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 soon led to narratives of a duel. Trump administration officials defended the shooting as justified, while local officials condemned it.
The shooting will also likely lead to renewed scrutiny of officer training and policy and the issue 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 change that has shown promise in saving lives.
Decades ago, the New York City Police Department banned its officers from shooting at moving vehicles. This led to a reduction in police killings without putting officers in greater danger.
Debates about deadly force are often contentious, but as I note in my research on police ethics and policy, there is largely 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.
However, as in Minneapolis, controversial law enforcement killings continue to occur. Not all agencies have implemented bans on shooting at vehicles. Even in agencies that do, some policies are weak or ambiguous.
In addition, explicit prohibitions on shooting into vehicles are largely absent from the law, meaning that officers responsible for fatally shooting drivers who 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 is an omission that runs counter to 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 “unloading firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle” unless necessary to stop a serious threat. The policy is explicit that deadly force shall not be used “solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.”
That point is relevant to the evaluation of 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 over.
Firing to prevent the driver simply from driving away would have been in violation of agency policy and obviously inconsistent with prioritizing the protection of life.
However, ICE policy lacks a clear instruction for its officers to move out of the way of moving vehicles where feasible. In contrast, the Justice Department’s use-of-force policy makes it explicit that officers should not fire on a vehicle if they can protect themselves by “moving out of the vehicle’s path.”
Notably, President Joe Biden issued an executive order in 2022 requiring federal law enforcement agencies — such as ICE — to adopt use-of-force policies “that are equivalent to, or exceed, the requirements” of the Department of Justice policy.
Despite that order, the provision to remove the way of moving cars never made it into the use of force policy that applies to ICE.
The reason why they did not shoot at moving vehicles
Prioritizing the protection of life does not preclude deadly force. Sometimes such force is necessary to protect lives from a grave threat, such as an active shooter. But it rules 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 make force unjustified.
That is the concern involved with police shooting at moving vehicles. It is often unnecessary because officers have a less harmful option to avoid the threat of a moving vehicle: to get out of the way.
This guide has the safety of both suspects and police in mind. Obviously, police not shooting reduces the risk of harm to the suspect. But it also reduces the risk to the officer in the vast majority of cases due to the laws of physics. If you shoot the driver of a car that is driving towards you, this will rarely bring the car to an immediate stop, and the vehicle will often continue on its way.
Many police departments have incorporated these insights into their policies. A recent analysis of police department policies in the 100 largest US cities found that nearly three-quarters of them have prohibitions against shooting at moving vehicles.
The gap between policy and best practices for the protection of life
The shooting in Minneapolis serves as a stark reminder of the stark gulf that often persists between law and politics on the one hand and law enforcement best practices for protecting life on the other. When steps are taken to close that gap, however, they can have a significant impact.
Some of the most compelling examples involve mutually reinforcing local, state, and federal measures. Consider the “fleeing felony rule,” which allowed police to shoot a fleeing suspect to prevent their escape even when the suspect posed no danger to others.
That rule ran counter to the doctrine of giving priority to the protection of life, and led some departments to revise their policies on the use of force and some states to ban the rule. In 1985, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to shoot a fleeing suspect who was not a danger.
Banning that dubious tactic has led to a notable drop in police killings.
This story suggests that clear prohibitions in law and policy on questionable tactics have the potential to save lives, while also strengthening the means to hold officers accountable.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent not-for-profit news organization that brings you reliable facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. Written by: Ben Jones, Penn State
Read more:
Ben Jones does not work for, consult with, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that benefits from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.