There’s A Reason Many Police Dept’s Ban Shooting At Moving Vehicles: It Saves Lives Without Putting Officers In Greater Danger

from the time-to-fix-the-law dept

Minneapolis is once again the focus of debates about violence involving law enforcement after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother, in her car.

The incident quickly prompted dueling narratives. Trump administration officials defended the shooting as justified, while local officials condemned it.

The shooting will also likely prompt renewed scrutiny of training and policy of officers and the question of them shooting at moving vehicles. There has been a recent trend in law enforcement toward policies that prohibit such shootings. It is a policy shift that has shown promise in saving lives.

Decades ago, the New York City Police Department prohibited its officers from shooting at moving vehicles. That led to a drop in police killings without putting officers in greater danger.

Debates over deadly force are often contentious, but as I note in my research on police ethics and policy, for the most part there is consensus on one point: Policing should reflect a commitment to valuing human life and prioritizing its protection. Many use-of-force policies adopted by police departments endorse that principle.

Yet, as in Minneapolis, controversial law enforcement killings continue to occur. Not all agencies have implemented prohibitions on shooting at vehicles. Even in agencies that have, some policies are weak or ambiguous.

In addition, explicit prohibitions on shooting at vehicles are largely absent from the law, which means that officers responsible for fatal shootings of drivers that appear to violate departmental policies still often escape criminal penalties.

In the case of ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, its policy on shooting at moving vehicles – unlike that of many police agencies – lacks a clear instruction for officers to get out of the way of moving vehicles where feasible. It’s an omission at odds with generally recognized best practices in policing.

ICE’s policy on shooting at moving vehicles

ICE’s current use-of-force policy prohibits its officers from “discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle” unless it is necessary to stop a grave threat. The policy is explicit that deadly force should not be used “solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.”

That point is relevant for evaluating the fatal shooting in Minneapolis. Videos show one officer trying to open the door of the vehicle that Good was driving, while another officer appears to be in front of the vehicle as she tried to pull away.

Shooting to prevent the driver simply from getting away would have been in violation of agency policy and obviously inconsistent with prioritizing the protection of life.

ICE’s policy lacks clear instruction, however, for its officers to get out of the way of moving vehicles where feasible. In contrast, the Department of Justice’s use-of-force policy makes it explicit that officers should not shoot at a vehicle if they can protect themselves by “moving out of the path of the vehicle.”

Notably, President Joe Biden issued an executive order in 2022 requiring federal law enforcement agencies – like ICE – to adopt use-of-force policies “that are equivalent to, or exceed, the requirements” of the Department of Justice’s policy.

Despite that order, the provision to step out of the way of moving cars never made it into the use-of-force policy that applies to ICE.

The rationale for not shooting at moving vehicles

Prioritizing the protection of life doesn’t rule out deadly force. Sometimes such force is necessary to protect lives from a grave threat, such as an active shooter. But it does rule out using deadly force when less harmful tactics can stop a threat. In such cases, deadly force is unnecessary – a key consideration in law and ethics that can render force unjustified.

That’s the concern involved with police shooting at moving vehicles. It often is not necessary because officers have a less harmful option to avoid a moving vehicle’s threat: stepping out of the way.

This guidance has the safety of both suspects and police in mind. Obviously, police not shooting lowers the risk of harm to the suspect. But it also lowers the risk to the officer in the vast majority of cases because of the laws of physics. If you shoot the driver of a car barreling toward you, that rarely brings a car to an immediate stop, and the vehicle often continues on its path.

Many police departments have incorporated these insights into their policies. A recent analysis of police department policies in the 100 largest U.S. cities found that close to three-quarters of them have prohibitions against shooting at moving vehicles.

The gap between policy and best practices for protecting life

The shooting in Minneapolis serves as a stark reminder of the stubborn gap that often persists between law and policy on the one hand and best law enforcement practices for protecting life on the other. When steps are taken to close that gap, however, they can have a meaningful impact.

Some of the most compelling examples involve local, state and federal measures that reinforce one another. Consider the “fleeing felon rule,” which used to allow police to shoot a fleeing felony suspect to prevent their escape even when the suspect posed no danger to others.

That rule was at odds with the doctrine of prioritizing the protection of life, leading some departments to revise their use-of-force policies and some states to ban the rule. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to shoot a fleeing suspect who was not a danger.

Banning that questionable tactic notably led to a reduction in killings by police.

This history suggests that clear bans in law and policy on questionable tactics have the potential to save lives, while also strengthening the means for holding officers accountable.

Ben Jones is Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Research Associate in the Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “There’s A Reason Many Police Dept’s Ban Shooting At Moving Vehicles: It Saves Lives Without Putting Officers In Greater Danger”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
11 Comments
Huntly says:

A fix

I think I have figured out a way to fix this whole situation, i.e. shooting people/cars, grabbing citizens, etc. How about the government issue some sort of symbol for the “good” people to wear so as to distinguish them from the “bad people?” Could be something like a gold star, or a series of #’s placed on the body. Then when ICE sees this they will know you’re a good guy!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

When you are blocking the road. Being a ahole to Federal Agents doing their LEGAL job. You are told to get out of your car, instead you run into a Federal Agent with what is a Lethal Weapon, a Car, Yes, You are going to get SHOT. That Agent was hit hard enough to have internal bleeding.

It wasn’t long before that event where another agent was hit and killed by a car. These so called Protesters are Terrorists. What they are doing is not Protesting.

You have no right to be in this country Illegally. You follow our laws and do things Legally.

