Shooting someone from the sky--- when that someone is traveling 100 miles per hour----sounds.....

[branford]

45. No, the poster is stating your conclusion is not as obvious as you seem to believe.

For instance, in your OP, why didn't you mention that the individual killed was a suspect in a home invasion robbery, explicitly state, rather than imply, he was going 100 mph in the wrong direction on a freeway, and that his SUV already blew through stop signs and red lights, narrowly missing pedestrians.

The driver was clearly an immediate and extremely dangerous threat, and despite your contention, there was no "semblance of control" prior to the shot.

The shooting of the SUV was indeed dangerous, but given the circumstances at the time, and the need to take quick and decisive action, there apparently were no "good" options, and attempting to disable the SUV from the helicopter might very well have been the least worst option (and probably why such actions have only occurred a handful of times over a period of decades).

There are certainty more facts we need to know before it can be conclusively determined whether firing on the SUV was the best option, including, the relevant police policies and procedures, whether the officer received prior approval before taking the shot, did the police have knowledge about the suspects violent history or other pertinent facts, were other means readily available that could have stopped the assailant without danger to innocents or police, etc.

Simply, you implication that shooting the SUV was unquestioningly inappropriate is not supported by known facts and law, and your failure to understand why many here don't agree with your conclusions is, quite frankly, astounding.