>> 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.
Less risk then breaking out windows and opening fire.
“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.”
You fail to see why opening fire one someone who doesn’t represent a risk is a problem?
By their own admission they fired in the direction of children. Anyone that things that endangering them less than speeding is nuts.
Smashing windows and shooting at kids? Wow, cops get touchy if you don’t lick the boots fast enough.