Dramatic Bodycam Shows Man Attacking Female Cop Before She Fires, Killing Him [VIDEO]

Screen capture via YouTube.

A suspect in an earlier, unprovoked attack went after Blytheville, Arkansas rookie police officer Leann Norman in early April. In recent days, the local PD released the bodycam video and it showed Marzues Scott, 35, pouncing on the officer as she unsuccessfully tried to call for help on her radio.

After he landed a couple of punches to her face, she shot him once, then moments later, as he tried to press his attack further, she shot him again.

Thankfully, Officer Norman didn’t suffer serious physical injuries. The same can’t be said for Scott, however. He didn’t make it. The encounter starts at about the 1:50 mark in the video below.

Note how the suspect first hesitated when ordered to stop, and then again, when the officer ordered him to her squad car. The whole time, as he stood in front of her, it looks as though Scott is sizing up this officer and deciding whether or not he could overpower her to effect an escape.

When her radio failed to connect with the police network a couple of times, Scott realized he had his opportunity and her came at her. Given the close proximity and lack of obstacles between the two, in a fraction of a second, he was practically upon her before she could react.

Viewers can hear the near-panic in her voice as she orders him to “get back,” but by then it was too late. He punched her in the face a couple of times and ultimately, it took her nearly four seconds to bring her gun to bear upon the suspect and fire.

No doubt, it seemed like an eternity to Officer Norman. Then, as she’s called out “shots fired” on the radio, Mr. Scott was nearly able to counterattack, however she managed to get off a second shot, putting him face down.

WMC Action News 5 has some video from the earlier assault at the Dodge convenience store. There, Scott reportedly attacked the clerk without any provocation.  The beating, captured on surveillance cameras, showed Scott savagely pounding the clerk, seriously injuring the young man.

In initial reports, the media referred to the attack on the officer as a “scuffle.”

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Blytheville officer shoots, kills man during “scuffle”

BLYTHEVILLE, Ark. (AP) — Authorities are investigating a fatal officer-involved shooting at an inn in northeast Arkansas.

The Arkansas State Police said Monday they were looking into the death of 35-year-old Marzues Scott after he was shot and killed by a Blytheville police officer during a “scuffle.”

And KARK:

BLYTHEVILLE, Ark. – The Arkansas State Police (ASP) is investigating an overnight officer-involved shooting that left a suspect dead.

It happened after the officer was called to a disturbance around 11:30 p.m. Sunday at the Dodge’s convenience store (3605 South Division Street), says an ASP news release issued Monday.

Once at the scene of the disturbance the officer found the suspect, identified as Marzues Scott, 35, of Blytheville, across the street at the Deerfield Inn (1100 Kari Lane). Scott allegedly attacked the officer and during a scuffle, the officer shot Scott, who died later at the hospital. The officer received minor injuries during the incident.

Clearly, a suspect in a violent attack advancing upon a drawn gun is no “scuffle.” At grappling distance, it’s a life-and-death struggle for a deadly weapon.

WMC Action News reports that no charges will be filed against the officer.

Prosecutors say they are not going to prosecute Officer Norman, and Blythville police do not expect any disciplinary action.

Mr. Scott made the decision to attack an innocent convenience store clerk, then to follow up by going after a police officer. Unlike with the clerk, Scott profoundly underestimated her ability to fight back. And he died as a result.

Hopefully Officer Norman won’t suffer too much psychological trauma from putting down her attacker. Meanwhile, the residents of Blytheville should be happy their city is safer with one less violent criminal prowling the streets.

comments

  1. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Only a soft decadent society puts its women out on the streets to fight scumbags.

    1. avatar CCityGuy says:

      Agreed

      1. avatar Hans says:

        Plus 1000

    2. avatar Coffee Addict says:

      “puts its women out..”
      you really are a complete asshole. Nevermind the fact that she voluntarily accepted the position, took the courses by her own volition, trained..
      nobody “put her out” there. she went willingly. What are you doing tonight that hard? I’m no cop apologist but damn are you obtuse.

      1. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

        Hit me with your purse!

        T girlz like you make fine cops.

        1. avatar Coffee Addict says:

          ’bout the kind of response one could expect from a glock fanboi.
          got your “Punisher” t-shirt on while you jack off to memes from Uncle Sams Misguided Children’s website?

        2. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

          Dont hate me for the guns I like! Hate me for my conspicuous consumption like a real Antifa Warrior!

        3. avatar jbob says:

          CoffeeAddict, if the cop had been a 200lb man the encounter there would most likely have been no need for gun play in this incident. She got lucky.

