In my state, shooting at a vehicle in the manner that you describe is considered to be deadly conduct. It's a felony. If you use a weapon in self-defense, it's justified against another person, not a vehicle.
By the way its not slander to point out that your thinking on this is wrong.
It's slander to claim I approved of what they did. I don't. I simply understand why they made that choice, and believe that it was justifiable under the law.
The cops are not supposed to be meting out street justice over something of this lack of magnitude.
Why are you so sure that they were "meting out street justice"? It's more likely that she did something threatening the last time she was stopped, like trying to back out AGAIN, over someone standing behind the car.
You have been so quick to claim what might have happened, and what the cops should have done. I'm looking at what happened, and what a legal response would have been, in the context of what was known at the time.
It's easy to play armchair quarterback in retrospect, with all the information. But, the police didn't have all the information. At the most, they knew:
They didn't know there was an 18-month old toddler in the car. They didn't know she was probably suffering from a medical disorder that impaired her judgment. All they knew is what the driver had done so far, and it isn't difficult to see how that could be considered threatening behavior.
If the police had arrested this lady she would likely have ended up after a mental health evaluation paying a fine and losing her drivers license for 12 months. That would have been the end of it.
Yes, and that is exactly what would have happened if she hadn't fled from the White House -- striking a Secret Service agent, and again after almost being boxed in at the US Capitol. And while I haven't seen a video of what happened at the third stop, I seriously doubt anyone shot her because she was sitting meekly in the car. If she had surrendered at that time, your alternative would have played out.
That's what should have happened. She had the opportunity three different times. She chose otherwise. Yes, it is probably because her brain chemistry was so screwed up she didn't know better, but the police didn't know that.
“It’s slander to claim I approved of what they did. I don’t. I simply understand why they made that choice, and believe that it was justifiable under the law.”
No it would be slander if I called you a moron or 13 kinds of stupid. Now that would be slander. But I would never do that. :-)
I thought you might be interested in a specific case that occurred in my state. It occurred shortly after the enactment of our first CHL law.
A CHL holder was assaulted by another man in a parking lot. He drew his handgun, and the other guy fled. At that point, he should have let it go, but he chased after the guy -- who jumped in his car.
In order to prevent the assailant from leaving, he shot out his tires. Then, the CHL holder called the police. When they arrived, they arrested the CHL holder for deadly conduct. Witnesses described a woman and child standing nearby when the CHL holder shot the tires, and the jury agreed that he did so recklessly, endangering the occupant and those nearby.
Yes, the guy in the car had just assaulted the CHL holder, but had broken off the assault. At that point, he could no longer claim self-defense. The CHL holder lost his CHL, and with a felony on his record, he'll never get one again.
Some will read this and say: yeah, but he wasn't a law enforcement officer. In Texas, the laws regarding use of force and deadly force in self-defense are essentially the same for everyone. Law enforcement officers only have additional justifications for arrest and search, but those are again specified as force against another person.