TexasCHLforum.com

As a general rule, police in the US operate under a much stricter set of laws concerning when they can shoot than citizens do. Police are restricted by the Fourth Amendment and the way the courts have interpreted it. When i started in law enforcement, it was considered a reasonable use of force to shoot a burglar who was fleeing.

In 1985, the SCOTUS handed down a ruling that changed this and would exactly cover the situation of the bomber being shot while running away. Garner v. Tennessee is the governing case on this situation. Garner was a 15-year-old burglar running from the police. When he tried to climb a fence, the officer shot and killed him, hitting him in the back of the head. The officer thought he was unarmed and would commit more burglaries if he got away. Garner's father sued for unreasonable search and seizure. The decision was that it was no longer reasonable to shoot fleeing felons unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The way this was taught to me was that you cannot shoot most fleeing felons. But if you caught the "Son of Sam" killer (revealing my age when it was taught - it was an old case even then) as he was leaving the scene of his third or fourth victim, you could probably justify shooting him. The serial killer part is probable cause to believe he would try to kill again.

This would directly apply to the bomber. Since he had left multiple bombs in multiple locations, there would be probable cause to believe he would leave more bombs if he got away. If he was shooting at them while he was running, that makes it much more easy to justify.