I'm in the temperance and calmness camp on this issue for now, as there are more autopsies to be done and there is more information to be released, BUT I will speak up as to the "Officers should aim not to kill, but to disable" thought.

This is, sadly, absolutely untrue. A gun is not a weapon to disable a person with. A gun is a weapon to [i]stop[/i] (i.e. kill) a person with. Police officers are trained to discharge their firearms [i]only[/i] to kill, in fact, as doing anything else is irresponsible (any shot not to center mass is much more likely to miss and cause unwanted injury to nearby civilians), and will likely get you killed in a realistic dangerous situation.

Zendric's hypothetical is entirely correct. An officer in fear for her/his life will shoot to kill, 100 times out of 100. They may not succeed in doing so, the person may survive the shots, they may miss completely, but if an officer is firing live rounds, it is always with the intent to [i]stop[/i] someone.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, but the reality is, firearms are incredibly difficult for even a trained person to aim correctly in a realistic self-defense situation. "Shooting to wound" is unreliable and dangerous for everyone involved, simple as that.

Also, [url=http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesn-t-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/]link[/url]. Not the original place I read about this, but it's talking about (EDIT: one of) the article(s) I read.