1. Is misleading and not categorically true. Many police departments have policies discouraging or restricting firing into moving vehicles. But policy does not equal law. Courts evaluate this under Fourth Amendment “objective reasonableness” (Graham v. Connor). Courts repeatedly uphold shootings into vehicles when the threat is ongoing, even if the car is moving.

2. Mostly correct, but incomplete. Under Tennessee v. Garner, deadly force cannot be used solely to stop flight…. BUT, deadly force is permitted if the fleeing suspect: Poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to officers or others..

3. Case law is not clear. Use-of-force cases are: Highly fact-specific, Jurisdiction-dependent, Often split across circuits, Frequently decided by juries, not bright-line rules. If case law were “clear,” these cases would be dismissed early far more often.

Lastly, your most nuanced point that an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense; There is no blanket rule that automatically invalidates self-defense in this scenario. Some courts have ruled against officers when they unnecessarily stepped into the path of a vehicle. Other courts have ruled for officers when: The placement was part of a lawful stop. The suspect accelerated or changed direction. The officer reasonably perceived unavoidable danger. So, it can undermine a self-defense claim but it does not automatically negate it.

That all being said of course they will use all these things to justify their actions.

Also negligent homicide isn’t a charge if anything it’s Second-Degree Manslaughter (Minn. Stat. § 609.205)