PDA

View Full Version : attacks with moving vehicles



Luger
09-21-2015, 03:13 AM
I've got a question on tactics against a driver, who is trying to intentionally run over an officer. It's not about legal aspects. I understand, that shooting the driver might be covered by law, but most police departments do not encourage their officers to do so (or even ban them from doing so by policy).

It's often argued, that a bullet will not stop a vehicle. Even if you incapacitate the driver, the car will keep moving. So officers should just get out of the way.

While I know about the importance of getting of the x, I'm not sure if it is really a smart tactic to just step sideways. What if the driver is not just trying to get away, but is aiming his car for the officer? What if he stops after missing the officer and then returns?

What are your thoughts on this topic?

secondstoryguy
09-21-2015, 03:52 AM
Although most departmental policies forbit shooting into a moving vehicle the totality of factors in a given situation can combine to justify it. After events like that which took place in Austin,TX with a driver running over numerous people I kinda think some of these policies are too constrictive. Another thing to consider is that when you disobey departmental policy you typically open yourself up to civil litigtion so even if your cleared criminally you still could be up a creek.

Hambo
09-21-2015, 07:22 AM
I saw a friend of mine nearly get run over on a call gone bad. With that experience in mind, I'd choose getting clear over shooting every time. I agree that there might be a time when you need to shoot into a car, but when the driver has it floored and headed toward you is not that time.

voodoo_man
09-21-2015, 07:58 AM
There are a lot of factors to consider. Officers ability and physical condition, environment and what would happen, from the officers point of view if he would allow the person to escape that situation only to create another one.

While many PDs try to restrict shooting into vehicles it comes down to stopping the threat and not incapacitating the vehicle.

Fight the person not the weapon.

BehindBlueI's
09-21-2015, 08:08 AM
Situation dictates response. A few years ago we had a woman actively running over an officer. The officer's leg was under the car and her partner shot the driver. I don't think anyone would question that decision. Low speed, parking lot, officer stuck under the car, etc. etc. Compare to shooting at a car moving at 55 mph veering toward the stop stick guy. Even if you hit the driver and disable him, that car is still moving, and what is your backdrop? Other cops and motorists, probably.

There is no one size fits all answer. Our GO says we won't shoot into moving vehicles unless there's a real good reason to shoot into the moving vehicle. Well, it uses a lot more words, but that's the message.

41magfan
09-21-2015, 09:24 AM
I was always predisposed to the idea that vehicles were the ultimate manifestation of a disparity of force so I never put myself in predicaments where they could be used effectively against me. Outside of some direct threat that couldn't be dealt with any other way, the only time I might feel compelled to shoot at a moving vehicle would be if there is a threat of gunfire coming from the vehicle.

60167
09-28-2015, 07:08 AM
The guideline "Never move faster than you can shoot" comes to mind. If you are getting the F out of a vehicle's path then you are probably moving to quickly to take an accurate shot. If you are moving slow enough to achieve effective hits, then you are probably an easy target.

Needless to say, circumstances dictate the appropriate response.

41magfan
11-06-2015, 09:58 AM
This happened back in the Summer, but the video was just recently released. It's cases like this that make bad policy and undermine public perception.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/oct/27/dashcam-footage-police-shooting-zachary-hammond-video

Gadfly
11-06-2015, 12:51 PM
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article43267758.html

Here is a video of Columbus Police shooting into a vehicle that one of their officers was inside of, fighting with the crook. Officer in the vehicle is DAMN LUCKY he did not get injured when the open car door impacted a parked car.

In this case, shooting into the vehicle at the crook was risky, because a fellow officer was in the front seat as well. BUT, is that risk greater than the risk of the crook driving off with a possibly severely injured officer? Do you shut the threat down right there, or risk a long protracted chase? You get .5 seconds to decide....

Hauptmann
11-06-2015, 01:03 PM
If a driver makes an purposeful attempt to either run over an officer(or civilian), or play "chicken" with an officer then the officer can likely articulate a justifiable shooting. Even if the officer dodges the vehicle the first time, the driver still possesses the means and opportunity to attempt a deadly force assault on the officer(or civilian) again in a matter of seconds. So, dodging the vehicle instead of shooting the driver might simply prolong the deadly force encounter risk the lives of officers and civilians alike.

Peally
11-06-2015, 01:38 PM
"It depends"

Crappy answer but it holds true.

Luger
11-08-2015, 09:21 AM
This happened back in the Summer, but the video was just recently released. It's cases like this that make bad policy and undermine public perception.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/oct/27/dashcam-footage-police-shooting-zachary-hammond-video

To me this does not look, like the driver aimed his car at the officer.

HCM
11-09-2015, 06:57 PM
http://okcfox.com/news/local/body-cam-footage-released-from-sand-springs-officer-involved-shooting

Officer stopped to attempt to deploy spike strips - you can see the suspect veer off and deliberately ram the officers vehicle.