I have not seen the video. I can, however, think of two cases with radically different outcomes regarding the police officer who fired the shots.
Both of these cases involved incidents where the officer was endangered. But.... there was dispute on whether the officer was truly endangered and if he and the driver were engaging in a "one upping" contest that the police officer should have avoided.
Incident One: California Highway Patrol officer legitimately stops a woman for minor traffic violations. Woman did not cooperate. Situation de-volves into officer standing in front of her car while woman repeatedly drives towards him- but does not appear to be truly trying to run him over. Officer refuses to step aside and let her leave. After woman drives at him again, he fires close to an entire magazine into the windshield, killing her.
Incident Two: Ohio Officers respond to a call after a woman was spotted a store w/o paying for bottles of liquor. Officers surround the car. One positions himself directly in front. Same story follows. Woman refuses to cooperate and repeatedly drives towards officer- but does not truly appear to be trying to run him over. Officer refuses to step aside. Then, shoots and kills woman when she moved towards him again.
In incident One, the officer was prosecuted and served a modest sentence. The prosecutor emphasized that the offense was minor and that the officer should not have been, well, engaging in a double dawg dare contest with the woman. Rather, he should have let her go.
In lncident two, however, the Grand jury refused to indict. The Grand jury appeared to feel that the officer had a legitimate interest in not allowing the woman to escape. She then made the decision that put her life in danger.