Passive case (someone, I'm sure, will be clearer about this than I am) tends to be kind of a weaselly expression. Dunno how to better explain it, it's kind of like not coming out directly and saying something and instead dancing around the point. Did the subject do something (active) or have something done to it (passive)? For example:
I parked my car at noon.
At noon, my car was parked.
That's one of the old wives tales of language, Jespah. Certainly, English favors the active but there are sound grammatical and semantic reasons for using the passive in some situations.
Often the choice between the passive or active is simply a matter of a shift in focus. The receiver of the action becomes the focal point [as in 1], or it is an inanimate object that warrants the attention, [as in 2]. The more important semantic feature of the sentence, sometimes/oftentimes, becomes the sole focus, with no mention of the "doer" of the action.
1. "Ellen MacArthur was knighted for traveling round the world in a yacht so ..."
2. "Mercedes-Benz M-Class SUVs are manufactured in Vance (AL), transported to Blount Island and shipped to the Middle East, South Africa and Europe. ..."
Of course, it can be used, as you mentioned, as a dodge, but that doesn't make it a "bad" feature of language. When you think about it, grammar is actually completely neutral. We use it to string words together to speak to and about an infinite variety of things.
But grammar and word choice are not the only things that determine meaning. There's a big difference between,
Get outta here!
Get outta here!