator still has the ability to fight back (the confusion with Hollywood takes on this is part of the reason there is public misconception - that I even have probably thought of as well).
As for the amount of bullets used, I’ve read that it has to do with assessing the situation as well as eliminating a threat. This makes sense, if the perpetrator is wielding a gun, even with one gun shot wound he can still manage to dish something out of his own. As well, just shooting one shot, might be viewed as a biased impulse.
I’m not sure how a police officer is supposed to assess the threat - while shooting their target though.
Also, apparently not that many police officers carry tasers (in the US).
As for the Powell case, he was carrying a knife, which according to witnesses, and the video, he was not inherently using it to threaten.
So in the end, I understand why the police shot him, and why they shot him so many times, but to do this with someone wielding a knife that barely looks like they’re attacking, doesn’t sit right.