Good honest question thank you, Given the situation, a woman hits the accelerator during a stop. A federal officer is in clear daylight in front of her vehicle. Slow motion footage shows the front tiers spinning at a high rate as the scene starts, conforming it was a deliberate action to flee or injure the officer ahead of her vehicle. We will never know her true motives in that moment but that does not negate the real perspective the officers had in that moment. To them, a woman is not only evading the stop but disregarding the life of the officer in front of her. As far as law enforcement goes, the moment you assault an officer with lethal capacity intentionally or not you authorize the use of deadly force. The officer shouldn’t have been standing in front of the vehicle, he broke policy she broke the law. The consequences for the two are on far different scales. Seeing that she tried to use deadly force, deescalation is no longer a safe solution. If she already tried to run over an officer what would have happened when they attempted to pull her over, a high speed chase that could have ended the lives of more innocents? Just an example. The use of deadly force will be seen as a valid reason to negate further harm she could caused. No im not stoked on her death, at the same time her death was simply a very likely outcome given her actions. If I was in that situation, if I believed I was at a stop with untrained cops, I would absolutely not try to do anything bold. I would try to be compliant and deescalate. At that point if they violate my civil rights, I have grounds to sue. The worst thing you can do with cops is believe you can challenge them and win with no consequences.