I asked "What about the officer?" because it sounded like you were talking specifically about the driver.
Since I know you're familiar with jumping to conclusions (I can link to your relevant posts if you don't believe me, or if you forogot) and you are familiar with specific, carefully chosen working, I know you'll appreciate that I never said "You don't apply the same expectations to the officer." Right? I asked what you thought about the officer, giving you the chance to clarify or explain further.
After seeing how ready you were to dismiss a story of someone being shot for following an officer's orders, I do have a suspicion of what you think about these stories, and I find your understanding of the law enforcement climate in America, in turn making it strange you frequently pop up in these discussions here. If you think that's unfair, that's your prerogative. However, don't
If you need it further laid out why someone would extrapolate that you're talking specifically about the now dead driver: You say it would be dumb to pull your gun out when a person in plainclothes approaches you (in the middle of the night) in a unmarked, non-tow truck vehicle. The officer is the one approaching the vehicle — that's based on the officer's recounting of the situation, btw — if the driver did have his weapon out, it was out of fear of what this stranger is planning to do. Since it would be weird for someone in that position to approach the person who emerged from the unmarked vehicle, and (if that's irrelevant to the discussion because it's an unknown) we know the officer was approaching the vehicle (which is known based on his story), then it's fair to think you weren't referring to the officer when you said:
Right? Again, since you've placed such importance on specificity of language, does that make sense to you now?