[vrwc0915]

I used to be a peace officer and I don't know exactly when the paradigm changed from getting out of the way to opening fire. Without knowing the facts it's hard to say. It seems like that it is sop to fire on a moving vehicle these days. Our policy was to not fire at or from a moving vehicle unless there was an immediate threat to our life or the life of others

[gondramB]

"I used to be a peace officer and I don't know exactly when the paradigm changed from getting out of the way to opening fire. Without knowing the facts it's hard to say. It seems like that it is sop to fire on a moving vehicle these days. Our policy was to not fire at or from a moving vehicle unless there was an immediate threat to our life or the life of others"

I was never a cop but I worked for the police and read the manuals - Your experience seems to match the rules in Georgia in the 80's.

But it's to tell from this article. Were they in a narrow alley with the kid accelerating towards them after clearly seeing there were cops in the alley? Any rational person would defend themselves in that case.

But on TV, you see cops jump in front of the car to get a better shot - in that case it does not seem justified to me for a common thief.

[Recovering Hermit]

Our policy was to not fire at or from a moving vehicle unless there was an immediate threat to our life or the life of others...

The article states that he drove the car at them...sounds like an immediate threat to me.

[jaguaretype]

Same from my perspective.

Unless unavoidable due to environment or proximity....get out of the way.

Moving MVs with dead or incapacitated drivers can be a jumbo problem not to mention the fuzzy trajectories of ricochets off of moving surfaces from most anything other than .45s (we had 9's...no 40s at the time were issued).

But this seemed to have worked out well for all concerned but the welfare slut (assumption) breeding sow.

[Wolfie]

...I don't know exactly when the paradigm changed from getting out of the way to opening fire.

I suspect the first time that reasoning was accepted is when it became SOP. In my hometown, we had some cops get off the hook with that one even when it was shown that the driver couldn't possibly have been coming at the police, what with the car being in a one lane tunnel, and the victim being shot in the back. (And no, the car wasn't in reverse).

[Simo Hayha]

You should check out Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, decided on March 27, 1985. In particular, Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion. The case involved a 15-year-old burglar, Garner, shot in Tennessee by the police responding to a call. Garner was discovered hiding by a fence, was called out to halt, began to climb over, and was shot in the back of the head by a responding officer. Justice O'Connor, along with the Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist sided, more or less, with the police. The majority opinion, they said, "effectively creates a Fourth Amendment right allowing a burglary suspect to flee unimpeded from a police officer who has probably cause to arrest, who has ordered the suspect to halt, and who has no means of firing his weapon to prevent escape. I do not believe that the Fourth Amendment supports such a right..."

Obviously, there could have been cases decided since then that have made other differences...

[car par]

Sounds like this kid was an immediate threat