There are some limited situations where an uncontrolled moving car is less dangerous then a controlled car being actively used as a weapon. For example, in the 2016 Nice truck attack if a police officer had a clear shot at the driver should they have avoided taking the shot?
Using a one time unique event as the reason for dismissing a provably valuable policy change isn’t very rational.
It would be like using a single child’s death caused by a vaccine as the reason to ban all vaccines.
Simply put, such a policy to save far more lives that it would cost, which must count for something. Or perhaps we should also stop using seatbelts and airbags.
There are certainly more examples beyond that one event. I support additional reasonable restrictions on police use of force but they have to allow for human judgment in unusual situations rather than flat bans.
Those proposing these restrictions see everything in shades of grey, to most of them it is self evident that officers would be able to exercise judgementand defend themselves after the fact by pointing at an exception. Those opposed tothe restrictions see everything as black and white, you do what the law says or you go to jail. I think... Generalizations are always always wrong.
