When, if ever, should police shoot at moving cars?

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee earlier this year held a hearing on causes of law enforcement officer deaths and ways to prevent them, so I was interested to see a discussion in the Dallas News about whether a law enforcement officer who believes a driver is trying to run him over should shoot at the vehicle ("Police policies on shooting at cars differ," Sept. 4). A criminologist from South Carolina offered this advice that might save lives: "If you've got time to pull and point your weapon," he said, "use that time to get out of the way."

The News examines Metroplex police department policies on shooting at moving cars and discovers they're all over the map:

Dr. [Geoffrey] Alpert, who studies police use of force, believes agencies should ban shooting at moving vehicles except in extreme cases, such as if an officer has fallen or is trapped with no escape and deadly force is a last resort.

"And these extreme situations should be detailed," he said.

The Garland Police Department's policy authorizes the use of deadly force to "protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed to be a threat of death or serious injury" or to prevent the escape of a violent felon. It doesn't address shooting at moving vehicles, but other local departments do.

The Dallas Police Department limits but doesn't ban the practice: "Discharging a firearm at a moving vehicle is prohibited unless necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person."

The Fort Worth police policy says: "We will not shoot at moving vehicles unless there is no other option due to the risk of imminent serious injury or death."

Plano police also limit the use of deadly force against moving vehicles "except in self-defense, the defense of another police officer, or another person."

"The assumption that a fleeing vehicle is a deadly weapon ... is not in itself justification to use deadly force," said Officer Rick McDonald, a Plano police spokesman.

But Garland isn't the only agency that leaves the matter to an officer's discretion.

Maj. Charles Ruckel of the Collin County Sheriff's Department said that agency's policy doesn't address moving vehicles.

"If an officer's life is in danger or the life of another, they can use deadly force," Maj. Ruckel said.

The Texas Department of Public Safety, which includes the Highway Patrol, Texas Rangers and other state agencies, doesn't address the matter in its policy guidelines because "every situation is different," spokeswoman Tela Mange said.

"It's officer discretion," she said. "If they perceive that there's an imminent threat, they can take any action they feel necessary to protect themselves."

State policy

Local agencies can write their own policies on the use of deadly force, said Frank Woodall of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education, the state agency that licenses police officers.

But he said individual policies must be at least as restrictive as the state's basic police academy curriculum, which cites the Penal Code authorizing deadly force to defend oneself or a third person from an imminent lethal threat.

"That's the minimum that has to be taught," Mr. Woodall said.

However, the curriculum doesn't address shooting at moving vehicles.

The language in the Fort Worth policy strikes me as the example most likely to minimize injury and general harm while giving officers full authority to protect themselves. By comparison, the Garland policy authorizing shooting at vehicles to "prevent the escape of a violent felon" leaves open the possibility of using of force in a variety of troubling circumstances.

Giving officers such discretion also leaves to chance whether an officer misinterprets a driver's intent and shoots someone who wasn't intentionally trying to harm them, as was claimed in the Garland case and in other high profile reported around the country that spawned changes in other cities' policies.

There are obvious problems with shooting at moving cars. For starters, it puts bystanders at risk when officers miss. Not only that, if they're successful in disabling the driver, the vehicle might wreck and injure more innocent people, or else harm the officer who's now standing in front of the car and shooting instead of dodging out of the way. In the Garland case described in the News story, the suspect took two bullets, drove away, then crashed the car down the road. Here are the details:

Charlie Wright kept driving, even after being shot twice early Aug. 23 by an officer who believed the 19-year-old was trying to run him down in the driveway of a gated apartment complex.

Garland police spokesman Joe Harn said Officer C. Stallings fired "several rounds" at Mr. Wright about 2:30 a.m. in the 2700 block of Lookout Drive, where police were investigating reports of a loud party.

"Our officers have a right to defend themselves," Officer Harn said.

But Mr. Wright insists he wasn't trying to hurt anyone.

"I didn't see the officer until the shots were fired," said Mr. Wright, who says he was shot through an open passenger-side window and from the back.

Wounded in the right shoulder and left thigh, he drove away from the apartments and was spotted about three miles away going the wrong way in the 2800 block of Belt Line Road, near Jupiter Road. He was arrested after hitting a parked car.

Luckily in this instance the shot suspect only caused additional property damage, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where someone veers into a crowded sidewalk instead of just a parked car.

Policies giving police wide discretion to shoot at moving vehicles put the public at risk and force officers to evaluate options at a moment when their safety is best served by them getting out of the way.