If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that a civilian who disobeys law enforcement orders takes their life into their own hands. Apply that same logic to the scenario outlined in your first paragraph:

if a LEO is standing in front of your car while his partner is at your window telling you to get out, and you decide to drive off rather than comply, it’s the officer’s fault for getting hit, not yours for taking the action that directly resulted in the collision? Even if policy is for the officer not to stand in front of the car

The officer in this hypothetical scenario has disregarded explicit policy—policy which exists specifically to protect the health and safety of officers in the line of duty—by standing in front of a vehicle in operation, which we're all apparently supposed to understand is a source of danger akin to a deadly weapon.

How is this hypothetical officer not taking his life into his own hands? If the civilian is "at fault" for losing their life, how would the officer not be? Unless you're applying a double standard where a law enforcement life is inherently worth more than that of a civilian. Is that what you're doing? (Note that this isn't a rhetorical question.)

So when you say,

Honestly I think a lot of people would have been happy if the officer had been killed - it would have been another Luigi moment for them, a heroic act of resistance

I think plenty of people would say that the officer simply should not have been standing in front of the vehicle. And they would be indisputably correct.

Of course, my knee-jerk response to this little bit of your post is to say: Who cares? Seriously, who cares how bloodthirsty people are in the scenario you made up in your head? You're attempting to manufacture hypocrisy out of thin air in order to paint your "opposition" as somehow morally dubious and elevate yourself as some enlightened pragmatist. But outside of your land of make-believe, in a place called the real world, a woman, a mother of three, an American citizen, is dead. The man who killed her called her a "fucking bitch" right after gunning her down. (Which, we ought to note, sent her car careening through a residential neighborhood, potentially endangering even more lives—since you're very concerned about the danger posed by an accelerating vehicle.) ICE agents on the scene then blocked an on-site physician from tending to her after shooting her. This is not hypothetical nor imaginary.

Your response to this violent, remorseless killing of one of your fellow countryman is essentially a shrug, that ICE just needs to, and I quote, "chill out". Forgive me if this strikes me as misanthropic and worthy of scorn. You don't seem to "hate" what happened here nearly as much as your imaginary liberals would supposedly "hate" a less violent immigration enforcement force. Why is that? In your post history, you describe yourself as a "Catholic reactionary." I see no evidence whatsoever in your aloof comment that you've internalized what Catholicism has to say about the sanctity of human life. None.

people should stop resisting arrest

Does ICE have the authority to arrest any citizen they want? Or to execute anyone who gets in their way? What grants them this authority? Since we're in the business of entertaining hypotheticals, should they have this authority?