        4. avatar Hans says:

          coffee, are you related to Mr Scott?

        5. avatar Matt says:

          jbob, can I borrow your crystal ball to pick some lotto numbers?

    3. avatar Veteran says:

      So Neanderthals are not dead after all.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        They are now called Europeans and Asians. Although, I think some Asians/Americans have the most genetic diversity out of the three…

      2. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

        How Progressive of you!

    4. avatar surlycmd says:

      A free Republic let’s men and women choose their own path in life.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        And an intelligent civilization knows the limits of each gender and makes sure they are in the most successful positions for their abilities.

        Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

        Imagine the amount of women who would get PTS compared to men. A good amount of men already have a hard time with immoral behaviors that lead to death. Having the more emotional gender killing people is more likely to end badly than it does with men. After all, women are to create life…

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yep, if everybody knew their place and obeyed the laws of their imaginary sky daddy’s book everything will go so much smoother.

          Next step, mandatory moon huts for all women residents.

        2. avatar User1 says:

          @Miner49er

          I don’t exactly understand your ideology. Are you denying biological and psychological differences between man and woman? Are you saying all humans are capable of the exact same things?

          Religion was created by manipulative men to use against other men and women for their benefit. It’s the earliest form of world/international government.

        3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          A free society doesn’t limit it’s members choices.

        4. avatar surlycmd says:

          Sometimes we learn our limits by exceeding them. Any individual has the freewill to exercise their choice. Don’t agree? That’s fine with me. You’re free to disagree.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “After all, women are to create life…”
          That’s not how it works. It is telling that you don’t understand that most basic universal biology.

          Also, no, an “intelligent civilization” does not make sure any gender is “in the most successful positions for their abilities.” That is a hallmark of a doomed civilization, unable to adapt to changes in their environment. An intelligent civilization leaves it up the to the individual to decide what role they play in that time, in that environment, and then also leaves it up to the individual to face the consequences of his or her actions.

        6. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          User1, I have to agree with you. Women have no place in uniform and armed confrontations. Just a damn good thing all those women snipers in Stalingrad didn’t know that. They might of had to learn to speak German in Russia. That would have inconvenient.

        7. avatar User1 says:

          @jwtaylor

          You are assuming that I didn’t mean that the individual has their own capabilities that allow them to better succeed in certain areas that others can’t. It doesn’t only apply to gender. Some men are not suitable for jobs other men can do better than women and vice versa.

          Why do women go into nursing more than men? Why do men go into physical labor jobs more than women? Why are most teachers of younger students women?

          Each individual has their strengths and so does each gender. To put lower performers into positions just to claim moral superiority is not an intelligent thing to do. If your child isn’t good in math and hates it, it’s not a smart idea to force them into engineering, instead you find something else where they can utilize their full potential.

          When it comes to physical, dangerous and violent police work men are likely to out perform the majority of women to the point the force is made up of almost all men. Now are you going to want to forcibly change that outcome because it doesn’t fit your idealistic and unrealistic world view? That doesn’t mean women should be banned entirely from police work. What I am saying is there are positions for each gender and individual to excel in. For instance, maybe women would be better at police negotiating and deescalating.

          The saying I was referencing has the context of “women make life, men take life.” I have heard so many women complain that men are the violent and uncaring ones; that if men didn’t rule the world [patriarchy] we would not have wars or weapons. So, if you want to complain about that statement go talk to the feminists that taught me it.

          I find it reckless and irresponsible to put the typical woman in a position she cannot handle just because she wants to be there. Same goes for men being put in a role of naturing annoying little kids that need a women’s touch. Some roles are naturally going to be best suited for a certain gender. Trying to make the ratio 50/50 is not what intelligent societies do.

          People like to think that North American tribes were matriarchies, they were not. The average tribe was ran by men but women had the say in who was going to represent them. The women had control of the property because the men could die hunting or in combat. The females had their space and the males had theirs. The males did roles that were best suited for males and the females did what was best suited for females. When there was a decision to be made that needed a women’s touch they would consult the women. They would also consult the elders (men and women) for their wisdom if things were more sophisticated. To put it simply, it was a balanced society that makes use of people/genders in roles that best suited them and brought out their potential.

          Today, in manufacturing, they acknowledge these biological differences and use that knowledge to put the best people in the best places. I guess this “science” is sexist and evil, but it does get better results, says the numbers.

          We could create a delusional society where the government pays people to do what makes them happy and forces “equality” of outcome. A society where we put people in jobs that lead to negative consequences for the people as a whole, then we will defend the negative results as being progress. Even if those results lead to death, destruction and unhappiness. Because if we have equality of opportunity there will be imbalances of genders (and races) in certain occupations, thus less opportunities for certain people in those fields of work.

