Yes, it was very highly unprofessional of the criminal to do that.
The criminal is the sole author of the situation
The only reason there was a standoff is because the criminal did not cooperate with police. The criminal is required by law to cooperate with police*. The standoff should have ended immediately by the criminal voluntarily obeying the officer's instructions, i.e. to get in the back of the police car.
When someone causes a civil tort in the furtherance of a criminal act, they are almost always civilly liable for the tort.
I assume there were at least two other criminal acts running in parallel: first some sort of a weapons charge since the criminal was probably not creating a standoff situation with bare fists. And second, some sort of underlying crime for which they are a suspect, which caused the police stop in the first place.
The police were doing their job, which is protecting the public. Police don't intentionally damage things. The basic "but for" rule applies: But for the criminal's actions, the police would not have shot out your window. Thus the criminal is solely responsible, and the police are blameless. They were simply doing a critical public-service job.
When litigating the civil matter (damage to your car) you don't need to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" the underlying crime, or even the misconduct during the standoff. All you need to show is "51% more likely than not" to get the money damages you seek. That's exactly what happened in the OJ Simpson case, where OJ was acquitted criminally but held liable civilly.
The criminal won't pay. Can I stick someone else with the bill?
The the legal term-of-art you're looking for here is "deep pockets". As in, sue the guy with lots of money who is more likely to pay, regardless of guilt.
The government's pockets are deep because they are made up of all your fellow citizens' pockets.
You could also pursue the retail store, since it happened in their parking lot.
Generally when you go after people who aren't actually guilty, you're betting that they will give you a quick settlement rather than spend the lawyer costs of defending your suit. As such, they will sometimes give you payouts. It's not very nice, and Ayn Rand has a word for people who do that.
If I was like that, and I frequented the store, I'd say "you owe me $200, how about I pay you $800 and you give me $1000 in store credit/gift card". It's all the same to me, and they will see it as a nice "meet ya halfway" that isn't a lose for them. Things like that make it easier to get to "win".
* Unless there's a really fringe case where the police are corrupt, and this is reasonably well understood and documented, and higher echelon (e.g. Federal) law enforcement or spectacularly good legal work are about to validate that.