Axe wielding woman shot dead by Tennessee police after eviction notice

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's unjustified in your opinion. And others are free to share it.

My opinion is that it was completely justified. It appears that the investigation does not share your opinion.

You're free to be a nervous nelly because you personally disagree with the decisions made, but bear in mind that you're doing so from the comfort of your couch and not the middle of a street looking at an axe. Hindsight is great.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Yea his only real foul up was getting too close at the start. If he had kept his distance from the get go the outcome may have been different.

Fact is he messed up at the start, but that's what happens some times. He couldn't change it at the time so had to work with what he had.

She had already demonstrated a willingness to cut up cops, so it's not exactly like he was brassing up an innocent little girl here. She was a nutter who had just sliced up a colleague and was coming at him with a GBFO axe.

Anyone who thinks that shooting some psycho chick who is coming at them with an axe is unjustified is a Darwin award waiting to happen.

a reply to: Fishy

You basically implied I'm delusional and idiotic and it's ok.

No. I implied no such thing. I did say your comment was delusional and idiotic. Which it was because it is coming from a place of WILLFUL ignorance on deadly force encounters.

But if I claim your comment strikes me of fascist bootlicking mentality I'll probably get banned.

This officer did what I would have done as a civilian. The facts of this shooting speak for themselves. Unless, of course, you consider legitimate self defense to be "fascist" "bootlicking".

a reply to: Fishy

Also, the glock he's using has a 20 bullet magazine and is a semiautomatic pistol, is it not? He can't manage to hit her legs in 20 rounds but hits her head in 3 rounds?

Standard issue Glock 22 has 15(+1 in the chamber) rounds of .40 S & W.

You need to remember that bullets don't stop where you want them to. That officer is responsible for every round that leaves his barrel. So if he's trying to shoot someones fast moving hand, while backing up, while trying to maintain distance, while the target is moving, while his adrenaline is spiking because he's now in real mortal danger. You don't take chances like that.

You aim for the easiest to hit target. Center mass.

You also think that shooting people in the limbs is somehow not as deadly. You'd fail anatomy pretty handily with that thinking.

a reply to: projectvxn

That's another good point. Pumping someones legs full of rounds runs a high risk of striking a major vessel. You can bleed out in 3 minutes from this, although most remain conscious and functioning for 30 secs to 1 minute before hypoxia due to blood loss. That gives plenty of time to finish the attack befoer it incapacitates you.

Groin hits can be effective at dropping someone quickly as they may shatter the pelvis which removes mechanical support. Without this it is physically impossible to stand no matter how drunk or drugged up you are. However these wounds are very often fatal too due to the accumulation of vessels there. You can lose most of your circulating volume into the pelvic cavity in minutes, and the only way to stem the bleeding is with surgery.

"How about a shoulder hit"? I hear you ask. Well the chest cavity actually takes up a lot of space which most people refer to as the shoulder. Potentially fatal lung injury or pneumothorax right there. Or what about the accumulation of vessels supplying the arm? Lots of chances to sever these. The shoulder is also awfully close to the neck...

So even if you do hit in one of these areas, there is a good chance that they will die. Shooting someone to cause a non-fatal wound is Hollywood stuff.

Again, you don't shoot someone unless you are willing to kill them. It's not called a lethal force option for nothing.

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: namelesss

Disarm the cops!
Then watch some real creative thinking being valued, finally, rather than armed monkeys!
- my gut says you'd hide behind that cop if faced with someone with an axe.

Personally I'd (if emperor) remove every firearm from the country!
Possession is immediate execution!
No cops, no people, no one!

And, no, I resent the implication that I'm a coward who'd "hide behind" anyone if faced with danger!
You have no call to insult me, whether you liked my post of not!

a reply to: namelesss

Possession is immediate execution!

This kind of regressive anti-human thinking is tyrannical and psychopathic.

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Fishy

The woman had an axe, not a gun

And the officer knew this how?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking how the officer could have known the difference between an axe and a gun?

No, I asked how did the officer know she didn't have a gun?

They aren't hard to conceal.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Fishy

The woman had an axe, not a gun

And the officer knew this how?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking how the officer could have known the difference between an axe and a gun?

No, I asked how did the officer know she didn't have a gun?

They aren't hard to conceal.

She was holding an axe. She would have first needed to drop the axe or release one hand from it then reach for the pistol.

Why not shoot everyone on sight on assumption they have a gun somewhere on their person?

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Fishy

The woman had an axe, not a gun

And the officer knew this how?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking how the officer could have known the difference between an axe and a gun?

No, I asked how did the officer know she didn't have a gun?

They aren't hard to conceal.

She was holding an axe. She would have first needed to drop the axe or release one hand from it then reach for the pistol.

Why not shoot everyone on sight on assumption they have a gun somewhere on their person?