          Telling someone they are not qualified doesn’t necessarily mean you are forcing them to do a specific job. There is simply a standard that some people can’t fulfill. Of course that is if you are not willing to lower the standards for some people to make it through.

        8. avatar jwtaylor says:

          User1,
          First, don’t deflect some stupid shit you said by claiming some feminist said it first. That didn’t help your argument.
          And second, that was a long and rambling comment that ignores the simple, basic tenant of Liberty and Justice in America.
          Don’t stop individuals from doing the jobs they want to do, and let them succeed or fail purely based on how well they do those jobs.
          It’s that simple. The arguments of what men do better and what women do better are little more than public masturbation.
          Because there is a reality of what any particular man can do and what any particular woman can do. That is all that matters.

        9. avatar Kendahl says:

          I once noticed an off duty female police officer working private security. She was 6 feet tall and 2-1/2 feet wide. I’m sure any punk would rather she shot him than go hands on. I knew of another female officer who, although not as big, entered full contact karate matches for fun. She was one tough bitch which, considering her job, was to her credit.

          Women have two disadvantages compared to men. They tend to be smaller with less upper body strength. On the other hand, they seem to be better able to resolve disputes peacefully. However, when force becomes necessary, they must turn to weapons sooner than do men.

        10. avatar LarryinTX says:

          There are delightful ladies out there who could hand the average man’s ass to him any day of the week. If you take your stupid shit to one of them, she’s likely to break your nose. Likewise, there are girly men out there who couldn’t whip any 12-year-old girl, even if armed. The point is that generalities are all real fine, but each candidate for a position should be evaluated on his/her actual abilities, not gender stereotypes. Duh.

        11. avatar User1 says:

          @jwtaylor

          Do I really have to look up a bunch of feminist videos to show you what they think and say just to prove it to you? Do you go out of your way to listen to modern day feminist speeches and protests? Do you hear the arguments on campus about the patriarchy?

          You seem not to get it because you have some communist (wrapped in “liberty”) ideas entrenched in your mind.

          If this shooting was done by a man I would consider it a failure… I would have said it was too early to shoot and he isn’t ready to police. That this person should probably look for another job… Since it’s a woman, I lowered my standards to something realistic for her physical capabilities in this particular situation. Which means I am fine with her shooting him, but I wouldn’t have been fine for a man shooting him until it got worse.

          It’s possible this man wouldn’t have been killed if the responding cop was a physically fit man. It’s reasonable to think that he would have rather ran instead of fight if it was a man chasing him. There would have been a possibility that a male officer could have knocked out the man with a punch.

          Females can’t acquire the upper body strength of males. They don’t have the same bone structure. Their skin is thinner than males. They don’t have the same levels of testosterone as men. Because of this I don’t have the same expectations from women in the realm of fighting.

          Look at female MMA. The best, biggest and strongest women still can’t compete with the men even though they train with men. Ronda Rousey was very tough until a woman who used steroids challenged her to a fight, she was very confident until she met a woman that could punch better than all the other women, now she is doing fake fighting. Even the woman that beat Ronda’s face in, although strong, doesn’t want to fight men. There is a man that transitioned to a woman so he could fight in women’s MMA, he is not a good fighter, but he still beat up a bunch of women because he was a man until his adult life.

          I am not calling for women to be removed from police work. I am saying they should at least have a male partner to help them in physical situations for the safety of her, the suspect and the public. If that isn’t possible, maybe most women shouldn’t be sent out to calls where they are likely to get in physical confrontation with men by themselves.

          Just because someone isn’t good at a particular role doesn’t mean they can’t work within the field. As I said about manufacturing, women and men work in that same factory, they simply work in the areas that allow them to produce the best results. They are equally important to the company’s success and they get paid as they should.

          Females have their own space in sports. We don’t require them to compete with the males. They can have their own thing and they can be proud… What sucks is when men say it’s okay for other men to intrude… Should it be illegal or considered against liberty to have female only businesses or jobs? It can work both ways, that is if you want it to.

          I know of females who play video games and compete. They do not like to be forced into playing with the males. They like having their own female only tournaments. They can compete with the males in open tournaments if they want, but most choose not to and those that try can’t get much success. This is video games, not the real world, yet there is a limitation for a female’s success that isn’t artificial (at least there hasn’t been a female to reach the top). Maybe someone should do a study as to why that is.

          There was some European countries that tried to get more women into jobs males are dominate in. They had opposite results the more they tried.

