Notice that the headline reads, "Officer Shoots Unarmed, Naked Suspect," rather than "Officer Shoots Crazed Attacker" or somesuch. I'm not as familiar as I should be with this area of law, but the facts that he had already tried to use mace unsuccessfully and that the attacker was a college football player (and thus likely to be a rather physically imposing person capable of doing a great deal of damage bare-handed) are obviously important, and just from the description given it seems likely to me that the officer was acting from a legitimate belief that his own life was in danger and I suspect that most courts and jurisdictions would accept that. Even if the issue were very much in doubt, though, the slant of the article title is extremely prejudicial. That is unfortunate, if not surprising.
David Sims
"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - Terry Pratchet
My opinion is, in all likelihood, worth exactly what you are paying for it.