I'm not in law enforcement but I watched the video.
I understand that he was told to drop the weapon. But I didn't see any moves that were indicative that he had any intention of shooting the officers? They said they stopped him because he was suicidal. So they stopped him because he said he was going to kill himself, but instead they shot him in the head? If he would have at least faced them, I think it would be different. But the gun was on the far side, away from the officers where it would be impossible to shoot at them at that point in time.
Side note... are officers trained to fire their first shot at the head instead of C.O.M.? My uncle worked with the State Police his whole life, and he always said that they were always supposed to shoot C.O.M. first (except for extraordinary circumstances), and only switch to a head shot if C.O.M. shots were ineffective. Of course, if he had taken a .223 round in the chest, he might not have been as 'lucky' as he was that the bullet was a few inches low.
Also, with his ethnicity, would there be concern that he didn't understand English commands? Common sense should tell him what he should do, I know.
I'm not suggesting that there needs to be a 'high noon, draw pardner' showdown for every criminal, but in my opinion what I saw was a despondant, confused person who did make some bad decisions, but personally, from what I saw from the video, I would have a hard time pulling the trigger at that point in time.
I'm not posting this in any way to be confrontational, just looking to understand the reasoning behind the 'good shoot' comments. I would think that it was a good (as in legal) shoot, but it could have been handled differently.