I know there's a fairly decent chance that this turns out to be exactly what everyone thinks it is . . . but the media are awfully quick to jump to conclusions these days.
This could so easily be a very localised incident involving a madman with a grudge (or a multitude of other non-terrorist related reasons). Not sure whether it's entirely appropriate to go into full blown rolling news mode with the 'BBC News Special' treatment quite so quickly.
Of course, on the other hand, it would also be very sad if these things become so commonplace that they don't warrant the very kind of coverage I've mentioned.
You could well argue that even if this isn't terrorism, or isn't obviously terrorism, it is nevertheless relevant in the context of so many attacks and incidents in recent weeks. Also worth remembering that the attack in Nice has gone from being believed to be a lone, local attacker to a terrorist attack, planned and conducted by multiple individuals, that was a year in the planning.
A few interesting points: the BBC have been using Periscope as a source of live, or near-live, source of video. Terribly useful for journalistic purposes (I was watching multiple sources from within Turkey during the attempted coup), but importantly lacking context, and the 'man on the street' isn't always a very useful source with or without a camera.
Second: the live camera crew finally appearing in Munich have just been ordered to move back by heavily armed police officers.
Finally, a number of people, armed and wearing bullet proof jackets but otherwise very much in plain clothes, have been featured in non-live video. What's the protocol in these matters, for ensuring that 'security services' officers who shouldn't or can't be pictured or named aren't inadvertently being filmed and broadcast?