It clearly notes don't fire when there's other reasonable options which obviously moving is one rather than standing in front of it to square up, and for that matter the individual placed themselves in dangers way via standing within a few feet of a running vehicle.
Seems like there was some very reasonable alternatives. And I suspect if you were looking into actual DHS training they're probably not supposed to be Infront of running vehicles either.
And the officer could have done a somersault out of the way, drawn his katana and slashed her tires all in one motion to disable her vehicle.
In the split second of deciding to use deadly force, we don't armchair quarterback to nitpick exact decisions for whether a less intrusive means was available, when it falls within the established reasonable use of force: Which it does.
She was the aggressor, she sought out conflict and brought her vehicle and used it as a weapon first to obstruct agents, then drove at one. She committed a litany of crimes some we don't bother enforcing like harassment and stalking of officers, some which were pretty blatant like obstructing traffic, moving violations and assault with a deadly weapon. She had every single opportunity to avoid this encounter, she forced it to happen. The officer doesn't need to perfectly choose every single decision he makes and be above scrutiny in all actions and decisions, he's just responding to a deadly threat with the tool he has available.