The case has some similarities, but where there are huge differences is the officer shot twice (not seven times and not in the back after the perpetrator was down); the individual lived; the officers were trained; the officers did in fact run to avoid having to use lethal force.
I think the suit stems from an officer carrying a gun (while also carrying a tazer and baton stick) who had absolutely had zero training in lethal defense whatsoever. He was scheduled to train almost a year after being hired. Is it too much to ask that a loaded gun and a badge be given to someone who's graduated their boot camp first? Put him on a desk job or some other duty before handing him a lethal weapon? The US military doesn't hand you a gun, throw you into a war zone and say, after the war, you can come home and then train how to be a soldier.
According to the complaint, the family believes the force was excessive. Seven bullets (one in the back) to stop a knife? One shot with a 9 mm would stop most men, even trained military. In all of the interviews I've seen, not once did the family say that it was wrong for the officer to defend himself or even to use lethal force as their son caused the incident, but they believe he'd be alive today had a trained officer been in the confrontation.
In an isolated incident like these, meaning, there were no innocent bystanders, etc., running away isn't a horrible idea, even among our brave officers.
I do feel bad for all involved, including the officer who still is risking his life to protect us today.
I know of someone who has a loaded gun in every room of his house and as a responsible gun owner (also able to carry and conceal), we're taught to have it ready just for the reason stated in this article. They say if you can't have your gun loaded and ready in a few seconds, then it's useless for "home invasions". Many keep their firearms locked away and have the ammo separated for their own security within the home and that's ok too, but won't be much help during an invasion.