[cpformula]

You mis-read my comments. I'm talking about the reference to his actions in relation to bystander and the general public. But I won't reiterate. Also, motorcycles have to have liscense plates as well. As there was no comment in the video about driving without plates, I can only assume that they would have been able to identify the owner.

A police officer is authorized to use deadly force when his life or the life of a member of the general public is in danger. Using a vehicle as a weapon constitutes such danger. However, there has to be clear evidence that the suspect is using the vehicle as a weapon. Unless the rider was trying to hit people, ramming him with a car is unauthorized use of force. Even if the rider tried to avoid the slow moving car, it was moving and into his path. Either way it is looked at, I believe the officer was not justified in his handling of the situation, from start to finish. In my opinion, the family should have a strong case for a lawsuit against both the officer and the department. And considering how anti-lawsuit I am, that's a fairly strong opinion.

What good is identifying the owner by way of license plate? If the police let the vehicle go then show up at the owners door only to have the owner claim "The last I saw, it was in the garage... OMG! It's been stolen!" or "I have it for sale and someone came by and test drove it. I didn't get their name."

There doesn't have to be evidence the vehicle is being "used as a weapon". There only has to be evidence that the potential for the public to be killed by the action of the driver was present.