Axe wielding woman shot dead by Tennessee police after eviction notice

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Domo1
Yeah they got tazers but you see the one cop pepper spay himself, so maybe thought he wouldn't get the taser out. They do have armed back up.

If those cops manage to pepper spray themselves i would not trust them with a gun either.

a reply to: Fishy

oh America is the riot capital? Wrong. Most people can name the majority of the riots known in America. that is because there have been so few relative to the rest of the world. In France rioting in the slums is like a weekend event. In Britain and other soccer loving EU countries, the drunken fans start rioting when the games let out regularly. This is a behavior that comes from years and years of disrespecting authority and not fearing any serious repercussion for their violent actions.

The riots in Baltimore were allowed to happen by the mayor and police chief. trust me when I tell you, there is not a single state in the South that would ever have put up with that garbage criminality. Then of course you mention LA riots, but that was stamped out really quick as well.

When you start making excuses for violent criminals on a national level, like many of these socialist European republics, and instead place the blame on police officers, you get a society who start to believe torching cars, smashing windows, and attacking businesses and LEO's is acceptable behavior that will not be punished by force.

Also, the worlds overpopulated right?? I support offing violent criminals in an effort to combat overpopulation. If you throw a punch, ok I can live with you just getting your ass whooped. But if you bring a weapon with the intent to shed blood, then expect to have your own blood shed and not have normal law abiding citizens cry about it.

Only anarchists and criminal sympathizers would ever defend this lady for her actions, so therefore you fall under one of those two.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: UnBreakable

The cop didn't offer her a safe space.

The cop was armed and that is a micro-aggression. She was justified.

Thank you, I laughed so hard and i couldn't even stop when i tried to, really : * )

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

You would know, if you had watched the video, that backup was literally right behind him.

You would know, if you had watched the video, that she was already moving off her property and toward him before he was even out of his vehicle.

Why can't you admit that you're basing your opinion off a sloppy interpretation of what happened and what you would like to see happen, instead of what actually happened and reality instead of fantasy?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

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.

Except I don't see it as two wrongs..

I see a person made a series of bad chocies, like stabbing a cop and coming at them with an axe while ignoring commands to stop..

Because of the choices that one person made the cop responded the best he could to his abilities, experience and based on the info avail at the time..

a reply to: Fishy

Now you're changing what you said.

You said if his aim is good enough he'd hit bone and not an artery. If he "just aims at her thigh" as you're saying now, then there's as much a chance of hitting the artery as there is a chance he'll hit anything else.

How do I know he doesn't have a Taser? I don't. Then again I'm not the one screaming "almost certainly had one" in every comment. I don't see one in the video. Another commenter lives near Gallatin and says the PD doesn't have them issued to them. That's enough for me to say that I don't see one in the video, which is what I said. You're the one making claims without substantiation, not me. I'm not really interested in answering your dozen or so "what ifs." Show me he had a Taser and then a discussion can be had as to why he didn't use it, as well as the myriad court cases supporting not using it.

What's the chances that a sheriff's deputy and a cop don't carry the same gear? Pretty good, since they're different agencies with different jobs and different budgets. Where I'm at, all deputies have a Taser and not all police officers do. Not even close to all.

Yea, it is your assumption he had a Taser. I never said nobody else had one, period, full stop. I said I don't see one on his belt. And that the deputy who tried to deploy one got a good slice to the ribs for his trouble. Doesn't matter how you try to twist that, it doesn't change what I said, and doesn't change what I did not say. No matter how hard you try to assign words and thoughts to other commenters, I'm not inclined to defend what YOU make up on my behalf.

Just more of your typical make bull% up and then attack somebody else as if they actually said it.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Domo1
Yeah they got tazers but you see the one cop pepper spay himself, so maybe thought he wouldn't get the taser out. They do have armed back up.

If those cops manage to pepper spray themselves i would not trust them with a gun either.

OC spray is an aerosol. When you use it, there's a pretty good chance you're going to catch some of it yourself. Not exactly pinpoint accurate.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
You would know, if you had watched the video, that she was already moving off her property and toward him before he was even out of his vehicle.

Lucky for him she was only walking towards him, rather than running and diving for him as he got out of his car... otherwise his poor decision making might of made him the second cop to get sliced up that day.

Why can't you admit that you're basing your opinion off a sloppy interpretation of what happened and what you would like to see happen, instead of what actually happened and reality instead of fantasy?

I have (unlike you) no emotional invested interest in the scenario. It looks like to me that her intention was to commit suicide by cop, rather than just inflict harm.

But the cop clearly made a mess of it... that's the point!

That video will never be shown to police cadets as an appropriate way to approach a similar situation... because it was sloppy and an indication of substandard training.

