General Discussion

The problem is how you're reading "outside the scope of their lawful duties".

Example - A federal law enforcement officer is driving home from vacation and sees a hit-and-run. He turns his lights and sirens on and chases the perp down the highway at 100 mph. When he catches the fleeing target and pulls him over. An argument occurs and he ends up using excessive force (shooting the criminal). Assuming there is no shared federal/state jurisdiction (i.e., a national park), he can be arrested and charged for the assault. He can also be charged with reckless driving and felony speeding. He has no supremecy clause immunity. He also has no qualified immunity when the family sues him.

The same officer is on duty and sees a federal fugitive fleeing down the highway. He chases him at 100mph and the same altercation occurs. He could be charged federally, but it's unlikely that the state can do much of anything.

The question isn't whether the use of force was outside the scope of his duties. It's entirely about whether the enforcement action he was engaged in was part of his duties.

They're trying to assert that Renee Good was armed with her vehicle, which of course is BS.

It's BS because she clearly wasn't trying to hurt anyone and certainly wasn't a "domestic terrorist". But lots of people have been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for driving their vehicle into someone.