“deadly force that they employed to terminate the dangerous car chase”
If the cops had quit chasing the car, wouldn’t that ended the chase?
If cops are required to quit chasing cars, more criminals will run from the police, and thumb their noses as they do.
The following may or may not answer your question. It's from the syllabus:
Rickard’s outrageously reckless driving—which lasted more than five minutes, exceeded 100 miles per hour, and included the passing of more than two dozen other motorists—posed a grave public safety risk, and the record conclusively disproves that the chase was over when Rickard’s car came to a temporary standstill and officers began shooting.
...
Petitioners did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk. It makes sense that, if officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, they need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. Here, during the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away.
So shooting to death the occupants of a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed makes the situation safer how?
Just asking a question I haven't seen asked yet and used your comment as a springboard.
You are a winner! The police can stop any high speed chase every time if they stop chasing.
helicopter? Drones? Police radios.
Don’t know the reason for this chase, but most chases are unnecessary and dangerous to everyone!