I'm saying we can probably reasonably agree this officer is quite poorly trained based on their line of actions unless you think it is legitimately intelligent to kill a driver moving forward where you are saying they would be right in her path going at them which is what you are arguing.
No because their training tells them to neutralize a deadly threat by shooting that person, and with good reason. Someone who is trying to strike officers while behind the wheel of a vehicle is capable of more damage than just hitting a single officer, the training is to stop the threat immediately so they can't keep racking up a spree like its UT99. The officer recognized something that would be obvious from his vantage: This woman purposefully chose to take a dangerous action that threatened his life. She pointed a deadly weapon at him and 'pulled the trigger'. But for some ice saving ice, he could have been tomato paste.
We go through almost these exact same tired ass arguments in every single officer-involved use of force. I mean I could probably have made a flow chart before anyone said a thing
Inb4 someone says the officer should have just 'shot her in the legs so she couldn't keep accelerating'