All this is trying to cover up the massive fraud on Taxpayers that even the Governor and other s knew what was going on and didn’t care. They sure were told about it and did nothing. Are are these people making Millions? Are you making millions stealing from taxpayers?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re:

When you are blocking the road.

Road violations are a local and state offense. The agents are able to call the police to have traffic obstructions ticketed or towed.

Also, a vehicle literally drove past Renee Good moments before she was murdered.

Also, Renee Good was literally moving her vehicle when murdered, such that she would no longer be an obstruction if she actually had been one.

Being a ahole to Federal Agents doing their LEGAL job.

Being an asshole is literally 1st Amendment free speech. If it wasn’t you’d be under arrest every day. So would a lot of conservatives and apparently every ICE and CBP agent we’ve been seeing on video recently.

The federal agents also weren’t doing their job. They were violating the Constitution. Just because you agree with constitutional violations, doesn’t excuse them.

You are told to get out of your car,

Renee Good was given contradictory orders. Also, the agent who murdered her was circling her vehicle getting the plates on video. If she was being arrested, why would you document the plates in advance?

instead you run into a Federal Agent with what is a Lethal Weapon, a Car,

Again, as you’ve been told, as you have seen on video, she turned the wheel away from him. He chose to get in front of the vehicle. He pulled his firearm before she even moved forward, which indicates his intent to murder her before anything supposedly justified it. He shot her three times with a killing shot from the side, after the vehicle was well past him, thus removing even the hint of danger to him. He caused a moving vehicle to crash into another vehicle, which would have been a threat to anyone in the various possible paths, thus making him liable for other injuries or deaths that might have occurred as a result. He got in front of a vehicle in operation and shot at a vehicle in operation in direct contravention of policies and legal precedent.

Yes, You are going to get SHOT.

This is you admitting that agents will violate the law. It is both true and still very wrong and illegal. You’re not winning an argument with this statement. You’re admitting that the agents are awful, illegal, unethical actors. You’re describing them like people describe rabid dogs. “What did you expect? They have no agency. They’re just vicious killers! Why would you piss them off?!?”

That Agent was hit hard enough to have internal bleeding.

Bull fucking shit. You’re just quoting news outlets quoting Trump officials. Show me the medical records released by an attendant doctor.

CBS News report on ICE officer’s injuries drew ‘huge internal concern’

It wasn’t long before that event where another agent was hit and killed by a car.

[citation needed] No, literally. What the fuck are you talking about, Jesse? There was a man who was running from ICE agents who died getting hit by a car in August 2025. There was a Cuban man who was shot at after he “hit” two ICE agents with his car in December, but agents didn’t die and were reported to be okay.

And I won’t link to it, but the ICE Fallen Officers webpage honoring fallen agents doesn’t list a fatality since October of 2024.

So cite your goddamn sources or just admit you’re making shit up or your memory is so volatile you forget your name when you lose electricity.

These so called Protesters are Terrorists. What they are doing is not Protesting.

Their activities are protected by the 1st Amendment. Their activities are literally as American as the victims of the Boston massacre and Kent State. I know you probably only memorized the 2nd Amendment, but the first covers redress of grievances, observing and recording agents (especially when said agents are violating the Constitution and other laws), freedom of association, freedom of the press, etc.

You have no right to be in this country Illegally.

Good and Pretty were citizens, dumbfuck. Also, ICE and CBP have brutalized and arrested and detained and held citizens and legal residents.

You follow our laws and do things Legally.

So you support impeaching Trump for his illegal actions? Great!

All this is trying to cover up the massive fraud on Taxpayers that even the Governor and other s knew what was going on and didn’t care.

Ah yes, the soccer moms risking their lives and the health of their lungs in a cloud of tear gas are doing it to support fraud. That is logical.

They sure were told about it and did nothing. Are are these people making Millions? Are you making millions stealing from taxpayers?

Everyone knows that when the cops are called to a house where a husband has been brutally abusing his wife and kids, the cops always ask the wife why she’s covering up for the neighbor who doesn’t bring his trash bins back from the curb after trash pickup.

When federal agents are brutalizing people, citizens or otherwise, committing what would be war crimes if they were deployed troops in a warzone, the hallucinations of a dumbass conservative social media “star” who doesn’t understand that daycare centers don’t let strangers with film crews inside to violate the safety and privacy of children in their care does not rank in the top one hundred most concerning issues going on.

The fraud is coming from inside the White House.

Anonymous Coward says:

The problem with this case is that the video evidence is ambiguous, meaning we don’t know what justification, if any there was for this killing. However, given ICE’s lies following the later killing of Alex Pretti (along with Trump’s victim blaming: “He shouldn’t have had a gun”), I have no problem also categorizing the killing of Renee Good as a murder by Federal agents.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

The problem with this case is that the video evidence is ambiguous

It really isn’t. That’s just what the administration keeps saying to push their own bogus narrative.

meaning we don’t know what justification, if any there was for this killing.

According to Kristi Noem, the justification was that she was a domestic terrorist, which we know is a lie.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re:

The video evidence shows that Ross stepped in front of the vehicle by his own agency and pulled his gun before she even moved forward, which SCOTUS has said can remove qualified immunity. You’re not supposed to pull your gun unless you intend to use it, meaning that Ross was already planning on shooting her before the weak supposed justification for shooting her even presented itself. His killing shot was the second or third shot that were fired while he was explicitly on the side of the vehicle and fired through the open side window, meaning she wasn’t a threat at all to him. And there’s an explicit policy against shooting at moving vehicles.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...