Axe wielding woman shot dead by Tennessee police after eviction notice

I guess he was supposed to just stand there and be chopped up by a psycho.

originally posted by: angeldoll
I guess he was supposed to just stand there and be chopped up by a psycho.

Nice strawman (pun intended)

Cause he's a tree and can't move........right?

a reply to: FaunaOrFlora

He was moving. Until he back up into a car and the woman closed the 21' rule distance. She had already injured a cop that tried to subdue her by other means. That cop got slashed up really bad and wound up with staples holding him together.

This was a justified shoot.

a reply to: projectvxn

In that case I can see it being justified.

I'm on my phone and can't go back and forth with the links etc.

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora
a reply to: dragonridr

So basically the cop you talked to reinforced what we've all been saying.

Lack of ............... (fill in the blank) is now an acceptable excuse for not doing your job and just summarily execution out of convenience is also accetable.

Lack of having a department with a budget to afford every last thing on the market?

Well...a cop can only use what the department provides him so...not really an excuse so much as reality.

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora

originally posted by: angeldoll
I guess he was supposed to just stand there and be chopped up by a psycho.

Nice strawman (pun intended)

Cause he's a tree and can't move........right?

That's silly. He's a police officer. Unfortunately they can't run from trouble like the rest of us. They must face it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora
a reply to: dragonridr

So basically the cop you talked to reinforced what we've all been saying.

Lack of ............... (fill in the blank) is now an acceptable excuse for not doing your job and just summarily execution out of convenience is also accetable.

Lack of having a department with a budget to afford every last thing on the market?

Well that just strengthens the argument for how reckless and unprofessional this cops actions were.

He pulls up right onto a proven threat, then jumps out of the car without waiting for backup and isn't even equipped with a taser or protective vest... how can you possibly justify that scenario?

Its the 21st century, not the wild west... this situation could have easily been dealt with far more efficiently without just mindlessly popping off a few rounds, with simple precaution and better training.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
The point the rest of us have made is that leg shots also kill. They are also harder to achieve and often less efficient at actually stopping someone than centre mass shots.

I already addressed this. Here it is again: the likelihood of death from a gun shot wound to the leg is lower. Significantly so.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
Why try for a less efficient method which is harder to actually perform and still runs the risk of killing?

Because the risk of killing is considerably lower and the difficulty increase, if there is any at all, is not what you try to make it out to be.

Just admit you have no problem with police unnecessarily killing a suspect and we can each be on our way.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
If this was a valid point do you not think the courts would support it? Instead the judicial systems in every country I have ever worked in supports the case that firearms are regarded as a LETHAL force option. They are not expected to be used to wound, and their use is likely to cause death. Even the UK (probably the least 'trigger happy' country in the World) does not support a shoot to wound policy.

So use the taser you were issued to taze the suspect through her blouse. Even better than shooting the suspect at all.

Then sit on the suspect and cuff her. If you're too weak to cuff the freshly tased suspect that's 20 pounds or more below your own weight and whom you have your entire body weight on then motion to the deputies or troopers in the background to come help.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
Shooting to wound is a Hollywood invention.

Fine, then use the taser you were issued. Tazing the suspect was the first thing he should have done when he got out of the cruiser.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Except backup was right behind him. Which you would know if you had dedicated 30 seconds to watching the video.

You're right, she was already a known threat. Officers aren't supposed to park 3 blocks away and wait. Same with an active shooter, they're supposed to respond and start dealing with the situation.

He did have a vest on. Ballistic body armor is not designed for stopping edged weapon attacks. Vests designed to stop edged weapon attacks are not designed to stop bullets.

How can you justify the notion he should've parked down the street and just hoped nothing else happened until they got around to dealing with her? Since we're playing what-if, what if he had done exactly as you said and she managed to land some swipes on three or four other people? Then you'd be here lambasting him for not doing something sooner.

Yea, in a perfect world he'd have all the tools on his belt to deal with every situation, and everything would happen perfectly and everybody would go home and nobody would die. Ever. Problem is, those of us in the real world understand the difference between magical fantasy rainbow perfectland and the world as it is.

