Can an officer shoot the driver of a vehicle if he has time to step out of the way?
Executive summary
Federal and most major police policies say an officer may not shoot at a moving vehicle merely to stop or disable it and may use deadly force only when no reasonable alternative exists — explicitly including stepping out of the vehicle’s path — so if an officer clearly has time to move away and the vehicle itself is the only threat, shooting is generally not permitted [1] [2] [3].
1. What the rulebooks say in plain language
The Department of Justice Justice Manual states firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle except when a person in the vehicle is threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle, or when the vehicle is being used in a way that threatens death or serious injury and “no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist,” which the manual explicitly says includes moving out of the vehicle’s path [1]; federal guidance therefore treats stepping aside as an expected alternative where practicable [2] [3].
2. Training and professional guidance push the same way
Police training experts and national policing organizations — including the Police Executive Research Forum and the International Association of Chiefs of Police — have long warned against firing at moving cars because it risks stray rounds and causing a crash, and many training regimes teach officers not to step in front of or put themselves in the path of a vehicle, reinforcing that avoidance is the preferred option when safe to do so [4] [5] [6].
3. The legal line isn’t absolute — the threat beyond the car matters
Policies draw a distinction between the car as an incidental danger and a car as a weapon: shooting can be lawful if an occupant is using means other than the vehicle to pose an imminent deadly threat, or if the vehicle itself is being driven in a way that will imminently cause death or serious injury and there truly is no other reasonable option [1] [3]; that caveat is the primary legal doorway for officers to fire when vehicles are involved.
4. How real incidents test the rule — the Minneapolis case as an example
Recent video-recorded incidents have reignited the debate because footage can be ambiguous about whether an officer was struck or had time to step aside; reporting about the Minneapolis shooting notes it was unclear whether the vehicle contacted the officer before he moved aside and that federal authorities have defended the agent while local leaders called the action reckless, illustrating how contested factual sequences determine whether the “no reasonable alternative” standard is met [5] [7] [8].
5. Accountability, investigations and political context shape outcomes
Even when federal guidance is clear, investigations proceed through administrative reviews, possible criminal probes by state or local authorities, and internal federal inquiries — the FBI and other entities may investigate — while political and institutional actors (including statements invoking immunity or self-defense) influence public narratives and prosecutorial decisions [2] [3] [5].
6. Bottom line for the question asked
Can an officer shoot the driver if he has time to step out of the way? Under Department of Justice policy and most departmental rules the answer is no in the ordinary case: if an objectively reasonable alternative such as moving out of the vehicle’s path exists, deadly force cannot be justified solely to stop a vehicle, unless there is independent, imminent deadly threat from someone in the vehicle that cannot be averted by stepping aside — and whether that exception applies depends on the precise facts and will be the focus of subsequent investigations and legal review [1] [2] [3].