This is most stupid explanation of self defence and harm that i have ever read, but then you are trying to make excuse for you terrorist brothers.
Individual self defence is always immediate self defence , and i am only stating this to humor you as there is no concept of immediate and temporally distant self defence. No one could claim self defence to be anything but immediate, unless one is confident of proving himself to be a psychic in court. In order to claim self defence, you need to prove that there is a cause-belle for that defence which would mean that victim of shootout would have to be armed, if not willing to use. In " extreme circumstance " and " no other option " interpretation, a policemen could shoot only if terrorist draws, not carry.
Similar is the case with "harm". In order to potentially harm someone, you must have capacity to harm.To cause harm to bystanders, a terrorist must have a weapon or explosive ( at least a boxcutter ) on his person.
The removal of " extreme circumstances " and " no other option " clause just means that once an officer ,who has shot a terrorist/suspect, has established that his life or life of anyone else was in danger,he does not have to exhaustively prove that there was no other way to resolve that situation. This is how American law works.
And finally; stop lying ,and stop raping English language and logic. You own link states that an officer would have a right to kill a suspect if and only if his or someone else's life is in danger/
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au
This combined with legal principle that any controversy would be resolved to the disadvantage of draftee means that there is no chance of this law becoming a " License to kill ".
You are inventing new loony concept like " immediate self defence " because this law would throttle you Jihadi imam brothers and you are trying to defend them.