i don't know how to answer your 'what if' complications to what at the surface is pretty simple. what if there are no passengers? should a person drop his gun when he, as per the original post, is near certain death or injury by gunfire on the possible chance that there is an infant human shield? I covered that, at the end of the post but you guys ignored that.
I think that it's univesal here that people believe in #1, and saving their own lives is paromount. Most people here would clearly act to save their own lives.
is shooting at a gun into a car that may or may not have innocent passengers any different at all from shooting at a car where there are shop windows, pedestrians, restaurants, or even other cars in the immediate or near distant background that aren't obvious by sight? call out whatever you need to, but the simple post up front said that there is only one decision called for in the original post. Shoot or be shot, and what is the moral answer?
i don't know what a moral answer should be. I'm not answering that until I have been in that situation and dealt with every minute bit of information available.
You don't have any information. Imagine or guess whatever you want to. Act on it after you decide. shoot or don't shoot.
This is frankly and truly just another barrier puzzle. No different from shooting at an antler in a thicket or a white tail, or the sound of a turkey call in weeds. You can't see the white of his eyes, so why would you shoot unless you see the gun and know factually that you are in danger of your life, facing death by that gun?
Just ignore the passage that you quoted if you prefer and go back to the one at the end. It gives my belief that shooting at the bad guy in a genuine life and death situation already involves bystanders in many "what if" scenarios. pulling the trigger with possible collateral damage is a dilemma. If you can't see that there are no bystanders, there just simply comes a point that you either shoot or don't. simple yes or no.
The only thing that a carrier can do is to die or shoot, and the decision to shoot must be well thought out, and that there is a strong certainty that no innocents will be hurt. If an innocent person is hurt or killed, that's a great cause for a whole lot of hindsight condemnation of the shooter for being stupid or immoral, when it is actually more of an issue of poor judgment and for lack of a better way of saying it, fate.
it's also important, In my opinion, that we separate the issue of shooting at the driver from shooting at the car. If you can't see a gun or evidence of one being shot, this problem doesn't exist. If you shoot at the gun, or shoot at the area where you believe that the shooter is, that should cover most of the questions in almost all cases.
The shooter's life was at stake. the gun was clearly visible at the barrier. the shooter must be holding it, do all of the normal obligations of taking innocent lives at risk and if the situation genuinely calls for killing the guy and possibly putting innocent lives in danger, shoot through the barrier.