I'm guessing you didn't read the article at all.

She had already stabbed one officer. She decided to march towards another officer with an axe. People that do such things get shot.

That is how the police in the USA work. If you are a threat you receive deadly force.

There is nothing wrong at all with the way this situation was handled. The woman put herself in the situation to get shot.

It's a cops job to respond to these things, I repeat, THEIR JOB. They aren't hired to run away from threats, they are hired to handle threats.

What if the cop ran away all willy-nilly and the lady went and killed someone with that axe?

She would have first needed to drop the axe or release one hand from it then reach for the pistol.

I think you are trolling now, or just completely ignorant. She was holding the axe with one hand smart guy. Watch the video.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Fishy

Also, the glock he's using has a 20 bullet magazine and is a semiautomatic pistol, is it not? He can't manage to hit her legs in 20 rounds but hits her head in 3 rounds?

Standard issue Glock 22 has 15(+1 in the chamber) rounds of .40 S & W.

You know for a fact that's a Glock 22? Ok. More stopping power.

originally posted by: projectvxn
You need to remember that bullets don't stop where you want them to.

All the more reason to shoot down to her thighs than aim at her head, as you can see he is in the video.

originally posted by: projectvxn
That officer is responsible for every round that leaves his barrel. So if he's trying to shoot someones fast moving hand, while backing up, while trying to maintain distance, while the target is moving, while his adrenaline is spiking because he's now in real mortal danger. You don't take chances like that.

If he'd have missed her head or neck area, where I'm fairly certain he hit her, he would have hit or his shots would have passed dangerously close by the two troopers or deputies in the background, almost directly behind the woman from his point of view at the time he shot her.

originally posted by: projectvxn
You aim for the easiest to hit target. Center mass.

He didn't. He clearly aimed at the head or upper neck area.

So even if you claim he had no choice but deadly force in this incident, which is not true, he's still irresponsible, even by your standards.

originally posted by: projectvxn
You also think that shooting people in the limbs is somehow not as deadly. You'd fail anatomy pretty handily with that thinking.

15 bullets. He had 6 seconds, possibly more, from the first warning till the time he fired his first shot.

Plenty enough of both to subdue without executing the suspect. Just more mental gymnastics to justify unnecessary killing by a lazy or unprofessional cop.

a reply to: Fishy

Shoot her in the thighs? You mean where the femoral artery runs? Yea, hit that it's no big deal. Totally survivable wound, provided it happens in an operating room with a trauma team watching so they can plug the artery in less than a minute.

The sadly humorous thing here is every time you accuse somebody else of mental gymnastics, it's immediately following some completely and utterly moronic comment like "hit her in the thighs."

It's truly a shame that you haven't paid any attention to my suggestion that you open up a training school. Surely such a keyboard warrior as yourself stands to make oodles of money from all the ninja training you can provide, in addition to all the combat marksmanship training.

a reply to: Fishy

You know for a fact that's a Glock 22?

Yes I do.

Ok. More stopping power.

No such thing. Again, you're showing your ignorance and opining on an situation whose dynamics you know nothing about.

If he'd have missed her head or neck area, where I'm fairly certain he hit her, he would have hit or his shots would have passed dangerously close by the two troopers or deputies in the background, almost directly behind the woman from his point of view at the time he shot her.

He hit her 2 times in the chest.

He didn't. He clearly aimed at the head or upper neck area.

He placed 2 rounds in the chest. If she had taken a round to the head she would crumbled to the floor like a marionette. She did not.

So even if you claim he had no choice but deadly force in this incident, which is not true, he's still irresponsible, even by your standards.

Spoken, once again, like a guy with zero experience in deadly force encounters.

15 bullets. He had 6 seconds, possibly more, from the first warning till the time he fired his first shot. Plenty enough of both to subdue without executing the suspect. Just more mental gymnastics to justify unnecessary killing by a lazy or unprofessional cop.

Bull#. This is years of tactical experience, combat experience, and training talking to you. You're trying to second guess a situation you whose dynamics you don't even care to consider. You're an arm chair quarter back trying to look for a moral high ground just to blame a police officer who was protecting himself from a person who had already attacked and injured an officer.

You're deliberately misrepresenting the facts to fit YOUR idea of how a deadly force encounter should go even though you have zero idea what you're talking about. I'm telling you, as someone with a some experience and training in this area, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is my last reply to you. I don't care to continue to have to explain to you, a person who is ignorant of these issues, a person who chooses to be willfully ignorant of these issues, why this happened the way it did. Have fun in your fantasy land where bullets always go where you want them to, people with edged weapons somehow can't hurt you, and a taser is all you need in a violent encounter.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Fishy

The woman had an axe, not a gun

And the officer knew this how?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking how the officer could have known the difference between an axe and a gun?