Why are you so resistant to just accept the reality of it?

a reply to: everyone

I look it up, our police dept where I live, which is of medium size I guess, breaks down to about 81 men per shift. I imagine some are needed for various desk jobs, a few more might be off taking car of those annoying drivers who just can't seem to drive down the highway and collide with something multiple times per day. a few will probably be off on break, in court testifying, ect. causing me to wonder if they would have 30 or so available for the one little lady. heck the only time I've seen that many gathered together was for their regularly scheduled homeland security terrorism drill that would gather early in the morning in the parking lot near where I worked, and then they were from all over the place, not just my city.

my hometown is a bit smaller than this city, it has a grand total of 34 officers (I just looked it up) not all will be working on the same shift to well that would probably leave maybe 11 officers or so per shift? so they would have to call just about all their officers in to get their 30 men to play games with the crazy nut.

I can't believe people are still here on this thread insisting that the officer was gun happy in this. I watched the video, if he was gun happy, he would have shot long before he found himself back up into his back up. and it seems to me that his accuracy probably decreased a tad when he found himself unable to back up further.

I've never really met a cop that I didn't like, but I will concede that there are probably some out there that aren't that great, that get a kick out of intimidation, and maybe even look forward to blowing away someone at the beginning of every shift. but it seems to me, that if the good cops have to put their lives on the line and have their hands tied, and it causes some to lose their lives, the remaining officers in that force are going to be less hesitant about pulling the trigger when they feel threatened.
if it was their son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother in this situation, they wouldn't be questioning on bit I am sure!

a reply to: dawnstar
Exactly that was indeed the point i was making with that. It is absolute Ludacris to have to issue 30 officers because 1 person decided to go out on the street and make a spectactle out of themselves and threatening the neighbourhood. It costs to much man power that is needed elsewhere
but wont be available because cops are not outfitted properly to defend first, themselves and second the people that they are paid to protect.


Now before someone else comes in here and says things like "But he is also supposed to protect that woman from herself" ...defiantly not in this case. There was no protecting her and a taser was way to risky that much is obvious and you can clearly see when the woman is at her closest to the officer that her left arm moves as she grabs the axe now with 2 hands and raises the axe.


Face it. The woman was wrong. A very real and direct threat to the officer standing inches away from him while raising a axe.


This is what is called self-defense, very clear cut even. The only one making a mess of things is the woman with the axe.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Ahh the old "I am rubber you are glue" tactic. It's like grade school all over again!

I have no emotional investment in this. I find it comical you claim I do, given that I'm doing the exact same thing you are: still commenting on it. So if I do, you must as well? If not, kindly stay out of my head and kindly stop pretending to know my "feelings."

Lots of videos are never shown in training. The overwhelming majority of them aren't, actually. Whether this one is or isn't really doesn't mean diddly.

I accepted the reality of this situation when I first read about it. It was a crappy situation from the get-go. You and the other armchair generals seem to be the ones who can't accept reality. The world is not a classroom or a controlled environment. Decisions have to be made on the fly, utilizing the tools available to one at the time. Why that simple concept escapes you is rather mind-boggling. But it does explain why certain commenters seem to avoid actual facts in favor of coulda/woulda/shoulda and what ifs.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The world is not a classroom or a controlled environment. Decisions have to be made on the fly, utilizing the tools available to one at the time. .

Yes, decisions do have to be made on the spot, which is why people who don't possess the ability to make the 'correct' decision "on the fly" have no business being in that type of employment... being forced to think and act quickly is not a valid excuse to be incompetent at your chosen profession.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Except it was the correct decision. And one that is supported by any number of court cases for precedent. All the armchair quarterbacking in the world doesn't change that one little fact, which is what you can't accept.

It's real easy to sit on your computer and dictate what somebody else should have done. What's not so easy is to actually DO what you claim should have been done. Which is why officers are judged on their reaction to a situation in the moment, with the information available to them at the time. And not judged according to what somebody in another country who saw a YouTube video thinks they should have done.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: namelesss

Hyperbole in and of itself is a logical fallacy,

No, it is not.
It is a means of making a point, clearly!
It is a common literary device, like metaphor and simile and allegory, etc...
None of which are 'fallacies', in and of themselves.
They can, of course, be components of a fallacy, but not as I used it.
Thanks for playing, though...

a reply to: namelesss

It is a LOGICAL fallacy.

rationalwiki.org...

Being in common usage doesn't take away from that, and in fact arguing that it can't be because it's a commonly used tactic is actually another logical fallacy.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So now you're using one fallacy to defend the use of another fallacy. Quaint.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Fishy

oh America is the riot capital? Wrong. Most people can name the majority of the riots known in America. that is because there have been so few relative to the rest of the world. In France rioting in the slums is like a weekend event. In Britain and other soccer loving EU countries, the drunken fans start rioting when the games let out regularly. This is a behavior that comes from years and years of disrespecting authority and not fearing any serious repercussion for their violent actions.

