maybe they meant that he had already been injured when he was taken into custody (iow a wording ambiguity).
Possibly. My issue is that he had existed the building surrounded by hostages. A round would easily pass through him and hit a hostage. Whatever the case, he apparently was not armed.... so, why shoot at all. There was no claim in the written story that he was holding a gun to a hostage.
We all know he was injured when he came in the store. He was bleeding from head to toe.
Also, the police shot him in the arm before he ran into the store.