[driftdiver]

What should they have done?

Well if they couldn’t stop an overladen minivan being driven by a panicky woman perhaps they shouldn’t be cops.

Perhaps that means boxing her in. Spike strips to deflate her tires. Or maybe just follow her until she comes to her right mind and stops.

Lots of options which don’t involve endangering the children more than the woman was doing.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Lots of options which don’t involve endangering the children more than the woman was doing

Every option you mention carries an obvious risk of harming not only the children in the vehicle, but also the “innocent” police and perhaps other “innocent” motorists as well.

You conjure up options the police might have chosen that (in your opinion) might not have resulted in harm. However it’s quite easy to point out how those options — e.g. hitting a tack strip in a minivan doing 100mph — CERTAINLY WOULD put the occupants of the vehicle at risk.

However, the PROVABLE fact is, the option the cops DID choose DID NOT result in physical harm to ANYONE. Given that indisputable fact, I fail to understand why they did the wrong thing.

[Robert Teesdale]

None of you are getting the point.

It is less fun to show restraint than to engage in gunfire. One cannot demonstrate high level tactical operator skills without being blooded in a live fire incident. Additionally, restraint is for civilians. Finally, questioning lawful authority is demonstrative of unlawful mindset, and that is in itself criminal conduct which should not be encouraged on FR.

Do I really need a sarcasm tag?