Axe wielding woman shot dead by Tennessee police after eviction notice

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: namelesss

Possession is immediate execution!

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

Well, calling me your emotional names certainly leaves yours the superior argument!
I Humbly withdraw from your barrage of logic and wisdom! *__-

Such a response can only come from an ego/belief feeling threatened.
Rational discussion, in such a case, is impossible.

a reply to: namelesss

Ahh yes Mr. Summarily Execute People wants to be 'rational'.

Give me a break.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Fishy

Shoot her in the thighs? You mean where the femoral artery runs? Yea, hit that it's no big deal.

.

Yup. She wouldn't have bled out till the ambulance arrived. If there was a danger of that then use a makeshift tourniquet.

Why do you care anyway? Are you saying shooting her twice in the bloody head is better?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.

It isn't a given he'd have hit the artery. Again, why do you care anyways? You don't see anything wrong with shooting her in the head from the start.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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 not moronic. You just pretend it is. If not the thighs the knees. Or the shoulder. I didn't say the knees cause I was sure you'd have objected he wouldn't have been able to hit her in the knee from 3 meters or whatever that was.

From reading below, because you have to be a ninja or something to be able to do that?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's truly a shame that you haven't paid any attention to my suggestion that you open up a training school.

I don't live in the US. And I am not a US citizen. If I did and were and had had this cop's training and had his job and his experience, I'm pretty confident that suspect would still be alive and I would be unharmed after the encounter.

Perhaps the objective isn't to have live suspects which can sue afterwards, as someone pointed out already.

Are you fine with that, with police executing suspects to avoid lawsuits?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.

lol.

How am I a keyboard warrior for saying you shouldn't purposefully shoot someone in the head from 3 meters if you don't need to?

If anyone is a keyboard warrior it's all you people advocating and condoning executing suspects.

And you're projecting a bit much. First with the CoD thing, now with accusing me of being a keyboard warrior. Also, what's with the ninja training?

You would have needed to be a ninja to get out of that situation without being injured or killing the suspect? Really?

Are the standards that low over there?

Police elsewhere in the world would have been able to resolve that situation without killing the woman or being injured themselves. Your standards and expectations of police are low.

a reply to: Fishy

The point is that YOU have stated shoot in the legs to avoid killing. 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.

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

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.

Shooting to wound is a Hollywood invention.

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.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: namelesss

Ahh yes Mr. Summarily Execute People wants to be 'rational'.

Give me a break.

I'm sorry that you haven't the intellect or education to understand what a 'hyperbole' is. (Look it up!)
And your eye-rolling sarcasm... emotionalism.. is a wordy way to say, as you have, nothing of value.
Speak to the point, refute if you can, educate me if you can, agree if you can, or don't waste my time with these theatrics.
I already have a granddaughter!.

a reply to: namelesss

Hyperbole in and of itself is a logical fallacy, since we're on the subject of not having enough intellect or education to debate effectively.

Probably knew that, I'm sure.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: Fishy

The point is that YOU have stated shoot in the legs to avoid killing. 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.

And I already explained that the likelihood of killing the suspect on the spot is lower. And that if you hit the artery you can use an improvised tourniquet to slow the bleeding until an ambulance arrives.

I also explained it's not guaranteed that a shot to the thigh will hit the artery. If the aim is decent it should hit the bone.

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

Why try for a less efficient method of killing the suspect on the spot?

Maybe to try and not kill them on the spot?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
If this was a valid point do you not think the courts would support it?

Who said anything about the courts?

Why do you bring up the courts?

When did I or anyone else (apart from people who actually condone this cop unnecessarily killing the suspect) bring up courts of law?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
Instead the judicial systems in every country I have ever worked in supports the case that firearms are regarded as a LETHAL force option.

Again, why do you bring up the court system?

Are you saying the cop shouldn't have bothered trying to subdue the suspect without actually killing them?

Are you implying we should only ever do the minimum required of us by the law?

Is that how you would define a professional cop? A cop who meets the minimum standard or just what is required of them and doesn't try exceeding requirements or expectations or excelling?

Are you arguing for mediocrity and laziness?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
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.

Fine, then use the taser this cop was almost certainly issued in addition to his firearm.

Shooting to wound was only a concession I made to you folks, who obviously think the cop handled the situation exemplary and there ain't nothing wrong with killing someone that could have been subdued without killing them, especially when the one doing the killing is a civil servant on duty and not a private citizen in his private time.

Cops should obviously have higher expectations placed upon them than private citizens.

