Talk:Deadly force

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vak5757.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I have removed the seven condition of deadly force as related to the militarys use. These justifications are applied to military personnel only and might confuse the general definition of deadly force. I left the Armed forces definition intact as it is the easiest legal definition to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.178.48 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should contain at links to, and perhaps discussion of, deadly force in the context of police action, self defence &c. --141.219.41.163 18:55 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Proposed merger of "Legal Opinions" section from PIT maneuver

The result was merge from PIT_maneuver#Legal_opinions. -- Terry Carroll 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to move the Legal opinions section in the article PIT maneuver into this article. That section discusses three court cases involving police vehicular chases as deadly force, but in none of them was the PIT manuever actually used, making the discussion inappropriate for that article.

With respect to the Harris case, the decision in that case makes clear that the PIT was not employed:

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 [1] (emphasis added).

With respect to the Adams case, again, there was no use of the PIT. The police car in that case "rammed the automobile several times." Also, the Adams case is probably a lousy one to cite. In Harris v. Coweta County, the same court (the 11th Circuit) strongly limited Adams... and Harris v. Coweta County is the same case that went to the Supreme Court as Scott v. Harris, discussed above. So citing Adams is pretty shaky ground, and a poor case to which to point readers who may not have the means to discover and unravel the subtleties of the intersecting case law.

With respect to the Donovan case, again, no use of the PIT. In that case, Zirbes, the officer being sued, participated in a roadblock. A motorcycle was being chased by another police officer, lost control, and became airborne, hitting Zirbes' stationary car.

In the meantime, I'm going to clean up this section a bit, regardless.

Blacklisted Links Found on Deadly force

Cyberbot II has detected links on Deadly force which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.robertankony.com/blog/party-store-adventure/
Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Globalize

In reality I think it's probably better to rename the article to something like "Lethal force (in US law)", because the subject is not lethal force per se, but how the phrase "legal force" is described and used in various legal contexts in the US. Snori (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]