Two steps back for LA Police

The Los Angeles Police Commission has unanimously approved a new policy regarding the circumstances under which officers may fire at moving vehicles:

Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless a person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. For the purposes of this Section, the moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies an officer's use of deadly force. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants[...] (Emphasis in original)

Does this sound like a good policy to you? The new policy was approved in the wake of the fatal shooting of Devin Brown, which is discussed in this news report. Devin Brown was thirteen years old. He was also careening through Los Angeles driving a stolen car at four in the morning. According to police, Brown was backing the car toward the officer when the officer opened fire. The following quote is from the news report linked to above:

I don't think the community is over-reacting. I think that the death of a thirteen year old child certainly is a very compelling circumstance. It wasn't an indication that the person driving the car was armed and certainly if their alternative as getting out of the way of that particular vehicle before shooting and saving a life, I think that that's the choice that should have been considered.

Stop for a moment and ask yourself whether the police could have known, or should have cared, that the driver was "a thirteen year old child." And how is the hidden knowledge of whether the criminal driver is armed or not particularly relevant when the driver is moving a 3000 pound vehicle toward you? Lastly, how can we be sure that not shooting would have been the best decision? The officer, Steve Garcia, could have died instead of the criminal. More likely, the criminal could have killed another motorist in a collision. While these outcomes would not necessarily have occurred had Garcia held his fire, they were certainly prevented by Officer Garcia's actions.

But back to my previous question: does "Special Order No. 1" sound like a good policy to you? Think about this: Suppose somebody in Los Angeles decides that today, he's going to run people off the road and mow down pedestrians. Is the Special Order likely to result in more or fewer people being hurt during such a rampage? Remember, no matter how many people the motorist has already maimed or killed, the police are not allowed to shoot at the car. Read the Order.

Maybe I'm wrong though. I don't have the entire text of the Special Order, so maybe there's some other section that has an exception, saying "If the vehicle has already killed one or more children, elderly, or a member of any approved victim class, the use of deadly force to stop the vehicle is acceptable." Let me know.