Actually, he was shot for being a violent criminal. What I found amusing was the spin put on it by some in the comments section:
This man, who survived for 73 years, avoiding many of the mortal dangers and pitfalls that lay around every corner through life, believing that taking a risk was his decision to make, is taken down by the nanny state because he refused to accept they had arbitrarily assumed responsibility for his personal safety.
Apparently when the cops rolled up to his home, this long living former law abiding citizen pulled a gun on them, setting in motion a "death by cop" scenario, because that was the hill he decided to die on, fighting for his right to decide.
What I see is the store owner protecting herself, her employees, and her customers by deciding to keep her private property safe from people refusing to wear masks. It has nothing to do with "the nanny state" and everything to do with private property rights.
When someone trespasses and resorts to violence, it becomes a police matter. That's the only state intervention... law enforcement.
Perhaps the commenter is a communist who thinks her store is public property and she has no right to decide what to do with it.