First, disclaimer, I hadn't looked at the Minnesota statute, so I was only speaking a general model code approach. Second, I don't know if the intent would be to try the ICE guy under this standard since he wouldn't usually fit the definition of a law enforcment officer ("peace officer") under Minnesota state law.

But, also, that language is a lot less generous than you're making it out to be. The broader legal concept of "...known to or perceived by the officer..." still points to a "reasonable officer" in their shoes. The "known" and "perceived" are more about things like "dispatch said the suspect has a weapon" or "he reached into his pocket and drew a gun (which later we found out was a toy)." If an officer used deadly force in that situation, they'd be evaluated based on their actions without perfect hindsight (the knowledge that the gun was fake), but still under the "reasonable officer" standard. And their perceptions still need to be within the bounds of credibility and reality.

In this case, ICE guy would have to be able to say something like "the wheels were turned towards fellow Officer White" and "the woman revved the engine and lurched forward, making me believe he was going to be struck" and then those things would have to be articulable perceptions of events at the time. They're still going to be able to be questioned and the jury could disagree with their stated perceptions (lies). And after that, his response (the shooting) would be evaluated by the jury based on if his actions were reasonable for an officer in his shoes.

The language around "quick judgements" is speaking more to an reasonable mistake of fact (fake gun for real gun) in the situation. This is a bit of a legal shield for them, but doesn't excuse wildly incorrect judgements outright. And, no, this statute doesn't speak specifically about training, but this language applies to what Minnesota deems "peace officers," and there are requirements for certification and training in those statutes and administrative codes.

And I think we can agree to disagree on the idea that him doing something stupid doesn't have bearing on whether the shooting is justified under the law. That statute has a requirement for deescalation, for example. My reading of the Minnesota statutes is that they actually set a very high standard of expectation for their prace officers (as far as US law enforcement goes). Whether or not they actually hold them to those standards? Hard to say. But, at least according to stats I could pull in a quick google, they're 45th in police killings, so... good for them?

But I agree that it's tough to get a jury to come back with a conviction. I'd argue that a large part of that is because of the deep deference courts give to law enforcement and how much that taints trials against the police. Plus, here, it's likely it'd get removed to federal court, which makes it even more suspect right now. And that's assuming they overcome federal supremacy/immunity stuff and bring state charges at all. It's infuriating because I can't not see this as blatant violations of Constitutional protection and so it should be a slam dunk case against the ICE agent at the federal level (and probably the state level).

It'd be interesting to see how a jury of Minnesotans would feel, given the totality of the circumstances.