        12. avatar JW says:

          Oh yeah – We all need an ‘intelligent society’ to tell us what careers we are suited for and how to live our lives, where have I heard that before? Why don’t you move to some authoritarian hellhole and leave America for those who actually value freedom?

    5. avatar jwm says:

      It also puts its men behind the counters of stores to be attacked and beaten by the bad guys.

      Decadent society is to blame for all crime. And since we’re part of that society we must share the blame.

      Right?

      1. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

        Men want to be women!

        Women want to be men!

        Kids want to be adults!

        Adults want to be kids!

        The diversity is so diverse, just like it was in ancient Rome…. are you entertained?

    6. avatar Miner49er says:

      Yes, soft and decadent societies like Israel. Israel will soon fall, they are a socialist state that provides free healthcare to all the citizens, including abortion on demand.
      And Israel has allowed women to serve in the military and police force from day one, clearly their days are numbered.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        The only down side to her killing this dude is that now he will become a registered democrat and vote the party line for 50-60 years.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          ~snort~ Ha!, took me half a second follow..been a long day at work.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What? She didn’t use a .45? Shame on her.

      2. avatar Robert Powell says:

        if you think that the israeli women are soft ,you havent seen them shoot or fight . they are as tough as the men and in a lot of cases ONE HELL OF A LOT MEANER.

      3. avatar User1 says:

        Apparently you don’t follow the politics of Israel. I won’t get into it because I don’t want to start a ban spree.

    7. avatar Thixotropic says:

      I generally agree. Same goes with Fire Fighters.

      However, this gal did just fine. Kilt the scumbag too, just like you’re supposed to do.

    8. avatar Connie says:

      True, but anyone who fights the law should meet the same end. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    9. avatar Hannibal says:

      what a doofus.

  2. avatar Daniel says:

    He didn’t do nothing. He was just trying to knock a mosquito off her face for her.

    1. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

      A person did something.

  3. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    The response time to the shooting was fast

  4. avatar Fully Involved says:

    She’s an excellent example of a police officer. Kudos to her.

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    So… all you cop haters and gangbanger apologists out there… I suppose she should have just laid down and let that thug beat the shit out of her?

    1. avatar David Deplorable says:

      Good shoot. Glad she wasn’t hurt.

      @pwrserge: …and raped her too!

  6. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Badge aside, this could’ve been anyone defending themselves…

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Hear hear, and well handled.

    2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      Yep. The biggest difference is that as a police officer it was her job to pursue him, something those of us not in law-enforcement should not be doing in most cases.

  7. avatar Ward munchen says:

    Yeah. I don’t even see how she made that shot. Kudos to her and her training. She did an excellent job at locating him, giving him ample opportunity to comply and putting a bullet in him when he came at her.

  8. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    Don’t say you’re sorry Officer Norman, you did nothing wrong, you did everything right!!

  9. avatar User1 says:

    This is the scenario I bring up when I state females shouldn’t be armed cops unless they have a male partner.

    Females cannot physically fight off a weak man and they don’t have the same viciousness as a man. So if they are alone and being attacked by a man they have to use their gun. You can’t put a weak and emotional female into a hand to hand combat situation by herself and expect someone not to die. Females have a legitimate reason to shoot early when a man has decided to beat them.

    Some men do not respect a woman with a gun just as much as they don’t respect a woman without a gun. Men in general don’t really respect a woman the same as they do a man, doesn’t matter if they are police. Let’s be honest, you are not going to listen to your mom like you are going to listen to your dad.

    1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      I served as a,cop and back then I was an avid weight trainer and runner despite that I ran into people that I couldn’t take unarmed.
      Look at Cage fighting or MMA two hyperfit well trained martial artists meet and one of them is knocked out or pinned.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        That’s why police have many tools and backup.

        I don’t expect a woman to have to use her physical abilities or her less lethal tools when she has no male backup. It would have been best in this situation if she waited until she had some male backup before she confronted the man.

        Thinking you (and your ego) can do it all on your own can get you or them killed.

        1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          Your assuming that she has time and a back up is available. Those are often flat dead wrong. I made a back up on a burglery in process once and it took me twenty miy to arrive. You are also assuming that the suspect doesn’t choose to press the issue. There are times the suspect and not the officer has the momentum.

        2. avatar Tom Collins says:

          I am old and somewhat disabled after 30 years of military service. I am not as tough, fast or strong as I once was. In a similar situation, with my diminished abilities and no back up, I will not hesitate to use resources at my disposal to end a potentially violent attack on my person. This Officer displayed more savvy and good judgement than most could muster up on their best day.

