So let's say the guy has a gun, then he drops it. Should the cops assume he has another gun on him? If a suspect is armed at any point in time, he can never be considered unarmed after that? No one is saying they can only shoot if shot at, but there needs to be some indication of him being armed, you can't just assume he always has a weapon on him just for having a weapon at a prior point.
Also, something from the
first article I clicked on:
Department policy prohibits firing into a "moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only force used against the sworn member or another person."
You're saying they're allowed to shoot him in the back because before that he almost ran one of them over, yet apparently they're not even allowed to shoot at the vehicle even while that was happening.
No one here is saying he was innocent, but he belongs in jail, not in the ground.