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

Again : fine, then use the taser. Of course, you'll try and pretend, with a straight face no less, there was a risk of missing the target at that range or the prongs not making it through the clothing. But she's just wearing a blouse and is a few feet away. She's also obviously not that big.

There are obviously deputies or troopers also on the scene (they can be seen in the background) and they were almost certainly issued tasers as well, although they clearly make no effort at all to help.

That's three tasers. Each with two shots available before needing to change the battery and prongs units.

Will you now claim that tasers, when they do hit skin, are ineffectual?



The marines are being tased from the same distance or further away than the woman was from the cop. The marines are obviously bigger than the woman.

Once subdued, the cop could have simply sat on the woman and there'd been nothing she could have done.

The woman seems to have thought her life was over and that the best thing she could do at that point was to perform a suicide by cop, knowing how trigger happy US cops are.

That doesn't mean the cop should have given her what she wanted.

Please, moar mental gymnastics to justify an unnecessary killing by a police officer.

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.

Your question is nonsensical. You're basically asking why cops don't (or shouldn't?) assume, at all, times that everyone nearby has a loaded firearm that they're ready to and intent on iminently using on either them or other people nearby.

Basically, you're saying that no killing by a cop can be unjustified. Because, of course, the cop can never know for sure whether the suspect hasn't got a .44 magnum lodged up their butt crack that they're ready to use at a moment's notice.

So, basically, if so much as look at a cop funny, they're justified in killing you.

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.

Oh, as for deploying a Taser: I don't see one on his belt. So let's pretend for a minute that some court somewhere in the United States had decided that law enforcement must meet lethal threats with less lethal responses. They haven't, but let's pretend.

How is he supposed to deploy a Taser he doesn't have? Bear in mind that you state he and everybody else there "almost certainly" have Tasers. Almost certainly isn't the same as "definitely."

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.

a reply to: Fishy

Tasers have a roughly 94% field success rate. That is a 6% failure rate. The manufacturers own documentation acknowledges the failure rate and advises a second officer armed with a firearm is present in case the taser does not stop the attacker.

A Taser is a 1 shot deal. If it fails then the officer has to mentally register the failure, drop the taser, reach for and draw their pistol, get it into a firing position and fire an aimed shot. It may take multiple hits to incapacitate the attacker.

If an attacker is less than 21ft away research has shown that a blade weilding attacker has the advantage as the officer does not have time to draw, aim and fire their pistol before a fatal wound can be delivered. This does not even take onto account the reaction time due to the failed taser deployment which slows this further.

Your vids of the big lads getting dropped by tasers show a gross misunderstanding of the weapons function. They are more efficient when they hit muscle due to the conductivity rather than adipose (fatty) tissue. Physical size is not a factor as it affects the CNS, not the body mass.

I don't care who you are. If you are faced with a blade weilding individual at close quarters you are very likely to get cut up no matter what level of hand to hand skills you have. Real fighters acknowledge this and accept it. Even if you 'win' the encounter you are probably going to get sliced up a bit. No one (including police) is expected to accept this and should be allowed to use whatever force necessary to protect themselves.

As for the courts - the police are required to work within the rule of law. The courts dictate policy and procedure through prior prosecutions following police encounters. Police training is based on the appropriate interpretation of the law. This is completely relevant in this case.

The courts deal with many more cases of fatal shootings, assaults and arrests than you or I will ever know. They are exposed to thousands of cases each year and have access to many more thousands of examples on case law dealing with what we are discussing.

With all of this accumulated knowledge at their finger tips they still support the use of lethal force in self defense when faced with opposing lethal force.

Put it like this - if an axe-weilding nutter who had just stabbed a colleage was advancing on you and you had a gun to hand, would you really go toe to toe with them or would you give them a bullet? I suspect your answer on here would be to not shoot, but I suspect the reality to be somewhat different.

But then again, you will not listen to this and assume your knowledge is greater than that of the courts, law enforcement agencies, the manufacturer of the equipment, and years of research and experience which the techniques and procedures are based on.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Not to mention the soldiers, law enforcement officers, and others here who have tried to put this into perspective for him.

It won't work because he thinks a bladed weapon isn't a deadly threat.

He also seems to think that cops should be willing to get cut up by a nutjob like this before even drawing a taser, let alone a gun.

He's never been in combat, has never had to face down a real threat to his life, and want to dictate to those of us who have how things should have gone down.

I thank god every day these people don't typically join the military or police. They'd get people killed with their bull#.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: Fishy

Tasers have a roughly 94% field success rate. That is a 6% failure rate. The manufacturers own documentation acknowledges the failure rate and advises a second officer armed with a firearm is present in case the taser does not stop the attacker.

