Amazing how the right-wing is never political.

As shown by multiple videos.  We see that Good was waving for the Ice agents to go ahead of her as the first vehicle went through with no problems.  She was not blocking their way but looking to move out of the way as she clearly is shown waving the second vehicle to go.  First encounter with her the office that moved in front of her vehicle did so but all protocols say that is incorrect.  You are not suppose to put yourself in harms way to then justify using lethal force. Not only did he move in front of the vehicle, he also drew his gun which is also against protocol since Good at this point has not done anything to justify pulling his gun on her. Second, Good backed up, turned her wheel and moved forward.  When the officer shot her he was on the side of the vehicle, clearly out of harms way.  Even still, the 2 more shots to the face were him making sure she was dead.  Meaning his intent was to kill her not self defense since the 2 other shots were when he was clearly at the side of the vehicle.

There are plenty of situations where police officers have been shone when not following protocol it usually ends up with someone dying.  There is a reason for such protocols because the situation isn't just stressful for the officer but also for the civilian.  When people are stress, illogical decisions can be made, lethal force isn't the answer and the majority of times like this situation someone dies when it should not have ever got to this point.

The fact that its political is because everything can be made political.  

Ignoring the not-so-subtle mocking for now, but we don't get to pick and choose what our tax dollars go towards like it's a buffet. That's never been how it works, and it will never work that way. You tax dollars will always go into a general fund. "I don't use it, so why should my taxes pay for it?" is not a valid argument. For example, I've heard people ask why they have to pay taxes for schools when they don't have any children or their children are all grown. Yes. Why indeed? Why shouldn't the government allocate some of its budget to fund educational facilities so we don't have a society full of ignorant people? You would think the answer is obvious. A functional democracy requires an informed electorate. They need to know more than just basic literacy and mathematics. They need to not just memorize but actually comprehend basic facts about science, history, economics, civics, geography, and so on. Business interests and religious authoritarians are directly threatened by education, and that's why they've spent decades undermining it in one way or another (and what is the GOP besides an unholy fusion of the most base, atavistic impulses of capitalism and fundamentalism?).

In regards to business interests, to quote George Carlin "They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin' years ago." To add to that, they don't want a population that understands how the physical world works, because the capitalists' business model requires people to be unaware that negative externalities even exist in the first place, as the tobacco, chemical, and fossil fuel industries demonstrate. I mean, if your business model is dependent on getting as many people as possible smoking as many cigarettes as possible, scientists discovering that smoking is really bad for public health isn't exactly good for business.

As for the religious authorities, throughout history they have likewise felt that science, archaeology, and other fields of study directly threaten their authority. Science has long had a knack for telling people things they don't want to hear, like "The Earth isn't the center of the universe," "The Earth is billions of years old," and "Humans share a common ancestry with all other living things." That's because they can no longer treat their holy book as literally true front and back and point to this or that passage to settle any and all arguments. That's why they've spent decades in just the U.S. trying to undermine the teaching of evolution, among other bullshit they do.

When they say "schools shouldn't be indoctrination centers," they're lying. They absolutely want schools to be indoctrination centers. They just want to be the ones indoctrinating people. I wouldn't expect anything less from Christian fundamentalists, given their historical track record going back literal centuries. They want every child to be good little Christian soldiers who never question the Bible and their preachers, because it's for the good of their souls and the soul of the nation. There's a reason why there's supposed to be a wall of separation of church and state, because whenever organized religion captures the levels of state power, the result is always disastrous. If someone wants to believe the Earth is 6000 years old or that gay people are possessed by demons or whatever, that's their prerogative, but those beliefs don't have a place in public schools. Curricula should be determined by educators and experts in the subject material, not some clueless parent who spends half the day watching Fox News being told that there's nefarious communist conspiracies lurking behind every corner trying to turn their kids into transgender Marxists or whatever.

Which brings me to the CPB. There's a very good reason for non-profit government-funded educational television to exist. But the problem is that impartial educational television doesn't mesh well with business interests. At the end of the day, every commercial television network is seen by the executives as a vehicle with which to sell ad space. They care about ratings and profits. We did once have major educational cable networks, but they all met the same fate as executives saw that reality TV was a huge cash cow. That's why "The Learning Channel" simply became "TLC" and became an outlet for slop like "Honey Booboo," "17 Kids and Counting," and "My 600-pound Life." Doesn't exactly leave much room for well-researched scientific or historical programs, now does it?

Outlets like PBS are important. But conservatives are threatened by it because they are threatened by education. That's why they want Big Bird replaced by Dennis Prager's slop in schools. They believe everything must serve the dual purposes of A) generating as much profit as humanly possible and B) producing a legion of barely-literate people incapable of critical thought and that are little more than blindly nationalistic worker drones who focus all of their frustrations on some marginalized group (typically immigrants, racial & religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ people) that serves as a scapegoat.

Video of the POV of the ICE agent just released (it is this one or the ten minute versions of any news station on youtube)

- Get out of the car...!    Get out of the car...!!   GET OUT OF THE CAR...!!!   What's their to not understand?

Especially when it says POLICE on the uniform

They should have let her just drive away? Personally I think her (wife?) is also to blame in pushing her to drive way. Drive Baby Drive!!!

So if police stop someone for speeding and they try to drive away is your understanding that they should shoot to kill? Because I don't think that's how it goes or how it should go. 

In case this isn't clear, my answer to your question is an emphatic yes if the only other option is death. 

Gonna make it short, most people are not interested in it (anymore), the question is if the democrats would even bring it back if they are back in power, it is more a symbolic issue.  TLC became slop because viewers are more interested in the slop.  This is an issue everywhere,  Tiktok has an option to show you more STEM educational related content but people barely turn it on because they are more interested in AI Slop. Education being a mess is a Bipartisan and partly cultural issue.

What do you think?

They have her on camera, she did nothing threatening, she's just being a nuisance. They have the license plate, everything.

So should they have let her drive away and file a police report or execute her on site? 

I don't agree with the killing but you have to stop them; the moment she drove away she also became a threat for bystanders.  Before the Garner case you could shoot anyone who commited a Felony and run away but now only if they are possible a threat.

But they did kill them, so did the policeman do a bad or not? Because the president and his administration says this was all good and I would say that the policeman should be investigated for an illegal use of force. What's your view on that?

Stop her right away, they literally demanded her to get out of the car 3 times.  This could have let into a chase with a possible threat to bystanders.