I believe the narrative of this question to be false. An officer cannot start shooting unless and until their life or the life of another is clearly and imminently in danger. Reaching for the glove box? Yeah, no-go on that one. Pointing an actual gun at an officer? Yes, lethal force is justified. Pointing a gun at a third party (hostage situation, for example), yes, lethal force is justified.
So the question should be - When an alleged criminal is putting the life of an officer or a third party in direct harm with their own firearm, what non-lethal methods will immobilize a target? I don't think there is any other option. When a bad guy is high on meth or other drugs, for instance, gun shots often don't even work until there have been several of them.
When an officer's life, or the life of a third party, is directly threatened, I wouldn't want a cop using anything other than lethal force.