It's an interesting article in the Guardian making an attempt to examine the lone wolf concept. It deserves to be treated with more respect than just to be used as a source of quotes to bolster a particular point of view.

There is tremendous amount of oversimplification in most stuff I've seen about these kind of issues in the media. As if there was always an either or - a perpetrator is part of a terrorist cell, or he's a completely solitary actor, he's motivated by a religious or political ideology, or he's mentally screwed up. But more often than not it's not either or, it's both and. The fact that someone's part of a cell doesn't necessarily mean they aren't mentally disturbed. The fact that someone is acting on their own doesn't mean they might not be ideologically motivated. And it doesn't in any way rule out being mentally disturbed.
..........
Talk about "summary justice" is particularly irrelevant in cases where there are reasons to suspect jihadist motives. Killing him was an unfortunate outcome of trying to stop him killing ther people, it was the last thing that was desired, and in fact every effort was made to keep him alive after he had been shot. Once he was dead it was impossible to find out what was going on - if he had any accoplices he took their names to the grave. As for justice - if he was a jihadist, it wasn's justice, it was a reward for him, a merciful end.. A trial and a life in prison would have been far more of a punishment, And I don't think he deserved a merciful reward.