Setting aside the first shot, officers often empty their pistols. 3 shots = restraint.
I think you guys are making political points here, not legal points. I think you would be saying different things if you were in court instead of on an internet forum.
Whether or not the driver intended to "weaponize" the car is really only relevant if the authorities decide to try to charge the passenger with felony murder (as an accomplice to a felony being perpetrated by the driver which resulted in the death of the driver). I don't believe that Minnesota statute uses the subjective mindset of the assailant in the analysis of self defense. I'm not a Minnesota attorney (and neither was Frank_L), but I suspect that if the victim (the officer) was in reasonable fear of his life, he was authorized to shoot, regardless of what was in the mind of the driver. She didn't comply, and she therefore opened the door to all of this. Your political opinion of the situation also does not figure into whether or not he was in reasonable fear for his life.
If the goal was to kill members of the public, his training was great.