Shooting at Vehicles: Divergent Policies Between Law Enforcement and ICE

Recent incidents involving federal immigration officers have reignited debate over the practice of firing at moving vehicles. This approach, now largely abandoned by the LAPD and many departments nationwide, is criticized for its potential to cause unnecessary fatalities and endanger the public.

In Portland, Oregon, an ICE agent recently fired at individuals in a parked car at a medical center, wounding both occupants. The situation spurred significant outcry, with calls for a suspension of ICE activities in the area pending a thorough investigation.

Another event in Minneapolis highlighted similar concerns. ICE agents were involved in a shooting where a woman, Renee Nicole Good, was targeted as she attempted to leave the scene in her SUV. Good had been documenting an ICE operation during the incident.

Officials from the Trump administration defended these actions, stating that officers responded to vehicles being used as weapons against them. Investigations are ongoing.

Contrary to the often dramatized portrayal in films, where officers frequently shoot at cars, real policy has evolved. Many departments only allow such force if it is crucial to save lives.

Approximately two decades ago, the LAPD began enforcing strict rules for shooting at cars, following a tragic incident involving a teenager in a stolen vehicle.

Experts argue that firing at a moving vehicle introduces significant risk due to the chance the driver could lose control. The NYPD was a pioneer in setting limitations following a tragic event in 1972. This prudent move has since influenced various law enforcement agencies to establish comparable policies.

Bill Essayli, overseeing the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, stated at a news event that these scenarios typically involve individuals provoking unrest as a form of protest against immigration laws.

Essayli emphasized that using a vehicle aggressively against an officer or agent would be met with deadly force, advising compliance when officers issue commands to avoid harm.

While cars can indeed pose lethal threats, the hazard of stray bullets remains paramount because targeting a moving object is inherently difficult.

Analysis of LAPD reports reveals an average of nearly four instances annually of officers discharging weapons at drivers. More than half of these led to disciplinary actions, though justifications were upheld in many cases.

In some situations, the force application was deemed incorrect, prompting out-of-policy designations.

From 2015 onward, LAPD officers have fired on vehicles over thirty times, resulting in fatalities and injuries. Often, firearms were reportedly carried by vehicle occupants.

However, in several instances, no real weapon was found, only replicas.

The Department of Homeland Security recently highlighted a marked spike in 'vehicular assaults' over a recent period, intended against ICE workers.

Ruben Lopez, a former LAPD SWAT leader, now instructs officers nationwide, warning that firing at cars presents substantial hazard.

"Poor strategy yields poor outcomes," Lopez attests, insisting that fleeing suspects shouldn't face lethal punishment.

Civil rights lawyer Jim DeSimone contends after studying footage of the Minneapolis event that the subject was escaping, not attacking.

"Allow her to leave," he advises of the suspect's actions.

Judicial precedent suggests few protections exist for officers who fire on slowly moving vehicles, yet post-incident rationale often cites vehicle weaponization.

DeSimone now legally represents Jose Juan Ayon Romero's family. Romero was killed when sheriff's deputies opened fire on his reversing vehicle during a lawful stop.

The 2020 audio-documented shooting, lacking video evidence, is leading to a trial slated for February.