According to DOJ policy, there is a duty for the officer to move out of the way.
Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#:~:text=A.-,Deadly%20Force,vehicle%20except%20in%20exigent%20circumstances.
Plus there is relevant case law where these things don’t always work out in favor of the officer:
Adam's vs. Speers (2020): "Once
Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended."
Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): "A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car's trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated."
Cordova vs Aragon (2009): "Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified."
Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): "a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured."
By
Plissken ·