Which is imperfect.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You know as well as I do that he pulled up to close to her without waiting for backup (which was just seconds away). The shooting may have been justified after he made the mistake of recklessly approaching the situation.

But never the less, his reckless actions clearly caused an unnecessary sloppy outcome... why can't you admit that obvious fact?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Fishy

"If the aim is good enough it should hit bone."

Lol that made me giggle. So you expect an average cop to hit a 1 to 2 inch wide target, which happens to be moving at the same time as the cop is also moving? Good Christ your knowledge of shooting is utterly and completely fantasy.

What are you on about?

That woman's leg is 2 inches wide?

If he just aims at the thigh, chances are he will hit bone or muscle. It may not be a straight on hit on the bone. It may only be a glancing shot. Still, less lethal than shooting the suspect in the chest.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Oh, as for deploying a Taser: I don't see one on his belt.

Then he possibly chose to leave it in the car or not even have it with him at all. Which only further points to him being a trigger happy cop. Probably specifically called on the scene for being known as trigger happy and willing to kill suspects in revenge for wounding or assaulting officers. Or made every effort to arrive before other units.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
How is he supposed to deploy a Taser he doesn't have?

How do you know he doesn't have one.

If he doesn't have one on his person - which I don't think is established - how do you know he doesn't have one in the car and expressly chose to use the gun rather than the taser?

If he hasn't got a taser in the car either, how do you know he wasn't issued one and just chooses not to use it because he prefers shooting suspects to tazing them?

If he generally chooses to use the gun even though having been issued a taser and even when the taser will do, how does that make this killing any less unnecessary?

How do you know he wasn't issued a taser. Isn't that standard equipment for police nowadays, like a bullet proof vest or gun?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Bear in mind that you state he and everybody else there "almost certainly" have Tasers. Almost certainly isn't the same as "definitely."

Aren't tasers standard issue equipment for police?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Side note: the deputy that received 20-odd staples in his ribs after being attacked was in the process of trying to deploy his Taser when she sliced him open. Worked out pretty well for him, clearly.

His mistake for waiting too long to do anything. Not his mistake in pulling the taser rather than the gun. If he'd been in the process of pulling his gun rather than his taser, how would that have changed the fact he received a cut?

Do guns now shoot suspects while you have them holstered or are in the process of being unholstered?

BTW, earlier in your reply you were basically saying it was only my assumption that the deputies and officers were issued tasers. You now admit that we know at least one deputy had a taser.

What's the chances neither the other deputy (or deputies) or the officer who shot the woman were issued tasers but this one deputy was? Or did he buy it on his own?

Yeah,all the experts here weren't the cop being aggressively approached by a crazy woman with a battle axe.Who already attacked a cop minuits before.
Any idiot knows you don't threaten a cop with a weapon and not expect to get shot.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Shamrock6

You know as well as I do that he pulled up to close to her without waiting for backup (which was just seconds away). The shooting may have been justified after he made the mistake of recklessly approaching the situation.

But never the less, his reckless actions clearly caused an unnecessary sloppy outcome... why can't you admit that obvious fact?

Because the only fact is one person is responsible for this scenario.

The criminal should have not caused it to happen.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Fishy
yea yea we get it, you have an agenda. The rest of us have accepted that what happened happened and could not have happened any other way. One less violent idiot is left in the world. I don't even care at this point whether it could have been resolved without her dying.

Come on! You know you never give a damn. At least you admit you have no problem with at least this unnecessary killing by a police officer.

Others will not admit that and will try and argue that this was necessary.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Fishy
Worlds better off without the ignorant person who devolves to attacking (not defending) with physical harm a uniformed officer doing their job.

Sounds to me you prefer the environments in Europe where people burn cars and smash windows and riot, or those occasional Baltimore or Ferguson style anarchy .

How does it follow that that's what Europe is like? And in the same sentence you bring up rioting in your own country.

Europe may be turning into that but Europe is not one country. No country in Europe has had rioting like the United States has throughout the 20th century, during the Vietnam war, with the LA riots and now with the Baltimore and Ferguson riots. I'm sure there's others that I'm not aware of or am simply not recalling.

