This could have turned out badly for the shooter if someone in the vehicle would have been shot or killed.
This could have been a black eye in the news media for responsible CCW permit holders.
Police have a justified, lawful responsibility to use deadly force in certain situations. If a criminal makes an attempt to use a weapon or an item as a weapon (including the hands, head, feet, etc.) to kill the officer and/or an innocent civilian, then deadly force is, by law, justified. In that event, an innocent bystander may be injured or killed. It can NOT be argued, in the case of police officers, that deadly force should not be used because of that risk. It is simply part of life, though sad, that someone who was not targeted may get hurt.
Anyone making the argument that law enforcement should not use deadly force because someone unintended may get hurt complete eviscerates the concept of justice. When people do wrong things, they affect many people around them. A drunk may drive and have a wreck. In doing so, (s)he can injure or kill innocents. The shoplifters could have hit someone with the objects they were throwing out of the car, injuring or killing someone. So, when people are doing wrong things and affecting or potentially affecting people around them they must be stopped and in that process someone may also be injured or killed. This, by law, would include action taken by a CHL permit holder. That is the nature of life.
For someone to argue that action should not be taken, they are then responsible (in my mind) for the potential harm or death of innocent civilians because the perpetrator was not caught or killed and will continue that activity and through lack of punishment encourage others to do the same. In that light, I would not only prosecute the lawbreaker, but anyone who advocated the lawbreaker should not have been apprehended or killed. If you're arguing that point, that means YOU or any lawyer who would dare take such a position (without apology).
Not in Texas. The citizen was facing assault with a deadly weapon (the vehicle). Under that scenario, he had a legal right to shoot (at least) the driver (wielder of the deadly weapon) in order to eliminate the threat to his life.
Can't say I agree with his taking a shot at the tire(s); no telling where a ricochet off the pavement could have wound up. The driver's carcass would have stood a better chance of stopping the bullet's flight...