Her motivations don't matter. What matters is the legal definition of when deadly force can be used:

"Would a reasonable officer believe there was a threat of death or great bodily injury to himself or others."

He doesn't have to know her intent. He only has to see a vehicle coming at him to be LEGALLY JUSTIFIED.

Read that again.

I didn't say "right." The right thing to do and the legal thing to do are not necessarily related.

Cops, by precedent, have no duty to retreat. They don't have to "get out of the way." They can, but legally they are not required to do so.

Yes policy says don't put yourself in front of a vehicle. But that is not an absolute rule. If he was moving to the drivers door to assist his partner in her lawful arrest, he is under no obligation to take the extra time to walk behind the car to do so.

The two shots through the drivers window are concerning. But again it will come down to the LEGALITY of it. There is a legal concept for a "continuous act". So if all three shots are judged to be part of the same action, and the first shot is justified, they all will be. If they believe there was a significant enough pause between any shots, then they will be judged separately.

Personally, I don't think this will even be presented to a grand jury By the AUSA.

6: anyone driving a car straight AT an officer would believe they were under threat of great bodily harm or death. Especially an officer that had been hit by one.

7. I don't know what they were doing opening the door for sure. The investigation will have to determine that. My assumption is they were placing her under arrest for obstructing a federal officer. Something WELL within their rights and authority to do. She may not have agreed with the charge or want to be arrested, but your fight the police in court, not the street. She took exactly the wrong action.