What a storm this has unleashed
Some great posts here and some utter bollocks.
I always love when people who have never fired a firearm at a moving target start wittering on about shooting legs and arms.
I'll say this only once: WHAT YOU SEE IN THE MOVIES IS NOT REAL.
In real life, when dealing with a moving target and you're hyped up on adrenalin, fancy Hollywood shoot the gun from the hand, take out the legs crap is not practical - you have an extremely small chance of getting lucky and a high probability of missing.
So you generally go for the "Centre of Mass" - the torso - even head shots are tricky as the head is generally smaller than the torso (unless your name is Jeremy Clarkson, and there's nothing larger than your head).
Cannot speak for police forces in Nederland or England, but here in New Zealand and (I gather, from reading Massad Ayoob's law enforcement articles) in the USA, police are instructed to shoot to STOP, not "shoot to kill" or "shoot to disable/maim/wound".
That is to say: shoot the Centre of Mass and keep shooting until the person stops.
This may kill the person or it may just wound them to the point they no longer pose a threat.
As it is distinctly possible that the person will die, "shoot to stop" must not be resorted to unless the situation is such that "lethal force" is justified - a clear threat to the lives of the officers or members of the public.
In the heat of a firefight (not "cold blood" as one plonker above has suggested) when the target is moving and the officer is hyped up on adrenalin, the Centre of Mass is the easiest and most effective target. Even if the person is not killed outright, the trauma from the projectile entering the body is likely to "take the fight out of them" unless said target is hopped up on drugs ("Angel Dust" and methamphetamine being two that spring to mind).
Only once have I seen footage of a person being successfully targetted in a limb - and the situation was very unusual. The person in question was publically threatening suicide and had a pistol in his hand. Police officers were attempting to calm him down and get him to surrender the weapon but it wasn't going well. He threatened the cops and threatened to shoot himself.
A police sniper - fully trained, far above average marksman - was called in and moved into position to shoot the pistol out of the man's hand. In this case, the man was in an open area but sitting on a chair whilst engaging in his dialogue with the police. This made him a fairly static target (except for occasionally brandishing the weapon or shifting in the chair. The sniper had to get in as close as he possibly could without revealing his location to the man or the police officers (who were not informed lest their behaviour tip off the suicidal man that something was up.)
After an age of getting into position and taking careful aim, ensuring the man wasn't moving and the police were out of the firing area, the sniper eventually fired a shot that took the pistol from the man's hand - much to his (the man's) and the attending officers' surprise.
In an interview later, the sniper told of how difficult the shot was - despite being an extremely good shot, having had time to get into the best possible position and taking leisurely aim at a static target.
But then you get all these wankers who have probably never fired a pistol or a rifle in their lives (or if they have, they've only ever shot at well-lit static pieces of paper at a nice friendly range) warbling on about shooting limbs because, after all, any decent wild west hero riding at speed on a horse can shoot, with a Colt .45 "Peacemaker" at 20 yards, a rope snaking across the gallows frame and sever it, so a huge human arm or leg should be no problem, eh.
As to rightness and wrongness of this particular shooting (and others where an innocent is gunned down), that is a matter for the enquiry to determine if the actions of the police were the best possible considering the information and visible evidence THEY had at the time.
If the cops acted in the best possible way going by what they were informed or had observed at the time, then it's a regrettable accident - and far more "forgivable" than a so-called "accident" wherein some drunken moron ploughs into a carload of people and kills someone. If the cops did not act, according to the enquiry, in the most appropriate manner based on the info/evidence to hand, then they're for the "high jump" and should rightfully be disciplined for it.
It's all well and good having 20-20 hindsight and saying, "but he didn't have a bomb and we can see by looking at the CCTV footage that he obviously didn't have one" but the questions have to be: how much of the evidence/info available to you now was available AT THE TIME to the cops at the scene? How much information was transmitted to them, at what time and by whom? Did they act appropriately given the perceived level of threat and the evidence they were acting on?
People are fallible, even cops. Evidence can be misinterpreted, important stuff can be missed in an emergent situation where every second counts, new data can be incorrectly interpreted based on assumptions arising from previous inaccurate or incomplete data. Innocents can be wounded or lose their lives.
What is the solution? Sit back and say "I won't do anything because he could be completely innocent...whoops fuck, he just blew up a group of school kids."
Those who don't have to make rapid on-the-fly life-or-death decisions in the defense of themselves or others have no right to judge those who do. You're not cops, you weren't there, you weren't privy to the information they had at the time and you weren't in a situation where you had to make a snap decision about a matter where the lives of numerous civilians might be at stake - so STFU.
No. I'm not a cop, and I would not presume to tell one how to do his/her job - nor would I take kindly to a cop telling me how to do mine. We each have our own areas of training and make our own decisions - good or bad in hindsight - based on what we have to hand at the time. And if we don't do it well, we suffer the consequences.