“...the reports of this incident does not say the man was weilding a knife. They said a knife was found in his car. The man was shot 7x in the back...” [JesusIsLord, post 10]
Your response implies a clarity of vision, a timeline sufficiently long to permit leisurely examination of every move by every participant, and a calmness of mind that would foment rational analysis, full consideration of alternatives, and repeated testing of every hypothesis.
None of these conditions prevailed during the encounter. Law enforcement officers had the merest fraction of a second to evaluate the situation, consider alternatives, select one that might work, and implement it. And they had to do it under intense pressure, under massive physical exertion, in poor lighting, in the presence of great fear and anxiety brought on by the not-unreasonable suspicion that the suspect was within inches of accessing a weapon.
Not even the most highly trained individual owning decades of on-duty experience can make the “right” choice every time - assuming there is a “right” choice.
The fact that seven rounds were fired is of no importance. Law enforcement personnel are trained to keep firing until the threat is overcome. Some officers fire until their magazines run dry.
My initial response was asking the quetion (paraphrase): 'In this day and age, why don't police have a weapon that can completely incapacitate a perp without shooting him 7x at close range?"
I'm thinking a weapon that's much more effective than a taser. Possible there is no such weapon but hey, if we can put a man on the moon ...
We know that wildlife folks use weapons that can tranquelize an elephant in a matter of seconds so why put a similar option/weapon in the policeman's hand. This is not saying do away with the Glock - only provide them other options when on the street.