It’s not what you say but how you say it!
Two SAPD patrol officers ended up in the hospital they were responding to a call. They were in separate vehicles and collided. SAPD is not having a good month. It seems that one patrol car rear ended the other. Get out the old soft shoe, we can fix this.
According to an SAPD Sergeant on the scene, there is a simple explanation. This wasn’t an example of two patrol cars being involved in a rear end collision. That would imply negligence on somebody’s part. No, the following officer, executed a “Pitt maneuver”. A Pitt Maneuver is an intentional act. That means it wasn’t an accident at all!
For those of you unfamiliar with cop talk, a “Pitt maneuver” is an accepted police tactic. At least in some instances. It is accomplished when a pursuing patrol car, rams fleeing suspect’s vehicle from behind. Done properly the fleeing driver loses control and spins out. It worked! The lead vehicle spun out and struck a pole. According to accident investigation procedure a Pitt maneuver is an intentional act and is therefore not classified as a reportable traffic accident.
I guess characterizing the collision as a Pitt maneuver takes the review of the incident out of the hands of the accident review board. It leaves unanswered, the question of what compelled the officer instituting the tactic to believe it was a justified use of force.
Then again under the current leadership of SAPD it may make sense. it was only last week that two officers and a sergeant decide it was acceptable to shoot a hammer wielding wacko in her own home from outside the home.
Policy and procedure are all well and good. The ideal is to establish an organizational culture that is accepted and applied by those acting under that umbrella. A police Chief that routinely waffles and turns that policy and procedure on its head in order to meet his own agenda is not doing his troops or community any good.
