Should police officers being rammed with a car be able to shoot?

Question

I just read this article involving law for NYPD:
An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, the car drove forward — striking the officer and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said.

The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

Bell backed the car onto a sidewalk, hitting a building gate, authorities said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said.

The police department's policy on shooting at moving vehicles states: "Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

Answer 1

First off, I am a police officer, so consider that when you read this.

I believe that the authority to shoot at a vehicle and its occupants is a necessary evil in modern law enforcement. Of course, very few situations truly require deadly force. i have been a police officer for 11 years and have never fired my weapon in the line of duty. I have had several close calls, several situations where deadly force could have been used, but I have always found a way to resolve the situation without deadly force.

That being said, if a vehicle is truly being used as a weapon, deadly force may be required to prevent injury to the officer(s) or the public. Every situation should be considered on its own merits and, not knowing exactly what happened in the NY shooting, I don't know if the shooting was justified.

I have long had the opinion that some police shootings are justified and others are only justifiable.

In my opinion, a justified shooting is one that is a clear cut, clean shooting - such as when the police shoot a man who is armed with a gun, firing rounds at them or the public. One where deadly force is truly the ONLY good option. The best example I think of is the bank robbery that occurred in LA five or so years ago - the one when the two suspects were walking down the street firing automatic weapons at police and passers by.

On the other hand, once again in my opinion only, a justifiable shooting is one that, when viewed by the public, is questionable but that the police department says in justified. Let's say a shooting when the suspect reaches for something and the police fire only to find out that the suspect was reaching for a phone. The state of mind of the officer that the suspect was reaching for a gun, and depending on the totality of the circumstances, likely makes this a shooting that the police department will say was a good shooting even though it will appear to the outside world that the shooting was not justified.

It always sounds bad when the police shoot 30, 40, 50 or more rounds at an unarmed person, but I suppose we should wait to hear the whole story until we form an opinion as the legality of this shooting.

Answer 2

Depends on the situation. In New York State the law says that Police Officers are justified in the use of deadly physical force to prevent the use of deadly physical force against themselves, or another person. If a Police Officer saw someone deliberately driving a motor vehicle at another person with what appears to be the intent to deliberately harm that person, the Police Officer could use deadly physical force to stop that person.

Answer 3

I have a hard time believing that the police policy quote is true. It's absurd to think that a police officer can be intentionally hit by a car, and not be allowed to fire at the driver to protect himself from being hit again. If their policy is exactly how the quote makes it appear to be, then that's just silly.

I think that if a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) is being purposefully run over by a car, they should be allowed to shoot the driver of that car. Seems simple to me.

Answer 4

Of course they should, but I'd like to know a bit more about this situation before passing judgement. I read that the people shot had just been involved in some sort of altercation. Perhaps they thought this officer approaching the car was one of the people trying to fight them. It's my understanding that the police were in civilian clothes. Did they announce that they were police, or did they just run up on the vehicle? I'm guessing they probably announced that they were cops, but we just don't know yet.

Answer 5

Yes. If their life was in danger and they had already been provoked with deadly force, how could they NOT defend themselves or their comrades?
I am sure they were thinking they wanted to go home to their families.
Just remember, FEW police cross that bad line, most joined to protect and serve their city. They are exceptional people who see things you can't imagine in your wildest nightmares, where they very rarely can confide in others.
I am always very thankful when I call and they come to protect and serve.
Most of the time they have a thankless job where everyone lies to them, yet they still go to work every day, knowing they might never go home again.
They have every right to protect themselves.
I say God Bless them.

Answer 6

The car was the deadly weapon, The Police Officers did what was right.

Answer 7

A car is a deadly weapon and hitting someone on purpose is felony assault and battery. If someone rammed you, and you had a gun, what would you do? A similar event happened to me in a foreign country, by a taxi driver. I did not have a gun though. Anyway, he didn't drive again for several months . . . . .

Answer 8

This is another case of the bad guys having more rights than the good guys. I hate that policy. If you are not endangering innocent people then you should be able to shoot at the car!

Answer 9

Cops can get away with it. Even when they are in an unmarked car as this one was.
But if a citizen started shooting at a car that had rammed them either accidentally or on purpose, and had killed someone in the car, that citizen would probably go on trial for murder.

Answer 10

Definitely. I think that cops should be able to use deadly force when they (or a third party) are threatened by anything used as a deadly weapon no matter what it is.