I find it objectionable that execution was the response and is supposedly justified. The car wasn't going straight at anyone, it was turned to the right on its way to leave the scene. The gun shots came from the side well after there was any potential danger.
That said, it is a 70 IQ move to taunt armed feds and block the roads. What a silly way to throw away your life.
I think this point needs to keep being restated just as often as the fallacy keeps being brought back up-
The officer is not prescient. His use of force has to be judged on what he saw before he drew his pistol and fired. The vehicle
was going straight at him, that's when he pulled his gun. The tires were still facing forwards, the car lurched forwards. His decision to use deadly force can't be retroactively judged on the uncontrollable circumstances that occurred afterwards- the woman only turned her car as the gun was being pointed and fired, and still hit him anyway. And she spun out on the ice with no traction and lost several feet of forward motion, so she probably would have run him over completely otherwise.
I've repeated this many times and gotten a suspicious lack of rebuttal. Boil the arguments down to their core and find the sticking point, see if it sticks