Minneapolis is once again at the center of a debate about law enforcement-involved violence after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed 37-year-old mother Renee Nicole Good in her car.
The incident immediately prompted conflicting stories. Trump administration officials defended the shooting as justified, while local officials condemned it.
The shooting will also prompt new scrutiny of officers’ training and policies and questions about whether they fired into moving vehicles. There has been a recent trend in law enforcement toward policies prohibiting such shootings. It’s a policy change that has shown promise to save lives.
Decades ago, the New York City Police Department prohibited its officers from shooting into moving vehicles. This led to a reduction in police killings without putting officers at greater risk.
Debates about deadly force are often contentious, but as I note in my research on police ethics and policy, for the most part there is agreement on one point: Police must reflect a commitment to valuing human life and prioritizing its safety. Many use-of-force policies adopted by police departments support that principle.
However, as in Minneapolis, controversial law enforcement killings continue. Not all agencies have implemented bans on shooting in vehicles. Even within agencies, some policies are weak or unclear.
In addition, clear prohibitions on shooting into vehicles are often absent from law, meaning that officers responsible for fatal shootings of drivers who violate departmental policies can 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 many police agencies — lacks clear instructions for officers to get out of the way of vehicles if possible. This is an omission at odds with 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 “discharging weapons at the operator of a moving vehicle” unless necessary to stop a serious threat. The policy is clear that deadly force should not be used “solely to stop the escape of a fleeing suspect.”
That point is relevant to evaluating the fatal shooting in Minneapolis. The video shows one officer trying to open the door of a moving vehicle while another officer is seen standing in front of the vehicle.
Shooting to prevent the driver from fleeing would have been a violation of agency policy and clearly inconsistent with prioritizing the safety of life.
ICE’s policy lacks clear direction, however, for its officers to get out of the way of driving vehicles whenever possible. In contrast, the Justice Department’s use-of-force policy makes it clear that officers should not fire into a vehicle if they can protect themselves by “stepping 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 “equal to or exceed the requirements” of the Justice Department’s policy.
Despite that order, the provision for cars to move out of the way never made it into ICE’s applicable use of force policy.
Arguments for not shooting at moving vehicles
Prioritizing the safety of life does not preclude deadly force. Sometimes such force is necessary to save a life from a serious threat like an active shooter. But it refuses to use lethal force when less harmful tactics can stop the threat. In such cases, deadly force is unnecessary—a key consideration in law and ethics that can make force unjustified.
This is the concern of the police firing on moving vehicles. This is often not necessary because officers have a less harmful alternative to avoiding the danger of a moving vehicle: getting out of the way.
This directive takes into account the safety of both the suspect and the police. Of course, the police reduce the risk of harming the suspect by shooting. But it also reduces the risk to the officer in most cases due to the laws of physics. If you shoot the driver of a car that is barreling towards you, it is rare that a car stops immediately, and the vehicle often continues on its way.
Many police departments have incorporated these insights into their policies. A recent analysis of police department policies in the 100 largest U.S. cities found that three-quarters of them prohibit shooting into moving vehicles.
Gaps between policy and best practices for lifesaving
The shooting in Minneapolis serves as a stark reminder of the stubborn gap between law and policy on the one hand, and best law enforcement practices to protect lives on the other. When steps are taken to close that gap, however, they can have a meaningful impact.
Some of the most compelling examples include local, state, and federal measures that reinforce each other. Consider the “fleeing felon rule,” which allowed police to shoot fleeing criminal suspects to prevent their escape even if the suspect posed no danger to others.
That rule conflicted with the principle of prioritizing the safety of life, leading some departments to revise their use-of-force policies and some states to ban the rule. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to shoot a fleeing suspect who was not a threat.
Banning that dubious tactic led to a reduction in killings by police in particular.
This history suggests that clear restrictions in law and policy on questionable tactics have the potential to save lives, while also strengthening the means of holding officials accountable.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and credible 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 or hold shares in any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant relationships beyond their academic appointment.