You have no clue what you are talking about comparing the LA riots (or even the Baltimore riots) with soccer fans being unruly in Europe. Also, not all EU countries are France, Belgium and the UK, inundated with muslim living in their own enclaves, disrespecting or disregarding authorities, the law and non-muslim society and people in general and engaging in antisocial behaviour. Saying something like that just exudes ignorance and obtuseness.

originally posted by: AmericanRealistOnly anarchists and criminal sympathizers would ever defend this lady for her actions, so therefore you fall under one of those two.

No one is defending her actions. That's just disingenuous claptrap typical of people of your worldview and mindset.

What I am doing is pointing out that this was an unnecessary killing. Did you really call me a criminal for that? Laughable.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Fishy

Now you're changing what you said.

You said if his aim is good enough he'd hit bone and not an artery. If he "just aims at her thigh" as you're saying now, then there's as much a chance of hitting the artery as there is a chance he'll hit anything else.

I'm not changing what I said. I repeatedly said that shooting the legs or thighs would have posed significantly lower risk of killing the suspect.

You're just grasping at straws.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
How do I know he doesn't have a Taser? I don't.

One of your fellow unnecessary killing by LEO apologists claimed it was only my assumption he was equipped with one. It might even have been you, I don't remember and don't care to go look.

The reason your fellow unnecessary killing by LEO apologists pointed out that we don't know for a fact whether or not the officer was equipped with a taser was to try and excuse him not using it.

Are you now trying to backtrack and remove that excuse for not using non-deadly means of subduing the suspect?

originally posted by: Shamrock6Then again I'm not the one screaming "almost certainly had one" in every comment. I don't see one in the video.

So are you now saying it is reasonable to assume he was indeed issued one but chose not to use it, preferring a means of subduing the suspect which entailed a good likelihood of killing them, especially when aimed at the neck or head?

Also, I will thank you for quoting me in context showing me saying 'almost certainly had one' in every post.

Yes, I'm quite confident he was at least issued one and that he either chose not to use it or even not to carry it with him. Either when exiting the cruiser or even in the cruiser itself.

originally posted by: Shamrock6Another commenter lives near Gallatin and says the PD doesn't have them issued to them.

And he would know this by purportedly asking a cop about it and the cop in question telling him so.

How am I supposed to take that as any kind of evidence?

originally posted by: Shamrock6That's enough for me to say that I don't see one in the video,

So someone claiming saying someone else told them that police officer was not issued a taser is enough for you to decide what you will say you saw or did not see in a video you watched?

originally posted by: Shamrock6which is what I said.

So now you're admitting you're just going to go ahead and assume he did not have a taser after all?

Then why even make it a point, earlier in your response, of asking me how I knew he did NOT have one?

originally posted by: Shamrock6You're the one making claims without substantiation, not me.

What claims would those be? Please provide specific examples.

originally posted by: Shamrock6I'm not really interested in answering your dozen or so "what ifs."

Which what ifs would those be? Can you provide specific examples?

originally posted by: Shamrock6Show me he had a Taser and then a discussion can be had as to why he didn't use it, as well as the myriad court cases supporting not using it.

lol, you actually think choosing not to carry the taser he was issued is less (rather than more) egregious than choosing not to use the taser if he was carrying one?

originally posted by: Shamrock6What's the chances that a sheriff's deputy and a cop don't carry the same gear? Pretty good, since they're different agencies with different jobs and different budgets. Where I'm at, all deputies have a Taser and not all police officers do. Not even close to all.

So the county had money to equip deputies with tasers but might not have had the means to do the same for a LEO?

Or the county might not have seen fit to equip LEOs with non-lethal means of subduing suspects whereas they seem to have did for at least one deputy?

Or should we consider the possibility that the deputy in question bought his own taser?

Shall we count the assumptions you're making and the assumptions I'm making and put them to the razor?

originally posted by: Shamrock6Yea, it is your assumption he had a Taser.

Yes. And it is a founded assumption.

originally posted by: Shamrock6I never said nobody else had one, period, full stop. I said I don't see one on his belt.

Earlier you asked me how I how I knew he did NOT have one. Perhaps he left it in the car. Or never even carries the taser if he was indeed fielded one. Which I'm quite confident he has been.

originally posted by: Shamrock6And that the deputy who tried to deploy one got a good slice to the ribs for his trouble.

Perhaps he should have deployed it sooner.

originally posted by: Shamrock6Doesn't matter how you try to twist that, it doesn't change what I said, and doesn't change what I did not say. No matter how hard you try to assign words and thoughts to other commenters, I'm not inclined to defend what YOU make up on my behalf.

You're the one twisting words and needlessly convoluting the discussion.

originally posted by: Shamrock6Just more of your typical make bull% up and then attack somebody else as if they actually said it.

You might have noticed I tend to include quotes in my responses and to specifically respond to each point made in each quote of what whomever I'm responding to said.

What made up bull#? Please provide specific examples.