googles

I mean, I'm not gonna get too worked up either, but just to be clear, California's bar for use of deadly force is that it has to be to protect against expected severe bodily injury or death.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-835a/

(c)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:

(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.

(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

So that's the bar that a court is gonna expect the male officer to need to meet. I imagine that it's not impossible that a court could find that that didn't meet the bar. The article doesn't say that the guy who got shot actually attempted to pull the weapon.

That being said, the guy was hiding a weapon and was attempting to overpower an officer, and I imagine that a court is gonna be (not-unreasonably) inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in a situation like that.