Minneapolis is once again at the center of the debate 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 caused duels. Trump administration officials have defended the shooting as justified, while local officials have condemned it.
The shooting will also trigger renewed scrutiny of officer training and policy, as well as the issue of them shooting into moving vehicles. There has been a recent trend in law enforcement toward policies that prohibit such shootings. It’s a policy change that has shown promise in saving lives.
Decades ago, the New York Police Department banned its officers from shooting at moving vehicles. That led to a decrease in police killings without putting officers in greater danger.
Debates over lethal force are often contentious, but as I note in my research on police ethics and policy, there is mostly consensus on one point: Police should reflect a commitment to valuing human life and prioritizing its protection. Many use-of-force policies adopted by police departments support this principle.
However, as in Minneapolis, controversial law enforcement killings continue to occur. Not all agencies have implemented bans on shooting in vehicles. Even in agencies that do, some policies are weak or ambiguous.
In addition, explicit bans on shooting into vehicles are largely absent from the law, meaning that officers responsible for fatal shootings of drivers who appear to be in violation of 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 — does not have a clear instruction for officers to pull out of the way of moving vehicles where possible. It is an omission inconsistent with generally accepted best practice in policing.
ICE policy on shooting into moving vehicles
ICE’s current use-of-force policy prohibits its officers from “discharging a firearm at the operator of a moving vehicle” unless necessary to stop a serious threat. The policy is explicit that deadly force should not be used “solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.”
This point is relevant to the evaluation of the fatal shooting in Minneapolis. The videos show one officer trying to open the door of the vehicle Good was driving, while another officer appears to be in front of the vehicle as she tries to pull away.
Firing to prevent the driver from simply leaving would have been a violation of agency policy and clearly inconsistent with prioritizing the protection of life.
But ICE policy lacks clear instructions for its officers to get out of the way of moving vehicles where possible. Instead, the Justice Department’s use-of-force policy explains that officers should not shoot at a vehicle if they can protect themselves by “moving out of the way of the vehicle.”
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 Justice Department’s policy.
Despite this order, the provision to get out of the way of moving cars never made it into ICE’s use-of-force policy.
The reason not to shoot at moving vehicles
Prioritizing the protection of life does not preclude deadly force. Sometimes such force is necessary to protect lives from a serious threat, such as an active shooter. But it rules out the use of deadly force when less harmful tactics can stop a threat. In such cases, deadly force is not necessary – a key issue in law and ethics that can make force unjustified.
This is the concern with police shooting at moving vehicles. It’s often not necessary because officers have a less harmful option to avoid the threat of a moving vehicle: get out of the way.
This guide has suspect and police safety in mind. Obviously, the police not shooting decreases the risk of injury to the suspect. But it also decreases 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 heading towards you, a car rarely stops immediately, and the vehicle often continues on its way.
Many police departments have incorporated this information into their policies. A recent review of police department policies in the 100 largest U.S. cities found that nearly three-quarters of them have bans on shooting at moving vehicles.
The gap between policies and best practices to protect life
The military in Minneapolis serves as a stark reminder of the stubborn gap that often persists between law and politics on the one hand, and best law enforcement practices to protect life on the other. However, when steps are taken to close this gap, they can have a significant impact.
Some of the most compelling examples involve local, state, and federal measures that reinforce each other. Consider the “fleeing murderer rule,” which allowed police to shoot a fleeing suspect to prevent his escape, even when the suspect posed no danger to others.
This rule conflicted 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 US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to shoot a fleeing suspect who posed no danger.
Banning this questionable tactic has notably led to a reduction in police killings.
This history suggests that clear prohibitions in law and policy on questionable tactics have the potential to save lives while strengthening the means of responding to officers.
This article is republished by The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization that brings you trusted facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Ben Jones, Penn State
Read more:
Ben Jones does not work for, consult with, own stock in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations outside of their academic appointment.