      2. avatar User1 says:

        Backup was about a minute and thirty seconds away.

        The call was for a man who punched someone. That’s not a major crime. She doesn’t have to rush in for such a call and put herself at risk. She made the mistake of thinking because she has a gun and a badge that men will just listen to her and not get violent with her.

        Maybe the academy doesn’t want to teach women differently than they do men out of political correctness. They dare not have different rules for men and for women officers. There is no difference between the infinite amount of genders.

        1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          The job determines the training not the gender of the cop.
          User 1 I never cease to be amazed by your willingness to minimize criminals responsibility. He just punched some one no big deal …unless the victim is old or falls and fractures his spine.
          Let’s face it he is a predator and a threat and there is a consequence.

      3. avatar Sprocket says:

        On average, women are significantly disadvantaged in a physical altercation with a man. While I wouldn’t say that women shouldn’t be cops, I think it is disservice to not require a reasonable standard of physical competence in law enforcement personal. If individuals cannot meet the standard; too bad so sad. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut.

    2. avatar troutbum5 says:

      Tell that to my wife, a retired New York Transit cop. She worked the subway trains alone, with no radio, and was in multiple altercations with douchebags who thought they could take on a lone female cop. She never lost one of those fights, broke 14 noses (documented), put a few in the hospital, and never once drew her sidearm. Though she was and is more than capable with a handgun. Her fellow cops were in awe of her.

      That young officer handled herself well, made a fantastic shot, and didn’t empty her magazine into the guy. A male officer could just as easily been overpowered in that situation.

    3. avatar Mr. Savage says:

      Ever tried fucking with mommas cubs? I beg to differ on “Not as vicious”

    4. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      So “real men fight with their fists”? That’s a gun grabber argument, take that elsewhere.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Eric in Oregon,

        So “real men fight with their fists”? That’s a gun grabber argument …

        Unfortunately, that is also the standard that our courts use.

        Consider a fit 30 year-old male attacker — who obviously has no firearms, edge weapons, nor bludgeons — conveying a credible, imminent threat to repeatedly punch a reasonably fit 50 year-old male victim. The sad reality is that almost all courts demand that the 50 year-old victim only use his fists to defend himself — and only use a firearm AFTER he is losing the fight and probably going to die or be permanently disabled without using the firearm.

        The fact that the fit 30 year-old male attacker, with a single punch, could easily cause the permanent disability or death of the reasonably fit 50 year-old male victim does not matter to the courts. (The courts consider that outcome to be so rare that it does not justify using a firearm, even brandishing, for self-defense.)

        Unless the male attacker is a hulk and the male victim has some huge disadvantage (such as being frail, weak, or unable to move), most all courts will convict the victim if he immediately draws his handgun, even to brandish.

    5. avatar strych9 says:

      “Females cannot physically fight off a weak man and they don’t have the same viciousness as a man.”

      This argument comes up so much and it’s so ridiculous.

      The issue is not that it’s a woman, the issue is that police have a two fold problem: 1) their hand to hand training sucks but 2) they’re told it’s great and highly effective. The result is people, male and female, who think they’re hot shit when they’re not, get into a situation they think they can handle, can’t handle it and fall back on their tools. Male cops get the fuck beat out of them 1v1 too, just check out YouTube or a host of other video websites where cops get assistance from bystanders because a big-ass male cop is getting wrecked because he has no idea WTF he’s doing when what he tries doesn’t work.

      A few weeks of training is useful against people who have none. If you only have a few weeks and run into someone who has 6+ months of decent training (and an ego that doesn’t write checks their ass can’t cash), female or not, they’re very likely going to kick your ass.

      Just ask the dude who tried to rob Polyana Viana how a fisticuffs match with her worked out for him. She’s a freakin’ straw-weight (106-115lbs) and she only hit that guy three times.

    6. avatar Connie says:

      I agree with your point about women serving as police officers. However, regardless of the officer’s sex, anyone who fights the law should meet the same end. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    7. avatar Hannibal says:

      The LAPD used to require applicants to be 6’something and have all sorts of other requirements. They gave that up not only because it’s discriminatory but because it’s stupid- and people that think of cops primarily as physical warriors aren’t any brighter. The vast, vast majority of what cops do is mental. The minority of time that it requires physical fighting, a male can just as easily be outmatched by someone else who is bigger, stronger, or more well-trained than him. Unless you are a roid-raged musclehead that dropped out of high school to pursue more bar fighting and think you can solve everything with your forearms, you’re going to be at a disadvantage to many criminals who do just that. And I have a feeling most people DON’T want cops that spend all their time tapping people out on a mat and lifting so they can get shredded (and screw those con law classes).

