|Click picture above for news video|
So we have a high speed pursuit, at times exceeding 100 mph onto oncoming traffic on the interstate, that ends with the driver 'allegedly' being shot by a Sheriff's Office "Sharpshooter" from a helicopter.
Was the car being used as a deadly weapon at this point? I would say yes.
Was the shooting of the driver from a helicopter the last resort to end this potentially fatal (to innocent bystanders) chase? Maybe.
I think of that scene from the movie Black Hawk down where they put a round into the engine block of Somali warlord Osman Ali Atto's car to disable it so they could arrest him. Would disabling the fleeing driver's car in this manner have been a viable option instead of shooting him? I wasn't there so I couldn't make that call, but Monday morning quarterbacking this incident, one could speculate that by shooting the driver instead of disabling his vehicle may have caused him to collide with that other car, injuring its occupants. Disabling the vehicle by shooting at the engine may have prevented the collision as the driver would still have some control of the vehicle despite it being rendered inoperable.
Would the chase have been extended by a suspect on foot and further endanger the lives of others if he was armed? Possibly. Or he may have just given up. We'll never know.
Just my observation.
Anyone want to chime in on this? Do you think it was justified? If so, was it right?