Not really. As above, there it falls down to the individual officer to make the decision on whether to shoot.
They are presented with a situation where a person is out maurauding in the public having seriously harmed and continuing to actively try to harm others. On sight of him, he appears to be wearing what looks like a improvised explosive device which can cause significant injury over a wide area. At that point, a big portion of their working strategy will be to maximise the safety of the public right there and then. Taking shots to stop further action by the subject, to me, appears a wholly justified use of force.
I dont understand how people think that would not be an appropriate course of action.