No, I asked how did the officer know she didn't have a gun?

They aren't hard to conceal.

She was holding an axe. She would have first needed to drop the axe or release one hand from it then reach for the pistol.

Why not shoot everyone on sight on assumption they have a gun somewhere on their person?

I'm guessing you didn't read the article at all.

She had already stabbed one officer. She decided to march towards another officer with an axe. People that do such things get shot.

Police are also equipped with tasers. However, the cop didn't just shoot the suspected. He made sure he executed the suspect with his shots.

originally posted by: Vector99
That is how the police in the USA work. If you are a threat you receive deadly force.

Yes, I can see that's just the way many of you like your encounters with the police to be. Deadly. I can also see you like your suspects dead. The trial and sentencing can come later.

originally posted by: Vector99
There is nothing wrong at all with the way this situation was handled. The woman put herself in the situation to get shot.

That's not relevant to the fact that the cop used excessive force. Also, getting shot does not need to mean getting killed.

That's another point you're missing.

originally posted by: Vector99
It's a cops job to respond to these things, I repeat, THEIR JOB. They aren't hired to run away from threats, they are hired to handle threats.

It's not their job to execute people unnecessarily.

originally posted by: Vector99
What if the cop ran away all willy-nilly and the lady went and killed someone with that axe?

No one is saying he should have ran away. What is being said is that this was an unnecessary killing.

He waited too long to do something and when he did do something, it was an unnecessary killing.

originally posted by: Vector99
I think you are trolling now, or just completely ignorant. She was holding the axe with one hand smart guy. Watch the video.

If anyone's trolling it's you, trying to cobble together risible excuses for clear excessive force.

When he first gets out of the car she has both hands on the axe. Then she lets it hang down then puts both hands on the axe again. All the while 3 meters or slightly more from the office. Ample time to bring her down if he wanted to.

It was clearly evident to everyone involved that she didn't have a gun. She'd been shot long before the cop even got there if she'd brandished a gun.

Do you want cops to just assume every suspect has a gun and intends to use it that instant and just shoot them dead on sight or what?



Is this what a professional cop looks like to you?

"-Are you ok?
- No?!...
- I'm sorry man!, I didn't know it was you!"

a reply to: Fishy

He waited too long to do something and when he did do something, it was an unnecessary killing.

There was about 6 seconds from the time he exited his vehicle to the first shot fired.

That's too long?

a reply to: Fishy

Not all police are equipped with Tasers. And for those who are, literally no court in the US has ever ruled that an officer must meet a lethal threat with less lethal response. Ever. Period.

Getting shot means getting shot. It's really a simple, simple concept that seems to elude you. Whether that's intentional on your part or not is a mystery, though I have my suspicions. One can die from a leg wound just as much as one can die from a gut shot. Of course, if an artery is hit in the leg, one usually dies quicker than one would taking a round to the gut. Again, this seems to elude you.

Meeting a lethal threat with a lethal response is not excessive force. Again, no court in the US has ever ruled that it is.

Nobody was killed unnecessarily, unless you count "attacked somebody who had a gun" as being unnecessary. In which case I would agree that she unnecessarily got herself killed thanks to a monumentally stupid decision on her part.

He waited too long? So now giving a subject a chance to drop the weapon they're carrying is to be considered waiting too long? What are you even smoking? Though I suppose giving verbal commands for a few seconds instead of coming out of his vehicle to "one punch" her is somehow wrong in your head, clearly.

Cool video man. Of course, it's a completely different officer in a completely different city and has no bearing whatsoever on the OP, but why not post it anyway.

Obviously this cop had no confidence in his own ability to take this woman alive, mace to the eyes would of been sufficient for a well endowed cop.

a reply to: imitator

More idiotic blather.

Reducing a real situation to whether someone is well endowed? Grow up.

Enough with the childish bull#. Maybe you people should listen to those of us who understand these situations.

I know you won't bother. But I want readers to know just what an asinine comment this is and how little worth it adds to the discussion.

a reply to: projectvxn

Enough with the childish bull#. Maybe you people should listen to those of us who understand these situations.

Just what exactly do you mean by you people?!

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

a reply to: projectvxn

Ah, one of "those people" that needs a dictionary to understand.

What did you think I meant?

www.dictionary.com...

endow
[en-dou]

2.
to furnish, as with some talent, faculty, or quality; equip:
Nature has endowed her with great ability.

The cop is showing complacency, as he drove up and put himself into a dangerous situation. Yeah sure the lady is dangerous, so are venomous snakes. The skill of a snake handler is in his ability to deal with venomous snakes.

Maybe the cop is overconfident because he has a gun, thus throws himself into her danger zone, leaving him with no choice but to shoot.

It is "you people" who don't know how to identify and deal with snakes and usually kill them.