I could buy that.
To me, his actions at the roadblock don't even need additional qualifiers. Enough cause was present.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
We can't justify deadly force by saying people are political dissidents, nut-job, whacko, hillbilly or tinfoil hat wearers; so we should not add these statements when deciding if deadly force is justified.
How would it look if a police professional was asked why deadly force was justified and his response was:
"he was a conspiracy theorist, wore a tinfoil hat, I thought his reason for protest was invalid, he's a yeehawdist, he fled from a traffic stop. Oh, by the way, he ran a roadblock and reached for his gun"
We shouldn't respond like that either.
The answer is, he crashed through a roadblock in a dangerous manner and reached for a gun. That's it. And maybe made threatening statements could be added as well.