Because Tennessee v Garner allows for this to happen. If the police believe that the fleeing suspect poses immediate harm to them or others then they’re allowed to use lethal force. He drive a car through a shopping mall and injured people. Cars are 4,000+ pound missiles.
I also want to point out that legal justification does not always make right. But at least understand the situation.
I’m not familiar with the situation, however many of these car attacks are followed by knife attacks once the vehicle is disabled. They get out and run around stabbing people. Not trying to justify actions or anything, as I don’t know the full situation, however that has potential to be a reason for the police actions.
You’re absolutely correct in as much that most European terrorist attacks start with a blunt force mass-casualty attack, and move on to a low-sophistication phase such as knives or swords, with some sort of improvised explosive endgame.
In North America though, it’s not really an attack pattern that is commonplace - likely due to the high availability of conventional firearms making it easier to start and continue a mass casualty attack.
I suppose the line is drawn wherever it would become reasonable to assume that the driver was going to present a lethal threat to others in the vicinity after leaving the vehicle. I’m not familiar with this case in particular, but it’s going to be a tough one to justify if there’s no ongoing threat to the people in the area being presented.
Because Tennessee v Garner allows for this to happen. If the police believe that the fleeing suspect poses immediate harm to them or others then they’re allowed to use lethal force. He drive a car through a shopping mall and injured people. Cars are 4,000+ pound missiles.
I also want to point out that legal justification does not always make right. But at least understand the situation.
But he was out of the car already. Did they think he was concealed carrying another car on him or what?
I’m not familiar with the situation, however many of these car attacks are followed by knife attacks once the vehicle is disabled. They get out and run around stabbing people. Not trying to justify actions or anything, as I don’t know the full situation, however that has potential to be a reason for the police actions.
Tough one.
You’re absolutely correct in as much that most European terrorist attacks start with a blunt force mass-casualty attack, and move on to a low-sophistication phase such as knives or swords, with some sort of improvised explosive endgame.
In North America though, it’s not really an attack pattern that is commonplace - likely due to the high availability of conventional firearms making it easier to start and continue a mass casualty attack.
I suppose the line is drawn wherever it would become reasonable to assume that the driver was going to present a lethal threat to others in the vicinity after leaving the vehicle. I’m not familiar with this case in particular, but it’s going to be a tough one to justify if there’s no ongoing threat to the people in the area being presented.
e: wrote a word twice