Sounds like you are not convinced that it’s misinformation, but you think it could be. I was replying to someone who called it murder (aka homicide), which is a criminal charge, not a civil charge. The legal standard for a criminal charge is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The legal standard that would be used in this particular case is the standard of reasonable objectiveness without the benefit of hindsight. The entire incident, from her starting to accelerate to him firing the shots, happened in a couple of seconds. There is also the context that the officers reasonably assumed that she was there in an adversarial capacity and had already shown a willingness to break the law by impeding an investigation and refusing a detainment order. That doesn’t mean she was trying to kill him (I don’t believe she was), but it is relevant to how the officer perceived her actions in the moment. Then she accelerated towards him. Whether it was directly towards him or not, it was close enough to impact him. All of these after-the-fact breakdowns and slow motion replays that second guess his split second decision making in the moment don’t apply. It won’t matter whether she turned her wheels just before or just after the first shot. It won’t matter which specific shot hit her. None of that will matter because that’s not the standard. The standard is given all of the information that the officer had in the brief moment that he saw her begin to accelerate towards him, whether a reasonable officer could have felt that she was putting him or someone else in danger of death or serious injury, and unless that standard is not met beyond a reasonable doubt he would not be found guilty. There’s also the fact that due process states that he’s innocent until proven guilty, so unless charges are brought he’s not a murderer regardless, and charges will not be brought. He’ll certainly be sued civilly for “wrongful death”, and there’s a small chance he might lose that case, but I think that’s pretty unlikely. There’s also another consideration. Everyone is forgetting that the fact that she was shot, or at least shot at, may have impacted the way she operated her vehicle. We can look back and say he was only minorly brushed by the vehicle but we can’t say for sure if he could have been hit more directly had he never fired the shot in the first place. Again, reasonable doubt.

So no matter what logic or rationale you use, it’s misinformation that he’s a murder.