Hardly. I'm obsessed with thinking.
So it's meta-argument analysis time then. Fine. the argument was posed that officers were instructed not to shoot at moving vehicles (although we all know they still do it) BECAUSE "unless your backup gun is a 90mm recoiless rifle in an ankle rig, you aren’t carrying anything that will reliably stop a vehicle". I then stated that the FBI rates handgun effectiveness on a number of parameters including its ability to penetrate a car door and windshield and carry on to inflict deeply penetrating wounds on the occupants/drivers suggesting that the ability to shoot into/through a car is still considered tactically relevant to the leading Law Enforcement agency in America. I then provided two examples of when it would be advisable to shoot into a moving vehicle-the Nice Truck attack or a similar event or a driveby shooting which nobody bothered to respond to. Instead, I was basically accused of being insane.
The fact is, there are instances where shooting at a moving vehicle is tactically sound and I have simply pointed them out not because I want to get into a peeing contest with anyone at this excellent forum which I have always held in high regard and not because I'm a nut looking for an excuse to shoot at cars but because I enjoy a good dialectic and, at the same time, I loathe eristic internet fights and also, because I just think I'm right here.
In this particular case, I have not heard anything about charges being filed against the Lyft driver. I doubt we will and I'm not sure any of us have gotten the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth such that we can form an educated opinion which has lead to the devolution of this thread into what we have here. I feel like I have said everything I want to say here in this thread. I'm done with this now, have a great day/night.