Talk:PIT maneuver

message: :I feel no more information can be added to improve. So assessed at a B.  Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: assessment

message: I removed the instructions to immediately pull over and stop.  Wikipedia is not an advice column.  Instructing readers to surrender first makes and then does not explain numerous assumptions about the situation, which could prove fatal to anyone following such ill-considered advice. ➥the Epopt 14:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am restoring it, and will continue to restore it.  ➥the Epopt 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is no possible way that a non law enforcement officer would be attempting a PIT?  That sounds like a big assumption to me.  Eliminating knowledge on how to "resist police arrest" is also kind of Fascist sounding to me as well.--PM - PhilyG talk 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No edit warring, fellas.  Come to a reasonable decision before you start just editing out and restoring back and forth; that'll benefit no one.Zujua (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice to surrender 

message: I'm removing the reference to the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris as irrelevant to this article on the PIT maneuver.  The decision in that case makes clear that the PIT was not employed in the case:
: Following respondent's shopping center maneuvering, which resulted in slight damage to Scott's police car, Scott took over as the lead pursuit vehicle. Six minutes and nearly 10 miles after the chase had begun, Scott decided to attempt to terminate the episode by employing a "Precision Intervention Technique ('PIT') maneuver, which causes the fleeing vehicle to spin to a stop." Brief for Petitioner 4. Having radioed his supervisor for permission, Scott was told to "'[g]o ahead and take him out.'" Harris v. Coweta County, 433 F. 3d 807, 811 (CA11 2005). Instead, Scott applied his push bumper to the rear of respondent's vehicle.1
:1Scott says he decided not to employ the PIT maneuver because he was "concerned that the vehicles were moving too quickly to safely execute the maneuver." Brief for Petitioner 4. Respondent agrees that the PIT maneuver could not have been safely employed. See Brief for Respondent 9. It is irrelevant to our analysis whether Scott had permission to take the precise actions he took.
See  (emphasis added).
It might be appropriate in some other article that more generally discusses police intervention through vehicular contact, but not this one.
That's probably true of the other paragraph in the Legal opinions section, too, but since the Scott case expressly states that the PIT was not involved, the paragraph on that case is the only one I'm deleting.
Terry Carroll 20:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scott v. Harris

message: The result was merge to Deadly force#Legal_opinions. -- Terry Carroll 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to move "Legal opinions" section

message: Push It Tough makes no sense.  Push It Through makes much more sense.
A typo? Is there a citation for the Push It Tough alternative?
Nasukaren (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Push it "tough" or  Push It Through? 

message: I was confused by the simple diagram because I misunderstood which was the front and rear of each car. I was able to figure it out but initially I thought the cars were traveling 'down' - leading me to believe PIT was a form of cut-off move. Could someone please adjust either the caption or graphic to help make orientation more clear? 
47.208.27.40 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And even once I figured out that they were facing upwards, There is a huge leap between diagrams 2 and 3 that makes it very hard to understand 74.109.235.8 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Confusing 

message: Over the last two months, there has been one user (evidently using two usernames) who has persistently re-added content after that content was removed.  This user doesn't seem to comprehend that his personal recount of his own contributions to the PIT maneuver is not suitble content for WP.  While I realize there's a series of increasing sanctions to apply to non-compliant editors, I think it's reasonable to "short circuit" some of those steps.  Given that he just doesn't get it, a permanent ban could be justified.  OTOH, an extended-period block would probably work also.  But OTOOH (on the other other hand), why would we think that he wouldn't just re-insert his content as soon as his block was lifted?  Maybe he could "pinky swear" that he won't ever re-insert this content and we could have a relatively moderate length block.
In any case, something ought to be done so that we can stop this endless cycle of reviewing and reverting his unacceptable content. Fabrickator (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have limited experience dealing with cases such as this and would welcome input from others. Instant Comma (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  dealing with editor who doesn't get that his personal recount is not acceptable content 

message: I propose that the article be reorganized into the following sections, with the current sections that content would be copied from in square brackets:
* Development [History]
* Mechanism [Procedure, Avoidance maneuvers]
* Risks [Limitations]
* Legal status [History, Limitations, TPAC]
Any objections or suggestions or other comments?
Should I do this when I find the time, or does someone else want to?
P.S. I found the following source that might be useful as a reference, or at least an external link: https://archive.investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigation/deadly-force-behind-the-wheel/
Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that this page be renamed to something like "Police Pursuit Policies." This is a topic that is frequently in the news and is the subject of evolving legislation and public debate. The PIT Maneuver topic would fit right in on such as page as just one aspect of this broader topic.  SuperDuperFly (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That page might be good to create too, but it doesn't negate the existence of this page. Solomon Ucko (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ideas for how to improve this article 

message: Hello, I know this topic has been back and forth but I do believe instead of a “Defense” section a “Recovery” section should be added. Not to push against a PIT but how to recover once spun. This is because in racing PIT maneuvers accidentally happen. The primary use is by police but there are numerous accidental (or purposeful depending on the drivers/theme of the race such as The Freedom 500) uses in racing. Also there are videos on Youtube of the occasional civilian vehicle initiating one due to lane changes or defensive driving. In the end this is a driving tactic that is used by people other than the police and so while I understand a “Defense” section is unnecessary as you shouldn’t fight against it, a “Recovery” section would be helpful for certain use cases. Recovering from a spin isn’t going to help someone evade police unless they’re a stunt driver that can execute it perfectly and keep their previous speed out of the spin. ChaseViolet (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add a “Recovery” section. 

message: Two separate incidents, one from 2021 and another from 2023 are conflated in the article. The pregnant driver whose vehicle was flipped in 2021 was not the driver of the wrong car that was stopped in 2023.  I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia style or rules to amend this myself, but it needs to be addressed. 23.240.36.187 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error