The law allows the use of reasonable force
What is reasonable always depends on the norms of the society - because reasonableness, by definition, is incapable of definition
I'm the first on here to uphold the rule of law - and have done so in a very real sense in real life - but my point is that we perhaps ought not to be too picky about where we draw the reasonableness line when we are dealing with what at one time seemed an uncontrollable rising tide of violent criminality
So - for me - whether on a bike, on foot or in a car, I'm fine with being violent criminals being knocked off feet or off wheels to prevent crime or apprehend offenders as being within the acceptable limits. I don't think we should be overly precious about where that particular line gets drawn, and so long as there is a line and so long as its within a window that society accepts as 'reasonable force' the the rule of law can sleep easy
Giving a wide degree of latitude and applying the benefit of the doubt against the criminal is nothing new - you can go all the way back to Oliver Wendell Holmes 100 years ago, and probably earlier, to find that “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upturned knife” - and this is a development of that approach. It is not to say that those who commit crime place themselves beyond the protection of the law and become fair game (see my earlier posts on this very thread) but that when assessing the conduct of those charged with preventing or apprehending them we need to allow an appropriately wide degree of latitude
IMO and FWIW
Just seen this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46524839 and it reminded me of this thread (or at least the direction this thread had taken).
Even in these times of heightened security and tension and even at Parliament this fellow was "only" tasered and retained. Imagine that kind of restraint being shown in the US? He'd have been filled with bullets on sight.
Now, if he'd illegally parked a mode outside Parliament, things might have been different