      And fuck those that whine about cops ‘having to use guns’ when this happens. Too bad. If she had shot him for running away, different story. But when you violently assault a cop after violently assaulting someone else, both unprovoked, you are taking your chances. In civil law there is something called the eggshell doctrine: you, the bad guy, do not get to base your defense upon your victim suffering damages from being too weak or fragile. Something similar applies with use of force. If you violently attack someone who is much less powerful than you, too bad, you just gave them reasonable cause to use whatever force necessary to win.

    8. avatar JW says:

      Viciousness may not be the best quality to have in a police officer, or even a soldier. She had enough fight in her to use her weapon when she needed to, and enough restraint and judgement to wait until she was sure. Wish I could say the same for everyone.

    9. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      You don’t think a woman can be vicious? Let me introduce you to my ex-wife.

  10. avatar Viejo Torro says:

    But but he was unarmed 😱😭.
    Every one of us will confront some one at some point that even though unarmed could kill us. In my day there was generally enough Police you had back up. She did what all of us would do. She and the community is better for it.

  11. avatar Carl B. says:

    One dead dindu. Good job.

  12. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    Some scuffle.

    1. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

      Yup, ,,.

  13. avatar Eli2016 says:

    The sound of her breathing tells it all. She gave him ample warning. It was a good shoot. It is now in the hands of the libtards to judge her actions – NOT

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Really, I don’t think most libtards would have any problem with her actions. She warned him and gave him ample opportunity to comply to which he responded with an assault. The problem for the libtards is when the police arrive, immediately draw down on the suspect, order them not to move and shoot them in less than a second. This was much different, this was a good shoot on a bad actor.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        A libtard speaking on behalf of libtards.

        1. avatar SoCalJack says:

          What is a libetard or Libtard? Is it derived from Liberal or Libertarian?

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          SoCalJack,

          The word “Libtard” is a derogatory combination of Liberal (in the Progressive sense, not the classic liberal sense) and retard (meaning a retarded person of diminished intelligence).

  14. avatar NORDNEG says:

    It’s always just a scuffle when it pertains to so called minority’s, which is everyone on the planet except the white honky male,,, then it’s a a viscous attack,,, reason being, they don’t want to piss off the natives…

    1. avatar Tom Collins says:

      “Native” to where?

  15. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    She says “taser”, then winds it up with a gunm. I think I’d have had my tazer in hand first, ????? Glad I’m not a cop.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Tasers need a minimum distance to work effectively, about 15′ IIRC. By the time she was clearly needing to take care of the guy it was way too late to deploy one.

  16. avatar Knute(ken) says:

    Ahhh. A “scuffle”, eh? So THAT’S the new MSM word for “felony assault”. As the self appointed TTAG MSM translator, I’ll make a note of that for future use.

  17. avatar enuf says:

    Putting cops out with no partner has always struck me as stupid.

    Sure glad she managed to end things favorably.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Response times in many areas are already bad. If you partner everyone up you either raise taxes significantly or increase response times by half. But whatever happened with her radio is a massive officer safety issue that needs to be addressed immediately.

  18. avatar Don from CT says:

    This shooting raises another question. When there is disparity of force, use of deadly force is justified. He was unarmed. She shot him. No questions will be asked.

    Had the officer been a burly man, there would have been all kinds of questions swirling around about a white officer shooting a black man.

    So now the question. Should we put people who are small and/or weak in police uniforms? It increases the need for firearms use. Which puts the public at risk.

    A friend who is a cop and is also an ex prison guard has taken people down with his hands and the very effective knee strike to the thigh that lesser officers might have had to shoot.

    He has literally saved lives because of his willingness to go hands on.

    These are not lives worth saving, you probably think.

    Well, in one of his cases, the guy was a mentally ill person off his meds. Should that guy have been shot?

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      So now the question. Should we put people who are small and/or weak in police uniforms? It increases the need for firearms use. Which puts the public at risk.

      This is the key point that is NEVER discussed in public policy discussions.

      Since women are on the police force it is incontrovertible that….
      A) Most women LEO can take (and deliver) less punishment than a male LEO
      B) For the safety of woman LEO…they need to be allowed to resort to firearms quicker
      C) It’s politically and legal dynamite for there to be different ROE for male and female
      D) So male LEOs are allowed to go to firearms sooner also
      E) more citizens (and scumbags) (and dogs) are killed by LEO

      I most hate that the politically correct society we live in that we can’t have an adult discussion about this topic.

      Oh well.

