He is mentally ill. The article said he has schizophrenia. There's no mention that the other people -- while probably crazy in some sense, which the article acknowledges -- had been diagnosed with mental illnesses.
He's not the definition of a "Radical Christian." A radical Christian would be someone who does crazy shit mainly because of their beliefs in Christianity. This guy was a schizophrenic. If a care bear told him to kill that doesn't mean he's a care bear radical; it means he's still a schizophrenic.
There's a difference between committing crimes based on crazy beliefs and committing crimes because voices told you to.
They're BOTH batshit crazy is my damn point. The Christian was subdued by another citizen and the Muslims were shot dead by cops. I don't understand why you don't see the problem here.
Unless I'm missing something here, the assailants were hospitalized. That's not "shot dead". Second, I haven't seen the details, but the cops are only supposed to use force when it's necessary to protect others. It's possible that the two guys represented a threat to other people (weren't they ranting in the streets with a bloody machete?) whereas the other guy wasn't.
The first guy claims to not remember the crime, so it's entirely reasonable that he was taken without major incident. As for the second case, it's also possible that the police thought taking them down was the only choice. Even if they shouldn't have shot the guys, questionable police shootings happen all the time, sadly. I very much doubt this has anything to do with religion.
Finally, you may think they're both "batshit crazy", but there is a clear distinction between those with mental illnesses and those without them. Simply being a radical doesn't make you insane, but having voices in your head drive you to murder probably does. Double standards certainly exist -- especially in this context -- but you won't find any with your example.