If the man wasn't reaching for a gun or knife then he shouldn't have been shot at all and the police officer should be charged accordingly.  If the man WAS reaching for a gun or knife then he should've been prevented from attaining the weapon. He was non-compliant and the number 1 priority was to get him to a state where he could harm nobody, himself included, but secondary to the safety of all others.  Now, we haven't heard the facts of this case, so anything beyond what we know is pure speculation and biased speculation at that.    When someone comments that the lethality of the shooting was too severe, or that non-lethal gun shooting, like aiming for a leg, was more appropriate I immediately ignore the rest of the comment because I'm human, and humans such as myself tend to be creatures of habit and as such, I realize that it's quite unusual for me to find anything value expressed after such utter ridiculousness as, "should've just shot him in the foot to stop him."  Go to a range and with a pistol shoot a stationary paper target and come back and make such a ridiculous comment.