      In general, I’d guess a lot more scumbags get killed than citizens so I guess I’m OK with it. Certainly in this case, the town is better off that he’s 6ft under and they dont have to pay for jail room and board.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        Following this reasoning we should have a height and weight requirement as well. Say all officers need to be to at least 6 foot 1 inch and weight 220 pounds or more.
        Which works untill you get a mentally ill 6 foot 8 inch foot ball player.

      2. avatar Connie says:

        False. Each officer is judged based on what they should be reasonably expected to do given the circumstances, their stature, weight and strength included.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Not a single department in this country would have raised even an eyebrow if a big burley male officer shot the assailant, not after the assailant landed a couple solid hits to his face and kept on him.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      A mentally ill person off their meds, and offering violence to a police officer, should be shot, promptly and often. Absolutely yes. WTF are you thinking? He’s going to be polite to me or you? If the cop handles it without ending the violator, good for him, but that is not his/her responsibility.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      There is ALWAYS a question of disparity of force. There is ALWAYS someone who can beat you in a physical fight. Always someone that can KILL you. I don’t care if you’re the baddest mofo on the force, 6’2 and barrel chested with a black belt in BJJ, if you don’t think there’s someone out there that can beat you, you’re fooling yourself.

      That’s why the law must be what it is. If you’re a criminal assaulting someone smaller than you, too bad, expect to get shot. Nobody’s making you try and bash a cop’s brain in. You don’t get to whine that the cop should have been able to beat you ‘like a man’ when you were trying to beat up a woman.

      He could have complied with lawful orders after having violently assaulted someone else. Or, he could have just ran. Would have been unlawful to shoot him. But he didn’t. I might have had to shoot him in this situation, too, penis notwithstanding. Sure, I train. Sure, I keep in shape. But sometimes all that goes to shit if you get punched in the face. That’s part of the thing that boxing in the academy teaches:
      1) you can punched and probably still fight
      2) but sometimes you can’t
      3) recognize when 1 is turning into 2 and END THE FIGHT with whatever force is necessary

  19. avatar George from Alaska says:

    Screw all the comments by you fucks arguing about who should be a cop or not… I’m glad the the officer is OK and that he won’t be around taking our money to feed and defend his dead ass… dead ass.. ha..

  20. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    Some fools here have made idiotic remarks about the “error” of allowing women to serve as police. Dudes, you really need to get your heads out of your rectums!

    What I saw was a peace officer confront a hostile suspect who did not speak, nor did he follow instructions. When the suspect advanced, the officer gave appropriate commands, radioed for backup, and continued to address the threat. The only fault I saw in the video was the officer allowed the suspect to approach without retreating to a defensible position – but that is my judgement call – I wasn’t there – she was.

    When attacked by the suspect, the officer’s response was appropriate, focused, intentional, and restrained (I would have dumped an entire mag into the attacker). The video documents that the officer should be commended for her actions.

    And any of you idiots who wish to point out her sobs and shaking after, are simply proving that you have absolutely NO experience and no idea what you are talking about. If you have never faced a life or death situation, never pulled the trigger on another human being, and never been faced with real mortality, you don’t know what happens next. This officer held it together, put her assailant face down, holstered her weapon, cuffed the man, and still held it together until backup was on the scene and she wasn’t needed. The adrenaline dump didn’t happen until all of the priorities were covered.

    I have seen mature, combat experienced men, much larger than this officer, collapse in shaking sobs after dealing with extreme threat situations – it happens nearly every time, to nearly everyone. What it proves is that the shaking officer is both human and she is not a psychopath!

    I hope that officer stays on the job. She is certainly worth keeping!

    1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      This comment is the most rational onebto date

    2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

      Concise, coherent and correct

      Well said GeorgiaBob!

  21. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I will tell you that the DRT guy was not smart.

    Don’t approach when the ears go back.

    just sayin’

  22. avatar jwtaylor says:

    I hope those of you who carry a gun and a radio take note of this video, as well as the recent video where the officer was laying on the hood of a vehicle, shooting with one hand and talking on his radio with the other.

    I realize many folks are trained and conditioned to be on that radio, reporting everything that is happening, second by second.

    Humans are highly verbal. We talk a lot. But it takes a whole lot of smarts to communicate effectively.
    Very few people can respond to a dangerous situation and still communicate effectively at the same time.
    You can shoot, move, and communicate, but it’s almost impossible to do all 3 at once, unless you have a phenomenal amount of training.

    If you suspect you are currently in a situation where an immediate threat is present, get off the radio and deal with the problem at hand. Then pick back up the radio and report. It’s a lot safer for everyone.

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      Pilots have a priority list. In descending order, avIate, navigate, communicate.