Ha!

1. Provide a citation for that claim.

2. Even if that's true, even if that's true for all brand of tasers (including those that police officers such as this one are fielded), you're basically arguing that tasers shouldn't be used at all because they have a 6% failure rate?

Or are you arguing that they should only be used when no force at all is necessary, since - according to your assertion - they present a 6% failure rate so they presumably cannot be used when there's any risk of the officer (or bystanders) getting injured if they fail. So they should only be used when there is no risk of injury to the officer or bystanders. But then, why would you use them at all?

Why even field them in the first place if you're not going to tell the officers that they need to use it instead of their firearm if lethal force is not absolutely necessary?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
A Taser is a 1 shot deal.

An outright falsehood. The tasers that I know of being fielded to police have two shots before you have to change the battery and prongs module.

Here :

www.taser.com...

originally posted by: PaddyInf
If it fails then the officer has to mentally register the failure, drop the taser, reach for and draw their pistol, get it into a firing position and fire an aimed shot. It may take multiple hits to incapacitate the attacker.

Besides the trigger happy cop there's two deputies or troopers or whatever on the scene as well, who are undoubtedly issued tasers as well. That's even if I concede your citation-less assertion of the 6% failures and your other assertion, that the taser the cop was fielded was only a one shot model.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
If an attacker is less than 21ft away research has shown that a blade weilding attacker has the advantage as the officer does not have time to draw, aim and fire their pistol before a fatal wound can be delivered. This does not even take onto account the reaction time due to the failed taser deployment which slows this further.

1. Citation needed.

2. Mental gymnastics to defend unnecessary killing.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
Your vids of the big lads getting dropped by tasers show a gross misunderstanding of the weapons function. They are more efficient when they hit muscle due to the conductivity rather than adipose (fatty) tissue. Physical size is not a factor as it affects the CNS, not the body mass.

1. Citation needed.

2. The woman isn't fat.

3. Do you realize that what you are saying implies that firearms rather than tasers should be employed on women as a general rule because they generally have a higher percentage of body fat per weight?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
I don't care who you are. If you are faced with a blade weilding individual at close quarters you are very likely to get cut up no matter what level of hand to hand skills you have. Real fighters acknowledge this and accept it. Even if you 'win' the encounter you are probably going to get sliced up a bit. No one (including police) is expected to accept this and should be allowed to use whatever force necessary to protect themselves.

1. The cop waited 6 seconds to do anything. You can see it in the video.

2. He could have had her incapacitated with the taser. That's what the taser is there for. To incapacitate without risk of death or grievous injury or maiming.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
As for the courts - the police are required to work within the rule of law. The courts dictate policy and procedure through prior prosecutions following police encounters. Police training is based on the appropriate interpretation of the law. This is completely relevant in this case.

Why do you bring up the courts again and phrasing your response as if I brought them up in the first place?

I don't care about the law or the courts or the jurors' condoning unnecessary killings by police officers. That was never my point.

My point always was and is that this was an unnecessary killing. Not that it wasn't legally justifiable or defensible. I already know basically any abuse or misconduct by police is permissible in your country as it is in most. I don't need you reminding me of it.

I just said this was an unnecessary killing. The fact that the law or the judges or jurors don't have a problem with unnecessary killings by police officers is irrelevant to the fact that this was an unnecessary killing.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
[...]

Lots of non sequitur, mental gymnastics to defend an unnecessary killing by a police officer.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: PaddyInf

Not to mention the soldiers, law enforcement officers, and others here who have tried to put this into perspective for him.

It won't work because he thinks a bladed weapon isn't a deadly threat.

He also seems to think that cops should be willing to get cut up by a nutjob like this before even drawing a taser, let alone a gun.

He's never been in combat, has never had to face down a real threat to his life, and want to dictate to those of us who have how things should have gone down.

I thank god every day these people don't typically join the military or police. They'd get people killed with their bull#.

Policing is not warfare. The police are not the military or the navy. They are civil servants. They operate under civil and penal code, not military code. They do not operate under military rules of engagements in a theatre of war in a foreign occupied country that allegedly had WMDs. They operate in peace time, in their own country, not in wartime anywhere they may be called to server.

They're meant to enforce the law. Not kill or capture another nation's troops or suppress insurgencies or resistance by the natives in a foreign occupied country.

Even in war you have rules of engagement you must abide by, at least in theory. And there's also the legal concept of war crimes.

All of the above distinctions seem to be completely lost on you.

