What do Justice Department and DHS use‑of‑force policies say about shooting at vehicles in detail?
Executive summary
The Justice Department's Justice Manual and Department of Homeland Security use-of-force directives tightly restrict shooting at moving vehicles: deadly force cannot be used merely to stop a fleeing suspect, and firearms "may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles," with narrow exceptions when an imminent lethal threat exists and no objectively reasonable alternative remains, including moving out of the vehicle's path [1] [2] [3]. DHS policy mirrors that standard and also frames disabling fire and warning shots as prohibited except in specified, limited circumstances [4] [5].
1. What the DOJ rule actually says — narrow, specific exceptions
The Justice Manual states that deadly force "may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect" and that firing at a moving vehicle is forbidden unless one of two narrow conditions is present: a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or the vehicle itself is being used in a way that creates an imminent threat of 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 path of the vehicle [1] [6].
2. How DHS translates and enforces the standard
DHS required components to adopt guidance matching or exceeding DOJ standards, and DHS policy likewise prohibits firing at moving vehicles solely as a warning or to disable them, defines "disabling fire" as generally impermissible, and instructs officers to employ safe tactics that minimize risk to bystanders and property; the DHS policy also sanctions departmental review and oversight of force incidents [2] [4] [5].
3. Operational details and training expectations
Both DOJ and DHS guidance emphasize training and de-escalation: officers must receive at least annual training on the use-of-force policy and simulations that reinforce de-escalation and decision-making about shooting in complex scenarios, and DOJ language says firearms generally should not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances with articulable reasons [1] [7].
4. Commonly cited practical limits and the “move out of the way” expectation
Across reporting and analyses, the dominant operational prescription is that officers should avoid placing themselves in front of vehicles and should consider stepping out of the vehicle’s path because deadly force is authorized only when no reasonable alternative exists; experts argue firing at moving cars is unusually risky due to stray rounds and loss of vehicle control that endanger bystanders [8] [7] [9].
5. Legal and investigatory overlay: accountability and exceptions
Federal agencies conduct internal reviews and may be subject to state or local criminal investigation when shootings occur; DOJ and DHS standards do not grant blanket immunity — federal agents can face prosecution if they act outside lawful authority — but implementation can be contested in courts, where judges have noted the standards do not necessarily create a categorical "duty to retreat" in all cases [8] [10] [2].
6. Points of contention, ambiguity and political context
Critics say the "no objectively reasonable alternative" phrasing leaves room for divergent agency interpretations and rapid post-incident defenses, and high-profile shootings have sparked political defenses from agency leaders that can shape public perception and investigatory posture; reporting shows DHS leaders and political figures sometimes immediately frame incidents as justified self-defense even as local authorities or witnesses dispute those accounts [3] [11] [10].
7. Bottom line for practice and oversight
In sum, DOJ and DHS policies converge on a clear baseline: do not shoot to stop or disable a moving vehicle unless a person poses an imminent deadly threat beyond the vehicle itself or the vehicle is being used as a lethal weapon and no reasonable alternative exists — a standard designed to protect bystanders and curb risky tactics, but one that depends on rapid judgment calls, training, and robust independent review to ensure accountability [1] [4] [12].