Odd to see so many distracted by the "stolen car"...
Absolutely immaterial to me... As someone mentioned - as soon as the car was aimed toward the officer or any pedestrian and it was clear he intended to hit him, it's just like firing a gun... Assault with a deadly weapon...
What is different here between the officer and a civilian in this circumstance is:
a. The information that the car was stolen gives more "reason" to assume hostile intent of the driver when he heads in your direction at speed.
b. The uniform further increases the "reasonableness" of the person about to be run over in assuming the threat of deadly force...
A pedestrian in plain clothes simply would have less (I am not saying "NO", but 'less") justification in reasonably assuming the same level of threat...
My $787B thoughts on the topic are summed up as:
The crime and punishment of car theft here is totally moot (is that redundant?), the only issue is reasonableness of the assumption of threat and the corresponding response to it...
So, no doobie - you or I would very likely not be "as justified" in shooting in such a scenario. That's not to say that there isn't a scenario where "you or I" would be justified, but IMO, it is easy to draw a distinction between ours and a police officer's justification in such a situation...
As for the "Jar Head" BS, well, I think that that about covers it...