Thread: officer was forced to shoot at the man's car

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Really ???
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12282782

While I sympathize with the lot of cops on the beat, and the shite they have to deal with day in and day out, using language like this to justify shooting at a moving vehicle is a step too far.
It seems the media are bending over to help police HQ justify their actions & an escalation of the use of firearms but plod.
May be it was in a rural area ? maybe the line of fire was safe ? but who knows ? Shooting at a moving vehicle at speed has a low probability of success.

What is it with peoples desire to pass judgement without even knowing the basic facts?

Was the vehicle moving? If so what direction and speed? How far away was the officer when he fired? What type of firearm did he use? What type of threat did the offender pose to any person if his vehicle was not disabled?

Considering you think it's a step too far then enlighten us on the details, and at what stage would it not be a step too far?

What facts do we think we know? He was drunk, threatened cops with a knife and spade, driving recklessly and failing to stop putting other road users at risk, rammed multiple Police cars. What do you think should've been done? And you've got a lot more time and information than the officers had to make the decision.