...and it officially becomes this year’s Ice Bucket Challenge.

Counterpoint: the proper nickname is “b-dubs.”

And just reading the comments now proves it.

Probably?

If he’s already fired at the cops once, you basically open pandora’s box of “necessary force.”

They can use any and all means to bring the suspect in or kill them if their (or other community members’) life is in immediate danger.

Currently, however... For the last 20 years or so, whenever there has been a police shooting in my jurisdiction the second thing officers ask is “Was it a white guy I hope”?

When you fire a weapon at police, you pretty much void your chance to surrender.

Guy robbed a bank, fired at cops during his getaway, the cops run him off the road and pin him in, then fire into the windshield. Technically, it’s probably viewed as justified.

Let’s not cloud this Gawkfest with facts about justifiable force. This is a place for snark and the genius of armchair experts unencumbered by things like fact or the rule of law.

Hey may have had a gun in his hand. He may have made a motion like he was going to shoot. He had already shot at them earlier. You don't get a lot of leeway after that.

Armed bank robber who apparently fired at police when he fled the bank to the car. I’d say it’s reasonable.

That ducks the question—what would constitute clear and accurate evidence in your eyes? Does the fact that he was armed and had previously fired at police (if true) change what the police’s reaction should have been?

The guy shot at the officers. In what world is shooting back questionable force? Or can officers not defend their lives anymore?

Maybe it expired in the 45 minute chase where they refused to pull over.

Is there anything that could convince you that that was the case? If you knew that that was the case, would that change anything for you, or are facts secondary to narrative?

He was apparently armed and had fired at police. How should they have removed him and made him submit to handcuffs?

AZ news is reporting the suspect was an armed bank robber who shot at the police before leading them on the chase.

What should the police have done, in your expert opinion?

Super edgy take, bro. The guy just committed armed robbery and shot at the police, then led them on a 45 minute chase through a major city, but they should have let the “little” person “get away with shit” because he’s not rich enough for your disdain.

If you want actual details, don’t just read Deadspin :P

I’m pretty sure just observing this video from 1000 feet that this bank robber was an unarmed pacifist who was attempting to surrender as he was tragically executed by police.