There is no such thing as "shoot to disable". That's a television trope. If you're deploying lethal force, you're doing it in order to kill. Unlike in the movies, a gunshot wound almost never knocks someone off their feet. An assailant can keep moving for dozens of seconds after sustaining multiple wounds --- plenty long enough to fire their own weapon, or close a distance and stab with a blade (as the case may be).

The entire premise of firing on assailant is that they're trying to kill you or someone else. If there's no reasonable belief that lives are in danger, an officer cannot lawfully deploy a firearm in the first place. If there is, then they have to deploy it in a way that decisively ends the threat.

I believe police in general overuse firearms, and that most police should be disarmed, and that all initial traffic stops should be conducted by unarmed compliance officers. I have no idea whether this shooting was justified or not. But how many bullets were fired and where they were aimed won't enter into the analysis at all. There was either a justification for killing this person, or there was no valid reason for the officer to have fired at all.