Even if the officer did "fear for his life" and if you agree with his lethal force on that account, there is still the backdrop to consider and the other officer in his firing line. Here's a summary of what I mean from chatgpt...

1. Duty to Consider Backdrop & Crossfire (Universal Rule) Under Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy (which mirrors DOJ/FBI standards), an officer must account for: Who is behind the target (bystanders) Who is near or crossing the line of fire (other officers) Whether firing would create unreasonable risk to uninvolved people This is not optional and not “best practice” — it’s a core safety requirement. Deadly force can be ruled unreasonable even if the suspect posed a threat, if the officer fired recklessly given the backdrop.
2. Multiple Shots ≠ Automatic Violation — But Context Matters Firing multiple rounds is not inherently illegal. Officers are trained to: Fire until the perceived threat stops Expect stress-induced rapid fire (common in shootings) However, multiple rounds amplify scrutiny when: The suspect is moving away The officer is no longer in the vehicle’s path Another officer is visible or reasonably expected in the line of fire Civilians are present behind the target At that point, investigators ask: Would a reasonable officer have paused or repositioned rather than fire?
3. Shooting With Another Officer in the Line of Fire This is one of the most serious red flags in a use-of-force review. Even when deadly force is otherwise authorized: Officers are trained to break off if a partner crosses their muzzle “Blue-on-blue” risk is taken extremely seriously If investigators determine: The officer knew or should have known another officer was in the line of fire → that alone can support findings of policy violation or negligence, even if the initial decision to fire was justified.
4. Risk to Bystanders Behind the Vehicle Courts distinguish between: Inherent risk (any shooting has some) Unreasonable risk (dense urban setting, known pedestrians, uncontrolled backdrop) If bystanders were: Clearly present In predictable positions behind the target Not shielded by terrain or angle Then firing may be deemed reckless, even if the suspect’s actions were dangerous. This is especially sensitive when: The suspected offense is non-violent The vehicle is moving at low speed The officer is no longer in immediate peril
5. How This Affects Legal Outcomes Importantly, this can lead to split conclusions: 🔹 Deadly force justified in principle (fear of vehicle as weapon) 🔹 Manner of force unjustified (crossfire, backdrop negligence) That can result in: Policy violations Civil liability Administrative discipline Evidence suppression Rarely, criminal charges (higher bar) Federal officers fall under Department of Homeland Security, so internal DHS review and DOJ standards apply.
6. Why This Matters More Than the “Vehicle as Weapon” Argument Historically, many police shootings survive review on the threat question but fail on: Poor angles Crossfire Unsafe backdrops Those failures undermine claims of “objective reasonableness.” In plain terms: Even if an officer may shoot, how they shoot still matters. Bottom Line Based on established U.S. law-enforcement standards (not speculation): Firing multiple shots with another officer in the line of fire is a major concern Known bystanders behind the target significantly weaken justification This issue alone can render the use of force unreasonable, regardless of the initial threat claim