He should be fired. Departments in general have abandoned shooting at suspects from their vehicle, or attempting to disable their vehicle by blowing out tires with firearms (there's speed sticks for that now), since the late 1980s at the latest. If he felt in danger he should've done what most cops do when they're chasing a dangerous suspect, and allow air support to trail them while closing off streets ahead of the perpetrator rather than trying to play Rambo and do it themselves. Then again you only need a high school diploma, a vagina or dark skin to be a pig, and it shows.
Okay.. lets discuss that. In policing there are what we call General Orders and then there is state law. General Orders are always more stringent than state law for a few reasons. There is nothing in state law that prohibits a cop from shooting from a vehicle. The reason there isn't is because there are a gazillion possible scenarios an officer may have to deal with on any given day. So laws are vague or lenient because that's understood. For almost every "A cop should never" statement you give, I can probably with few exceptions give you a "but what about if" that would make the action seem reasonable.
In general orders or department policy there are prohibitions typically that will state something like "Police officers will not discharge their weapons at a moving vehicle" but will add "Unless.".. and set out some criteria. Because as soon as a department forbids a cop from using deadly force in a given situation, that situation will occur and someone will get hurt or die because the cop was unable to respond with deadly force. So they leave the door open. Ultimately the cop is responsible for each round fired and what happens with it
You bring up some good thoughts though.. In a typical pursuit, it is best not to chase and many departments have rules saying for misdemeanors only you can't even pursue and will get in trouble if you do. But for active shooters, or suspects of violent crimes, you usually get to pursue. I personally don't like chasing someone who is shooting at me, I would much rather back off. In fact, I really don't want to deal with anyone shooting at me and would much rather go the other way. Most times that's not an option and in this case, does the department have an air unit? Were they on duty? What was their ETA?Where they enroute and the officers just keeping up until they arrived? Do you know any of those answers?
So a helicopter may or may not have been available but it seems like they weren't there at that time so backing off doesn't appear to be an option.
Stop sticks. Great for drunk drivers, not so great for active shooters. Someone has to thrown them and then pull them back in before the cops drive over them.. which means the bad guys with the guns drive right by the officer. Plus, it sounds easy but getting a unit that has stop sticks, {not all cops are trained with them nor outfitted with them) to the right position in a city is almost impossible. The number of units you talk about for funneling would be ridiculous in such an environment and units are limited to the officers on duty in that part of the city not on calls at any given time. Its very difficult I can tell you from experience to get a unit in place during daytime traffic in a urban environment.
This isn't a TV show or movie where resources or unlimited and cops are abundant. It's about a high speed vehicle shooting at people and cops trying their best to stop them before someone dies. All of your suggestions are potentially great for DWI, or Highway pursuits or if a helicopter is even available but in reality, it's not the cops that seem uneducated at this point about it.
In almost every use of force situation from taser discharge to strike to the head it is reviewed by a chain of command and when deadly force is involved you add in Internal Affairs, Shooting Team comprised of department personnel from the range, the Academy where use of force is taught, Commanders over Training and SWAT personnel. Often times when requested either by the department or citizens, the FBI will avail itself. All info from videos, to radio transmissions, reports, photos and interviews are reviewed to determine if force was reasonable or excessive. The outcome of the use of force is part of the items weighed. I can tell you from experience, if no one but the bad guy suffers from the deadly force, it is looked at differently than if an innocent person is also harmed. In this case, assuming the officers rounds didn't strike anyone outside of the vehicle, it would probably be viewed as reasonable. There may be some tactical training issues that are brought up and addressed but firing him? unlikely
