Well, remember one of them unloaded a full mag from an M16

Tom Cruise's character unloaded a rifle, so the cop should have shot!

You would have to justify that they are an immenient (sp) threat (in my mind I picture that to be a situation where he is running from you but shooting at someone else) which I find to be almost impossible to do. How can you KNOW this person is going to harm someone else. There might be a situation, but this movie would not be that situation.
I believe this movie though did come out prior to Tenessee v. Garner so you are correct in that day you could shoot a fleeing felon.

If you were truly a former police officer you would know that you can legally shoot a fleeing felon that is a danger to themselves and or the public.
Especially if they're in possession of a firearm.
Not to mention back in the day when this movie was made they had laws on the books that allowed police to shoot at anyone running a police road block. Also they could shoot at car jackers.
You ram a police road block and put officers lives in danger you can and would find yourself at risk of being shot at.

I am a former officer.
In the United States, because of Tenessee v. Garner, you absolutley cannot shoot at a person fleeing unless you can articulate that someones life is being put in immediate danger. I find that to be an almost impossible argument to make.
Now does that mean police officers never do it, no. But if is discovered they did they will have serious consequences, especially if someone dies.

You're absolutely incorrect.
Law Enforcement can shoot at fleeing criminals. That are obviously armed as those kids were.

The scene is hardly "Hollywoodish" and if anything, is underplayed. Cops fire their guns "illegally" all the time a rarely, if ever, suffer the consequences.
Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken

I don't know about every state, but in Canada, where I live, it is illegal for cops to shoot at tires, because it causes the bullets to ricochet, thereby risking harm to bystanders.

The scene was Hollywoodish; it's illegal for policeman to fire their weapons in such a situation.

They still can by law shoot fleeing criminals.

This was pre Tennesse v Gardner (1984). Prior to that decision, police could shoot at fleeing criminals, danger to public or not.
Like they still don't do that now?
~~

This was pre Tennesse v Gardner (1984). Prior to that decision, police could shoot at fleeing criminals, danger to public or not.

I was more amazed at how bad his aim was. The truck was full of kids and no one got hit.
It didn't look like it, but maybe he was aiming at the wheels.
Sex is the game! Marriage is the penalty

What they did was assault on a police officer. Child or not, assaulting a law enforcement officer will result in instant death.

Not so crazy.. when I was 13 and somewhat of a troublemaker I had a cop shove his gun in my face and have no doubt he would have fired if anyone in the pickup I was in did not follow his exact orders. Myself, another 13 yr old, a 14 yr old two 15yr olds and a 16 yr old. None of us were armed, or made any aggressive act towards him. He caught us knocking down mailboxes, maybe he thought one of us would take a swing at him with a bat, but we had tossed the bats when we saw flashing lights and the guys that had them were in the bed of the truck I was in the passenger seat already with my hands firmly placed on the dashboard. Yet I got the gun up the nose don't ask me either way though, I never knocked down another mailbox.