What you say makes sense, but doesn't really address my point:
He may not have been contained, but nor were officers rooted to the spot. They could move and regardless, at the time he was tazed, he was NOT acting in an overtly threatening manner toward any particular officer.
I do not see the overwhelming motive for tazing at that time.
But tazing meant proximity, proximity meant striking distance, which meant shots fired due to the tazer being ineffectively used.
I don't see how I can make this point any differently.
Some may disagree, but that is the way I see it.
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Any idea that relies on murder for its survival in intrinsically weak.