007 No Longer the Only Brit with a License to Kill

I'm sure by now that everyone who reads this is already aware of the shooting of a Brazilian terror suspect [in the head... repeatedly] in London. Rather than rehash his suspected suspiciousness and argue over its justifiability (and possibly the definition of "justified") I am more interested in how the advent of suicide bombers in the west is going to change the definition of reasonable force. Alan Combs on "Hannity and Combs" questioned whether it was necessary for London police to "shoot to kill" when Jean Charles de Menezes took off for the subway wearing a heavy, padded coat after ignoring orders to stop, within days of previous bombings and with said bombers still at large. However justifiable this one may be, I suspect that most cases in the future will not be as defensible as this. If the exact same thing happened in New York City, Detroit or Los Angeles (cities plagued by police abuse allegations), with or without a prior bombing, I don't believe that you could find many officers willing to make that decision and risk the lynching of them personally and their organization. Also, the very nature of suicide bombers would demand that deadly forced be used to stop them, as I would think a wounded bomber would be even more likely to blow himself up, and that racial profiling be used to determine when such force should be used. Thoughts?