I'm going on what I read in the article.
Well you need to read it again.
they believe it started after one of the parties committed some sort of right-of-way violation
When they say the "believe" that means they don't know. There still is an investigation to be conducted.
The ONLY good reason I see to get out of the car would be because of a collision. The article makes no mention of one.
As a police officer, I could think of other reasons depending on what was happening. We don't know, but here are a couple of examples for getting out of my car. She is blocking me in and I can't go anywhere. She is acting crazy, and there is a child in the car and I am concerned for the childs safety. She is stopped..and appears to be in distress.
The article did not say someone was hurting her.
I didn't say anyone was hurting her. I said you were making an issue out of the guy being off duty. I asked would you want a police officer to act in his capacity as a police officer if something was going on or someone was in trouble despite being "off duty".
The article says it started over a right-of-way violation.
No it doesn't. It says they "believe" that is what started it.
So, tell me what would happen to the average Joe if he'd fired rounds into a car? Would he be at home? Would he get the benefit of the doubt?
Probably not, but the "average joe" hasn't been granted the authority to enforce laws, and hasn't been given extensive training in the use of deadly force.
If it were up to the citizens, I bet several current police officers would not be where they are.
And there in lies your true motivation. You don't like police officers.