As a former law enforcement I can comment on this and I'll start off by saying that this video riled me quite a bit. I'll try to keep my insight calm and civilized though.
I watched the entire video start to finish twice before even thinking of making a comment.
I really and I mean REALLY REALLY would like to see the 2 minutes leading up to this because context is everything. If the vehicle had ran someone off the road or fired a weapon at someone that completely changes things but... since the lights and sirens were NOT on at 0:00 I have to assume no humongous flagrant issue is at hand. I assume that the facts of the tape are relevant without the preceding 2 minutes.
1) The office starts off traveling for an extended period of time straddling two lanes. Cops get way too much liberty in this. At 10 seconds we can see an unrelated vehicle in an adjacent lane proving this is not ultra light or sparse traffic. The office should have been more mindful of public safety and driven in adherence to the laws.
2) just before 1:04 the suspect vehicle properly uses it's turn signal and safely changes lanes (just before this there is a minor infraction for insufficient use of turn signal), after this point the suspect does make a number of traffic violations, I will give you that (all lane change turn signal issues, speed unknown).
3) I estimate the speed is greater than 80, possibly even 90 mph.
4) I counted 15 rollovers (using the 2nd panoramic stitched together view where the truck never leaves frame)
5) the office only asks for fire dept , not fire and ambulance + the suspect is heard to be moaning or experiencing moderate difficulty in speaking (could be intoxication, could be injuries... it sounds to me like he is injured)
6) 10-9 (spoken at time 4:15 & 4:22) is police code for "repeat last transmission" it basically means I can't hear or understand you.
7) his request for NCO (a supervisor, anyone of sargent level or higher) should have been requested much sooner.
8) "28" (police code 10-28) at time 7:03 is a request for the most common data before pulling over a suspect vehicle. 10-28 + 10-29 is often considered the dead minimum for officer safety before they leave the safety of their vehicle (check for expired/stolen vehicle and wanted on registered driver), many officers I know will pull someone over and sit behind them for the full duration of a 10-27 + 10-28 + 10-29 check before approaching the vehicle (this is why you sit there forever waiting for them to come give you a ticket, they are checking to make sure if you are a wanted felon or joe schmoe on the way home from the grocery store.)
The fact that the office never performed a 10-28 before means either A) he forgot he already did in the unseen part before 0:00, or B) he never did... which means he did not pull them over for expired/altered tags, stolen, or wanted on warrant.
Establishing that the cause was not expired/stolen/wanted, means this officer had less cause to perform a PIT - the response was excessive to the infraction.
If I was the DA in this county, I would call for the officers immediate dismissal and I would lay charges of the following: Reckless Endangerment, Vehicular Assault, Attempted Vehicular Manslaughter as well as the minor traffic infractions the office made before turning on his lights.
It clearly appears to me that the officer got into the mindset "I have to end this chase no matter what" and acted far too early performing the PIT at way too high a speed. He should have either ran him out of gas, performed the PIT at slower speed, or intervened only when things escalated.
Personal experience to back this... well I have laid a vehicle over on it's side at 60mph, I have witnessed 45 mph multiple rollovers. I have investigated 45+ mph rollovers. I got a backseat view when a guy in front of me hit black ice at 75mph under an underpass and end over ended 7 times. The shear number of times the vehicle rolled tells me this was very high speed. The performance of a PIT at high speed for minor infraction tells me this officer needs to be taken off the force for his lack of judgement.
Now let me caveat all of this. 99% of the time the officer is in the right, this is a rare case where I feel the officer was dead wrong. I feel he inflicted loss and injury on someone who did not represent a substantial threat to society. Even that caveat goes back to my initial though, I want to see the 2 minutes before this and a version without the music overlaying the beginning.
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and 
