Of course not. Not today, anyway. The act of speeding calls on the police power of the state, and the use of police power is lawful in that sense, but all the licensing and registration with attending regulations is statutory, not law.
I don't see the use of deadly force as appropriate in this case, at this time, but Matthews did, so for him it was valid, "valid" being a subjective term.
Constitutional is another consideration entirely. "Constitutionally", deadly force is appropriate when life and liberty is threatened ,and in some cases, property.
The whole notion of guiding a motorized carriage around the countryside being a "privilege" has been stonewalled at the state appelate court level. The question can't get to the state or US supreme courts for examination wthout one of the courts of appeal breaking ranks and ruling differently. Officials have admitted, unofficially to be sure, that the driving of a motor car is a right, but has to be treated as a privilige for more efficient revenue raising for the state.
The police officer was armed and was authorized to use that arm. He had the wide power to arrest movement and confiscate property. The appropriate use of deadly force would depend on how wide that power is given him by the legislature an how he exercises it. So, like I say, no, not now, but I'm fully prepared to condone use of deadly force in the event his power to harrass, kill the citizens he is supposed to protect, remove their livlihood and destroy their liberty is expanded past the point of reasonablness by the legislative power.
I guess the question I have for you is, does there even exist a point of tyranny beyond which you will no longer cooperate? From reading your post on many topics on this forum, I suspect not, and if not, that would make you a coward. 