[mothballed]

Police are allowed to summarily execute fleeing violent felons. It does look like she barely nicked him with the car, which technically is felony battery on a a police officer. I will say I don't have all the facts, nor do I agree with the morality of the shooting, just to note the police are allowed to execute people even not in self defense.

If we judge him by, say, civilian standards in Minnesota though there was no excuse as it is a "duty to retreat" state and he had a clear path of retreat.

[JohnFen]

> just to note the police are allowed to execute people even not in self defense.

Only if they reasonably believe that the suspect represents an immediate danger to the public. And even then, they're expected to use the minimum amount of force necessary to defuse that danger.

[mothballed]

I honestly have no idea how that officer could have stopped a car that was just used in his own eyes as a deadly weapon, other than shooting the driver, which enabled him to crash her car immediately into another car rather than let it get away. Shooting the tires or something is the closest second readily available but you can drive a long time with a blown out tire.

I am certainly not defending what he did. I find his actions unreasonable. However I do think they were legitimately seen reasonable through the eyes of someone with PTSD from being dragged 7 months before and who never should have been put back in the field because he was now mentally unfit from said PTSD of his last idiotic episode of man v car. Which is something he seems to constantly find himself in despite most officers never having that happen in their life.