Such intent is not legally relevant and the legal standard for use of force here is simply not what you appear to think it is. Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8 .
> Cop get trained, that you should not use your gun on close encounters with knives, bc the short distance <5m will give you not enogh time to stop a knive attacker reliably.
No, the point of the training is not "don't use the gun in close quarters".
They are trained to not fuck around, and to shoot while they have the chance at range; and to not approach the person who brandishes a knife.
But "not approaching the person who brandishes an SUV" is unreasonable. By this standard, pedestrian crossings would be impossible. And in fact he was not "standing" in front of the SUV. He was in the process of circling back around it, while reasonably expecting the car to remain put, while regrouping with his allies as they demanded Good exit the vehicle.
> It is _very_ obvious. 2/3 shots hit the side of the car
This is also explained by the fact that the car is moving and turning such that the side of the car would face the gun. It does not in any way suggest malicious intent. The timing of the gunshots makes it clear that the officer fired three rounds continuously, most likely on instinct from training for that exact sort of firing pattern. There is enough time for the car to turn slightly (simply from the gun's mechanics), but not enough to allow for any kind of premeditation or even really conscious thought.
> the front wheel _never_ pointed at the PO.
I do not understand how it's possible to watch the video and come to this conclusion in good faith.
Of course, this does not mean that the wheel orientation was deliberate. But if the wheel "never pointed" that way and then continued to turn further right, the officer could not plausibly have been struck. Multiple videos make it abundantly clear that he was struck, and required considerable time (I would say more than a full second) to regain his balance.