The officer doesn't have to be directly in the path of the vehicle for the vehicle to reasonably be perceived by the officer under all the facts and circumstances to pose a threat of death or serious physical injury to that officer or other third persons (such as for example the second officer who was in actual physical contact with the vehicle from the driver's door side).

The video from the officer's perspective shows the SUV either striking him directly or coming close enough to him to cause him to fall over because she refused to follow instructions and stop and get out of the vehicle.

Making the officer lose his balance and fall down, potentially under the wheels, with all or a portion of his body, is enough to at least cause a tryable reasonable doubt issue.

The real issue in the case isn't going to be the first gunshot, which was clearly justified.

It's going to be whether the second and/or third gunshots when the officer appeared to be clear of the vehicle, were justified legally. And it will also require a determination of whether she was instantly killed by the first shot or whether the second or third shots 1) struck her and 2) contributed to her death.