Police and armed forces are not told to shoot to wound. It is always a kill shot. They are not to,d to shoot to deflate tyres. Their Rules of Engagement are shoot to kill. If you believe there is a credible threat, you shoot to kill. They are not given the autonomy to do otherwise. It isn’t TV.
The courts will decide if his thought process and belief at the time fit within those Rules of Engagement, or not. As I said previously, in the Armed Forces we were given lethal force, in the middle of quiet Lincolnshire. If we found someone trying to enter the base, or accommodation and they didn’t stop when challenged we were expected to take them out, not take them down. We practiced central and head shots, not foot or knee. As do the police. We were also told we would be immediately arrested for murder. Arrested for doing what we were told to do.
What should he have done? Let the car drive head on into them? Let it drive off and possibly injure a member of the public? Let it drive off knowing he was possibly armed, as their knowledge suggested? What would you all be saying if he had done nothing and he shot a member of the public?
A probable lethal threat was treated with lethal force. I don’t think there should be impunity, but I also don’t think it’s tenable to ask them to do a job and then do this. Now he will be off work for probably 5 plus years, whilst the CPS direct their investigation, and then while the IOPC do theirs following the outcome of the criminal investigation.
Take the guns off all of them. Assuming this is from arrogance, making accusations with no knowledge of how it actually works and comparisons to Wayne Couzens. If the facts show this officer acted outside his Rules of Engagement, he will be found guilty. But the immediate assumption of guilt that is so tangible on here, please at least read about how they work.
Good luck, throw the baby out with the bath water. There’s some horrific people, in and out of the police.