You said, and I quote "The use of deadly force by police is justified when they are under fire. You do know that, don't you? " at least three times on this thread.
Apparently your warming up to "liars" with stunning alacrity.
You do know that he had already killed and wounded police officers, don't you? So intent to kill on his part is clear to anyone with an IQ. Are you saying that he hadn't killed and engaged in a gunfight with authorities?
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs04.htm
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that reasonableness under the fourth amendment does not require police officers to choose the least intrusive alternative, only a reasonable one. Following that principle, most courts have rejected arguments that the use of deadly force was not necessary because officers had less intrusive options available or it was made necessary by the actions of the officers themselves.