Right, but, as the poster above points out - they did shoot him! 30 police, two robotic cameras and a SWAT team and they still couldn't apprehend an unarmed man (in a house by himself, with no hostages) without firing their weapons.
Great, it was 'less lethal' shot, so presumably a hacky-sack type affair but that doesn't make it any better because it shows that they (the police/SWAT team) clearly weren't in serious danger as they would have really shot the guy otherwise so it was unnecessary.
If it is KNOWN that a person is unarmed and KNOWN that he has no hostages then if a SWAT team cannot apprehend him without firing their weapons (regardless of the munition used) then what the hell are they for? They are supposed to be highly-trained personnel.
Either way it's bad - if SWAT are supposed to be able to resolve situations like this then they failed; if they aren't trained to apprehend UNARMED subjects without shooting them then they shouldn't be there.
Remember that the tech angle of the story (and thus why it is of relevance here) is that robotic things were used to unambiguously ascertain what the situation was so there is no excuse.