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

[Savannahmann]

182. Interesting demand. Zero risk.

Frankly, the use of force, by shooting, was far riskier than not shooting. If the woman had a bomb in the car, say four hundred pounds of explosives in the trunk of that sedan, then shooting her could have set off the deadman switch. So the risk in shooting could have reasonably been far higher than not shooting. But they knew she didn't have a bomb, because if she had, she would have detonated it at the White House instead of the Capital. So there was no reason to suspect a bomb.

Perhaps she might have had a gun, but then wouldn't she have used it outside the White House when she was surrounded by cops on foot? So that was highly improbable under the circumstances.

So what risk is left? She was contained, blocked by other cars, and barricades. The threat was isolated. What risk existed now? She might start to ram the other cars, but she was contained. Breaking the window with their metal clubs would have taken a second, or two. Reaching in and opening the door four seconds, or perhaps three. In fifteen seconds flat they could have had her out of the car, with the risk being one of them might have been hit, or bitten. If she'd had a weapon, a proper weapon, probability is she would have come out with it at the White House.

Zero risk is asinine. It is a lie, and you know it even as you type it. If they want a career where there is zero risk involved, then they should not put a badge on their chest, but should have taken up accounting where the risk factor is carpel tunnel and eyestrain. They wanted to have the power that went with being a cop, they wanted the authority and the benefits, and now you suggest that they shouldn't have any risk? Pfui. If that is the standard, they aren't protecting and serving anything but themselves, and I want to stop paying for them in that case.