Irrelevant, really, given the distance between himself and the officers was about 30 to 40 ft over rough terrain — also note the weapons are brought to bear as he's gathering his things.
Now, unless you're of the opinion that the illegal camping is justification for the police to deprive him of property you've got very little argument.
It’s like when both Patton and Bradley talked about not “accepting the surrender” of Germans once the enemy was within 100 yards of the American solider.
Really?
You're going to tell me that the police should treat the general population like enemy soldiers?
In the real world, he had plenty of opportunity to put down the knives. His mental state does not require the LEOs place themselves in danger.
"In the real world" often seems to be a 'code phrase' for attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
(In almost every jurisdiction) murder requires the intent to take a life. The shoot could be out of policy, but not murder by any stretch of the imagination. It could possibly be manslaughter, but when the defense tells the jury to put “themselves on the hill”, it becomes a tough case.
How about this video, also involving police action; do you think it shows intent to kill?
Secondly, there is a rarely understood legal issue here. Only one person could have fired the one legally fatal shot. Which bullet was it?
Strictly speaking, that's simply not true — fatal blood loss from multiple shots could occur where a single shot fewer would not be.
Sorry, but your attempted legal point is incorrect.