They couldn't shoot out the tires? Did this have to end with a woman's death infront of a child.

[Savannahmann]

162. Yes I did.

The path was blocked. The car was trapped. It had no where to go. The threat to the public was contained. At that point, there was no reason to assume that the threat would escape. She was surrounded. The only thing that could have happened theoretically was that there could have been an explosive in the car. But it was not a heavy truck, but a small sedan. So figure a couple hundred pounds. But if that was the case, why didn't she detonate the explosive at the White House. Ten seconds of rapid thought would have led a reasonably intelligent person through this process.

So why did they HAVE to shoot? She was contained, the threat was contained. Every one of those officers had a collapsible metal pipe called an ASP, which would have broken the window quite nicely. Just as well as the bullets managed to I might add. Then a TASER would have made it more than easy to put the cuffs on. But the officers in question started shooting, and then others shouted shots fired and the reports went out that the suspect had a gun.

Protect and serve? PFUI. I don't believe it. And either do many others.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/04/why-did-capitol-hill-police-open-fire/

An internal investigation. The kind the public has no say in, and the kind the public will be informed that all was perfect and the awesome law enforcement heros had no choice.

Remember the 1970's? When Civilian Oversight was first started? When a panel of civic leaders would sit and listen to the use of force reports? They used to conduct their own investigations. What ever happened to those? You never hear about them anymore. Why not? Why was it a good idea in big cities of the 1970's, but now we can't afford to have civilian oversight of law enforcement?