Correct, except about the choosing where to aim. If you own a gun it is your responsibility to be proficient enough to hit what you aim for with judicial marksmanship. A gun is considered a deadly weapon and lethal force. Legally speaking, lethal force must be justified by fear of one's life. If you spot to wound and it is ruled that lethal force was not needed you are fucked. If, god forbid, I am ever in a situation where I pull my gun it will not be as a threat or scare tactic. I will shoot to stop the threat. Dead men can't lie in court.
The 5 shots fired at :05 mark are ridiculous. I was trying to show that in multi-lateral situations different people make different measurements to secure their safety. Granted I didn't express that. My bad. One video of a witness being interviewed said the man was shouting "shoot me shoot me." Looks to be a suicide by cops. Granted wanting to be shot by police does not give them the right to shoot you.
In a military science course the lieutenant talked about bubble philosophy. So he gave us the parameters. 1. Everyone is inside a hamster ball bubble. Everyone holds a thoothpick. 2. The bubble acts as your defense. Toothpick acts as offense. 3. Acting in offense not only pops your own bubble but also the bubble of the person you are attacking. And it broke down like this. If someone acts upon you. They violate your bubble and their own. Which gives you reasonable cause to act on the offender. This bubble acts as a safeguard. A person who wishes no harm on their person will inflict no harm to others. Because doing so would violate their own bubble. Where as someone wishing to inflict harm. Will pop not only their bubble, but also yours. Allowing you to take the same measurable action they wish to take against you. Granted this was a thought exercise. Real life application of this is almost non-existent because of the split second decisions you have to make when it is your life at stake. TLDR Given this specific situation I can definitely see why this man got shot.