It doesn't matter, AT ALL, if Ms. Good "deliberately ran over" the LEO or not,or tried to, because she's not on trial for a crime. You can't try a dead person for a crime, and in order to mount a credible defense if HE is criminally charged, the LEO doesn't have to prove Ms. Good's intentions "beyond a reasonable doubt"--as a prosecutor would have to do if Ms. Good had survived the shooting and was being criminally charged with vehicular assault and/or battery.

The issue is whether or not it was reasonable for the officer to have concluded in an emergency situation with very little time to choose a course of action, under all the facts and circumstances, that Ms. Good and her vehicle posed a threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person.

Ms. Good was clearly at a minimum--at least if all reasonable inferences are drawn most favorably to the "defendant" Ross, and the standard of convicting him of a crime is proof beyond a reasonable doubt--driving in a reckless manner or at least in a negligent manner.

Anyone who has ever taken driver's ed knows if a law enforcement officer is standing either immediately in front of your vehicle or close enough to potentially be endangered depending upon what you do as the driver of the vehicle, and the officer orders you to stop and exit the vehicle, you have a duty to stop and exit the vehicle. And you certainly assume the risk that if you continue driving, the officer is injured either by being directly impacted by your vehicle or by having to jump out of the way of it (assuming he's a mind reader and knows which way to jump in the first place).

We don't even know if this woman had a valid license, do we.