I agree. Less lethal armaments (tasers, capsicin spray, etc) are the appropriate choice for a situation not requiring lethal force. A firearm should only be used if the situation justifies the use of immediate lethal force, in which case fancy trick-shooting would not be a realistic or appropriate option.
The problem with 'less than lethal' armaments is that they are also 'less than reliable'. If we had a perfect solution, ala the 'stun setting' phaser of Star Trek fame, I guarantee you it would be in use.
Tasers suffer from both their single shot nature and the fact that to deliver their jolt both prongs must connect with the target. All you need is from one barb to hit a button, belt, cell phone case, etc and the taser has literally no effect.
Pepper spray hurts like a bitch, but is highly dependent on the victims pain threshold. People that are not prepared or relatively calm? Works wonders. People that have naturally high pain tolerances or are already on an adrenaline high? Not so much. It still hurts, but it's not disabling. The other fun fact that people always forget is that pepper spray is just that: a spray. Ever sprayed a bug and gotten that weird taste or sticky feeling when some of it gets on you? Not fun.
People also always go with the 'well he was unarmed' argument whenever something like this happens. Do you have an idea how bizarrely durable AND fragile human beings are? We can be hit by cars and thrown 40 feet... and walk away. But we can also take a SINGLE punch and die
. Until you've been hit by someone that is trying to physically harm you (not sparring or play fighting or accidents) you have no idea what your tolerance is nor in that moment do you know at what point that other person is going to stop.
If a man that size is punching me in the face and I'm already in an inferior position (Like Wilson was in this case, unable to retreat or gain leverage)? Yea, I'm going to shoot him and very likely kill him. And just like this cop I'm sure I'll be crucified as a murderer (if the guy attacking me is black, of course, if he's white no one will care).
Here's what I don't get about this entire issue. We have two very clear facts that are completely indisputable:
1) Brown stole items from a shop
2) Brown physically assaulted a police officer that was in his car
How is this man being portrayed as a victim? There is no scenario that can be explained that makes Brown innocent. He physically attacked a law enforcement officer after committing a crime. Why does it matter how many times he was shot or where he was found? I don't give a damn how much he loved animals or whatever. He did something illegal and stupid, followed it up with something ELSE illegal and stupid. An as someone said above 'oh I stole skittles as a kid'... keyword: kid. This guy wasn't 10. He was an 18 year old man. Young, but still a man.
The lesson here isn't 'evil white cops just want to shoot black guys'. It's 'hey, maybe you shouldn't STEAL crap and then physically ASSAULT law enforcement officer if you don't want to get shot'. If you want to expose racism, profiling, or anything else there are far better examples in the world than this case. Instead it seems like the same story as always: black guy gets shot by a white guy, suddenly he's Pope Francis and clearly the white guy just wanted kill him because he was black.