All good points when looking at this particular officer's conduct. But most don't matter in terms of whether the shooting was legally justified.
1. Not likely and even if so, the driver has a legal obligation to stop and not pose a threat.
2. No intention (or non-intention) implied. It does not matter whether she had demons in her eyes and wanted to run him down or whether she was turning away from him (see my earlier post) and trying to drive away as it appears in the video. Did the car and the person driving it pose a danger to the officer that justified his use of deadly force in the moment? That's the only legal question.
3. At a minimum, she was driving recklessly. Maximum - she was assaulting an agent with her car. Not to mention delaying law enforcement activity. Does not make any of it morally right, but these are the facts.
4. # of shots not an issue when fired in such close succession. If he was justified in using deadly force with one trigger pull, he could also do so with 3 (or 6 or the entire clip) so long as the danger still existed. Agree that a break in time would change this but that's not what happened here.
5. It does not matter what "other motives" this particular agent had or what crude, distasteful things he said before, during or after the shooting so long as a reasonable agent under the same or similar circumstances would've also been justified in using deadly force. That's really all it comes down to.
I do agree with you that a jury might vote with their hearts and not necessarily their minds on this and convict the agent because of all the polarizing issues involved and the fact that he was way too quick on the trigger. But you and I both know that at the federal level at least, no such case will ever see a courtroom or jury.