  23. avatar User1 says:

    @Gadsden Flag

    Firstly, we are talking about police and general occupations outside of imminent destruction of your people’s existence.

    Second, my family wouldn’t exist today or we would be imbred if the women fought in the wars. Unfortunately for you, the males fought to protect the women. Allowing the women to be killed in mass would have brought extinction. It’s not a great idea to send all your young women to die. Even today men impregnate women before they go off to war, in the event they die futures generations will exist.

    If you draft women as much as you draft men and you require they go into combat in the front lines, who is going to birth and raise your children? What happens when you now consider all military age women enemy combatants, do they also get sent to PoW camps and executed along with other military age soldiers? Do you want your 15 year old sister to be considered a deadly threat because they are of age to fight in combat? What about your mother?

    When you are in desperate times I can understand women taking up arms to fight a war, but until then it’s not advisable.

    In Korea, women don’t want to be drafted for the 2 years of required military service that men do. Even the feminists are quick to say they rather not be drafted although someone has to defend them from North Korea.

  24. avatar strych9 says:

    The only thing I see here is her doing things right.

    I have no idea what she’s thinking but she’s doing it right. Even a big male cop would be wise to draw in this situation because working the radio takes away a free hand and even the worlds best fighters are at a pretty big disadvantage with the inability to use one limb. At this range losing an arm to another task is a pretty significant disadvantage for anyone especially since you don’t know if this suspect has a weapon or not.

    She did it right and covered her disadvantage by drawing and thereby offsetting the loss of the other hand to work the radio. He assumed she wouldn’t shoot him and he got shot for making that faulty assumption.

  25. avatar Connie says:

    Anyone who fights the law should meet the same end. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  26. avatar Blkojo says:

    Some bizarre comments on this article. Viejo Torro gets the nod for most rational.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Add GeorgiaBob to the rational comments list.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    1) Earpieces should be standard radio equipment for police use. Yes, they may slightly decrease awareness but they are incredibly useful in this sort of scenario and many others where you don’t want the suspect knowing what you’re saying to dispatch… or if you’re having radio trouble, or backup’s ETA, or if a wanted check comes back positive, etc.

    2) There is a huge difference between a suspect fighting to get away and a suspect fighting to hurt\kill. 90% of the time when an officer is in a ‘fight’ it’s a suspect twisting, swinging and kicking long enough that they see an opening to run. Those are the situations that need to be handled short of deadly force unless the suspect is armed and dangerous. But when a suspect attacks a cop like this, if the cop doesn’t win, she- or he- will probably die. The cop in question has to use whatever means necessary to win the fight, and fights go south fast.

    3) the amount of doofuses giving their inane opinion on woman cops based on this video is astounding. It’s particularly funny given how the “WARRIOR” cop culture (they have t-shirts) is often derided here. What do you want? Cops that are selected as the most imposing physical specimens available (with added roids because god forbid you find someone bigger than you that wants to fight, you’ll be called a wimp!) and spend all of their time bulking up and practicing arm wrestling, or cops that spend more time talking to people and learning how to investigate crimes? Particularly because in this video the officer not only did things right but a male cop could have just as easily been in the same situation. Again: you have to choose what kind of cop you want. If you want to base it on physical strength, okay, but keep in mind what you’re going to get (and know that many places have trouble finding candidates for even minimum requirements as it is).

  28. avatar Widdler says:

    That shoot was spotless clean, no apologies needed at all. Well done officer, very well done.

  29. avatar mrlyle says:

    I know her. Leann is the sister in law to my best friend. She is a tough cookie. Tall, athletic and smart. Has ridden motorcycles for years. On the other hand appears feminine. Probably why the Darwin award winner misjugded the situation.

  30. avatar raptor Jesus says:

    The comments on this site never fail to disappoint. I love it.

    As for the video, I believe the quote is “God created man and Sam Colt made them equal.”

  31. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    He didn’t make it.

    Good. Justice has been served.

  32. avatar Aaron says:

    I’m glad the woman was able to prevail.

    That’s the “value proposition” of being a human: the combination of human brains, opposable thumbs and the right tools can kill anything. A grizzly, a bull elephant, aggressive criminal male human. whatever.

  33. avatar David Walters says:

    For almost 8 years I served in the Marines with women Marines, enlisted and officers. There’s absolutely no reason to believe they can’t function in a firefight without backing down and as well as any male Marine.

    However, at that time (70s) they were mostly restricted from combat. That’s changing.

    AR-16’s are a pretty cool equalizer.

    1. avatar David Walters says:

      I meant M-16s

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email