From only watching this video, I'd call this a bad shoot.
The reason you shoot someone is to end the threat. That's it. No more, no less. He leveled his weapon and appears he aimed it at someone. A lethal take down would have been the safest thing at that point, at least in my opinion, because it ended the threat. According to the video, they still couldn't approach him for 30 minutes because he still had the gun. They shot to wound and didn't end the threat. Eventually they were able to take him into custody, but it could have turned out differently. What if he had started firing on the way down because it wasn't a lethal shot? Killed someone because of a random unlucky shot?. Would we still be saying shoot to wound, or would people be screaming because they didn't kill him before he managed to kill an innocent?You shoot to end the threat.
On a more positive note, he will probably sue for millions for pain and suffering for his non lethal wound. And win.