PDA

View Full Version : PIT questions



nibroc
10-13-2007, 07:52 PM
What does PIT stand for? these are the 2 I have heard on documentaries..

1. Precision Immobilization Technique
2. Pursuit Intervention Technique

Which one is correct? Is it considered deadly force?

hbliam
10-13-2007, 09:36 PM
What does PIT stand for? these are the 2 I have heard on documentaries..

1. Precision Immobilization Technique
2. Pursuit Intervention Technique

Which one is correct? Is it considered deadly force?


#2

Guams
10-14-2007, 12:15 AM
I've heard that PIT can also be considered deadly force depending on the speed at which it's implemented. I'm probably wrong, I'm not trained in PIT and anything I remember about PIT is from being shown in the academy.

j706
10-14-2007, 01:45 AM
What does PIT stand for? these are the 2 I have heard on documentaries..

1. Precision Immobilization Technique
2. Pursuit Intervention Technique

Which one is correct? Is it considered deadly force?

When I got certified in it, it was actually number one.

L-1
10-14-2007, 02:56 AM
We refer to it as #2. Generally speaking, when applied at speeds over 35 MPH my agency views it as having the potential for deadly force.

luckydog
10-14-2007, 08:57 PM
We call it #1 and it is not considered deadly force where I am.

Blackdog F4i
10-15-2007, 01:34 PM
Not deadly force although I could see a slick attorney trying to claim that it was an "unreasonable seizure"

Sleuth
10-15-2007, 04:22 PM
Not deadly force, and I was in the Federal court case where it was decided.

I did the PIT at 80 + MPH, which resulted in the death of a passenger. The court ruled that it was NOT deadly force, and I won the wrongful death lawsuit. They accepted that my intent was not to harm, but only to stop. Plaintiff appealed to the 9th Circuit of the Supreme Court, and I was upheld.

Plaso
10-15-2007, 08:07 PM
You might want to refer to a court case decided by the US Supreme Court earlier this year. Scott v. Harris, which was decided on April 30, 2007. It is just what you are looking for to answer your question. It was a great decision for law enforcement, finally and finally puts to rest the question about police pusuits etc.

j706
10-16-2007, 01:55 AM
Not deadly force, and I was in the Federal court case where it was decided.

I did the PIT at 80 + MPH, which resulted in the death of a passenger. The court ruled that it was NOT deadly force, and I won the wrongful death lawsuit. They accepted that my intent was not to harm, but only to stop. Plaintiff appealed to the 9th Circuit of the Supreme Court, and I was upheld.

The way it should have been! If Dept's would be a little more aggressive with pursuits instead of banning them and then the courts max out the criminals who run, it would take the fun out of that nonsense. I can not believe that some Dept's actually make their guys stop, turn around and go the opposite direction. That is asinine stuff there IMO.

Bighead
10-16-2007, 03:52 AM
#1....also known as a TVI for Tactical Vehicle Intervention.

Bighead
10-16-2007, 04:04 AM
You might want to refer to a court case decided by the US Supreme Court earlier this year. Scott v. Harris, which was decided on April 30, 2007. It is just what you are looking for to answer your question. It was a great decision for law enforcement, finally and finally puts to rest the question about police pusuits etc.


And it is unfortunate that many administrators and city governments don't read and understand the intent of Scott V. Harris. This is the law, but if your agency has more restrictive policies and procedures, you can be held liable based on failing to follow those policies.

Agencies should consider this before enacting detailed & restrictive policies, where someone acting within the letter of the law can still be subject to sanctions, and potential civil liability.

I continue to be amazed at the level of acceptance for people who flee the police, often times with little or no justification. How many pursuits have you been involved in where the driver had a simple misdemenaor warrant or was only driving without a license. If society wants to stop this behavior then they should put severe sanctions in place for disregarding police authority.

Leading the police on a dangerous pursuit should not have to be qualified by some other serious crime for it to result is harsh punishments. The act of fleeing from the police in a motor vehicle should be on par with armed robbery at a minimum. Would a few dumbies run for no good reason and get slapped with harsh penalties? Yes. And that is exactly my point...once people realized that causing a motor vehicle pursuit would result in harsh punishment, they would be more likely to consider their actions and take lumps for minor offenses.

j706
10-16-2007, 02:09 PM
And it is unfortunate that many administrators and city governments don't read and understand the intent of Scott V. Harris. This is the law, but if your agency has more restrictive policies and procedures, you can be held liable based on failing to follow those policies.

Agencies should consider this before enacting detailed & restrictive policies, where someone acting within the letter of the law can still be subject to sanctions, and potential civil liability.

I continue to be amazed at the level of acceptance for people who flee the police, often times with little or no justification. How many pursuits have you been involved in where the driver had a simple misdemenaor warrant or was only driving without a license. If society wants to stop this behavior then they should put severe sanctions in place for disregarding police authority.

Leading the police on a dangerous pursuit should not have to be qualified by some other serious crime for it to result is harsh punishments. The act of fleeing from the police in a motor vehicle should be on par with armed robbery at a minimum. Would a few dumbies run for no good reason and get slapped with harsh penalties? Yes. And that is exactly my point...once people realized that causing a motor vehicle pursuit would result in harsh punishment, they would be more likely to consider their actions and take lumps for minor offenses.

True indeed. In the area I work, I have noticed the PO's office and the judges seem to be taking it a little more serious. I mean really-lets tell all these scum bags "if you don't want to be caught, just run cause we won't chase you!" Lets use just a little bit of common sense here. No pursuit policy's are nothing more than an open invitation for continued criminal activity. It is even, IMO, looked at by the criminals, as being humorous. Ridiculous!!