I hope you aren't and don't plan on becoming a police officer.

There's more to policing than killing and arresting people, in order of preference.

A better cop than this would have subdued the suspect without killing her or being injured himself.

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. 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 .

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: PaddyInf

Not to mention the soldiers, law enforcement officers, and others here who have tried to put this into perspective for him.

It won't work because he thinks a bladed weapon isn't a deadly threat.

He also seems to think that cops should be willing to get cut up by a nutjob like this before even drawing a taser, let alone a gun.

He's never been in combat, has never had to face down a real threat to his life, and want to dictate to those of us who have how things should have gone down.

I thank god every day these people don't typically join the military or police. They'd get people killed with their bull#.

Policing is not warfare. The police are not the military or the navy. They are civil servants. They operate under civil and penal code, not military code. They do not operate under military rules of engagements in a theatre of war in a foreign occupied country that allegedly had WMDs. They operate in peace time, in their own country, not in wartime anywhere they may be called to server.

They're meant to enforce the law. Not kill or capture another nation's troops or suppress insurgencies or resistance by the natives in a foreign occupied country.

Even in war you have rules of engagement you must abide by, at least in theory. And there's also the legal concept of war crimes.

All of the above distinctions seem to be completely lost on you.

I hope you aren't and don't plan on becoming a police officer.

There's more to policing than killing and arresting people, in order of preference.

A better cop than this would have subdued the suspect without killing her or being injured himself.

Funny you mention civil and penal code. Given your willful ignorance about all the case law running in direct contravention of your assertion that he should have deployed a Taser or duked it out with her.

Funny how you keep ignoring actual facts like that to spew your opinion dressed up as if it has some basis in fact.

a reply to: Fishy

I'm not going to go through each of your points as I'm using my phone and the whole 'quote' thing is pissing me off. I also have a hangover that would kill a civvy. Here's a few links for you

Police advised to have lethal force response due to taser failures

Tueller 21ft drill

Taser failure rate - 8-10% of police shootings involve attmepts to first taser suspect

Or just google/youtube taser fails. There are dozens of examples of tasers failing to stop a suspect.

You may not care what the courts say, but the people entrusted with enforcing the law should. It is the same law which is used to defend armed citizens following shootings, so it is not just for cops.

You also say "your country". Where do you think I am from?

Do you care to provide any citations for armed law enforcement or military personnel (in any country) being advised to use only non lethal force against a lethal threat? Do you have any arguments other than 'mental gymnastics'?

We seem to he going around in circles. You appear to be unwilling to accept that what the cop did was legally and morally justified, and no matter how many rational arguments, citations or sources are put your way you will not accept them. I can put up sources all day for the reasons that the cop was justified in this shooting, but you will just call them mental gymnasyics and cry 'murder'.

I'm with projectvxn on this one. I think I'm through feeding the troll.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: Fishy

I'm not going to go through each of your points as I'm using my phone and the whole 'quote' thing is pissing me off. I also have a hangover that would kill a civvy. Here's a few links for you

Police advised to have lethal force response due to taser failures

Tueller 21ft drill

Taser failure rate - 8-10% of police shootings involve attmepts to first taser suspect

Or just google/youtube taser fails. There are dozens of examples of tasers failing to stop a suspect.

You may not care what the courts say, but the people entrusted with enforcing the law should. It is the same law which is used to defend armed citizens following shootings, so it is not just for cops.

You also say "your country". Where do you think I am from?

Do you care to provide any citations for armed law enforcement or military personnel (in any country) being advised to use only non lethal force against a lethal threat? Do you have any arguments other than 'mental gymnastics'?

We seem to he going around in circles. You appear to be unwilling to accept that what the cop did was legally and morally justified, and no matter how many rational arguments, citations or sources are put your way you will not accept them. I can put up sources all day for the reasons that the cop was justified in this shooting, but you will just call them mental gymnasyics and cry 'murder'.

I'm with projectvxn on this one. I think I'm through feeding the troll.

I actually live not to far from where it happened. And we'll I'll tell you most police departments in the Nashville area don't have tazers. They have shown to be unreliable. I actually spoke to a police officer in gallitin about the incident. And asked him why they didn't use non lethal force. His answer the officer is only issued pepper spray any other non lethals is not approved by the department. Said they have to get authorization to even use riot gear and there is a lot of politics involved in its use. So when an officer goes to a location he has two options his pistol and pepper spray. And as he said if someone is armed which would you be holding??

So it appears a lot of things that people believe to be the officers is more about budgets and politics.

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.