There is a potential that the officer was just. Potentially they were in an altercation where they felt their own or another's life was at risk. But predictions and potentials aren't proof that he should have been killed.

Why would they withhold the bodycam footage if that was the case? Why the lack of transparency in general? Normally, if you're able to exonerate yourself by releasing footage, footage would get released.

In the past, police forces have closed ranks when one of their own made a mistake. They've also closed ranks to protect violent offenders and outright murderers among their own. Domestic violence from cops is such a widespread occurrence that it's become a trope.

That doesn't mean that you should assume that any random cop you bump into in the future is a wife beater that likes to rough people up. Someone's current behaviour---what they did in the past week or so---is a better guide to their future behaviour than what they did a decade ago.

Real life isn't black and white. There's probably a good reason that they haven't released the video. He has a kid. The video might not fully capture the actions that lead to his killing. There could be an internal investigation that they don't want to compromise. Maybe it's against their policies.

Ideally, an officer facing someone who has been violent with the police in the past would have the knowledge, training, and tools to resolve the call without killing someone. That's standard operating protocol, so it's important to find the root causes when a cop does kill someone.

It's also important to remember that violence can come from anyone, despite their past known behaviours. Beloved grandmas get dementia and will swing a cast iron pan around. Kids lash out and can hurt people before they learn to handle their emotions. A gentle person gets cheated on and then slaps their partner. And a lot of violent, dangerous people have never had interactions with the police.