If anything, you might claim that Europe is becoming more like the US as far as rioting is concerned. This is due to the irresponsible and reckless foreign policy and immigration policy of many of the most powerful European nations, who basically force their policies on everyone else. Nations like the UK, Germany, France and Italy.

Eve if it were true that Europe is like the US or is becoming like the US (quite a number of quite serious riots), how does it follow that that's because I don't condone unnecessary killing by police officers?

Or that I want people to riot?

While I do support people defending their class interests and protesting, en masse against laws that harm their class as a whole, personally, I would rather there were no people in Europe except those with ancestors who were born and lived in Europe for centuries.

I don't see how any of that has any bearing on this.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Shamrock6

You know as well as I do that he pulled up to close to her without waiting for backup (which was just seconds away). The shooting may have been justified after he made the mistake of recklessly approaching the situation.

But never the less, his reckless actions clearly caused an unnecessary sloppy outcome... why can't you admit that obvious fact?

Because the only fact is one person is responsible for this scenario.

The criminal should have not caused it to happen.

So your claiming two wrong make a right?

That's actually the kind of logic you'd expect from a child... just sayin.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Fishy

Except she wasn't shot in the head. She was shot in the chest twice.

Until you stop just making crap up to suit your twisted little narrative, there's zero point in discussing anything about the incident. There's no point in debating something when the other person just makes things up and then builds their argument around them.

It looked like the head from the chest cam. Just before shooting, it also seems like he conveniently adjusts the cam so the suspect is completely obscured by his arms and firearm.

a reply to: dragonridr

Hearsay.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: UnBreakable

He could have tazed her?

He could have ran and called for back up? She was trying to keep him from where she lived, not chase him down the street.

Simply not following directions should not= being shot.

He still yells "drop it" after she has been shot twice and is on the ground.

You don't HAVE to listen to a police officeer the first, second or even 30th time. That is not grounds for summary execution.

That's some great advice. Very intelligent. I think cops should apply that as standard. Now lets hope that when some woman charges a 5 year old child with a axe that it will all go just as well as you predict. If it doesn't, well, then we will just blame the cop for the child's death.

There are hundreds of example's where tazers are completely ineffective. Particularly in drugged up people and someone walking rapidly and directly towards me WITH A AXE in my mind has a extremely good chance of being under such influences and i doubt i would have time to interview that person about it AND receive a honest answer. And if i was a cop that actually has to stand there (not as someone who is just watching the scene on a screen on youtube) i would choose the gun in that situation in a hart beat. I would choose to be able to see my family again that evening. The woman with the axe on the other hand choose to walk and keep walking into the barrel of a gun of someone she was threatening and planning to kill.

Tazers are only used in particular situations where they had the time to asses if it is worth the risk. This situation did not call for a tazer. This situation called for a bullet.

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Fishy

Except she wasn't shot in the head. She was shot in the chest twice.

Until you stop just making crap up to suit your twisted little narrative, there's zero point in discussing anything about the incident. There's no point in debating something when the other person just makes things up and then builds their argument around them.

It looked like the head from the chest cam. Just before shooting, it also seems like he conveniently adjusts the cam so the suspect is completely obscured by his arms and firearm.

a reply to: dragonridr

Hearsay.

Ridiculous statement. You think you would have had the time to think about and orchestrate your arms in such a way for a camera you have no idea about its POV at that moment in which a Axe wielding person is charging to kill you?

So what do you say about the second camera that had both the full bodies of the officer and the axe wielding woman in full view? Did that bad bad officer who drove the car with the camera take his sweet sweet time to park the car in such a way that he knew the camera had some sort of specific angle that you dont like?

a reply to: UnBreakable

A lot of people here talk the talk. Which is easy but i would love to see them walk the walk and see how they would fare when a axe wielding crazy person is charging them while they have to arrest that person, keep themselves safe and keep everyone around safe.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: reldra

U.K. Police don't carry guns, so don't have the choice

Yes, which is why it only takes 30 police man.