Originally Posted by Invisible_Dave
All due respect but, I see this ending poorly...
Can anyone reading this thread imagine that the allegedly crazed cop in question is ever unarmed
That his situational awareness is inferior
to the woman's?
That his muscle memory is less
well-engrained than hers?
That he would know how to use a smaller
variety of weapons, including both contact weapons (knife, etc.) and distance weapons (handgun, shotgun, and rifle)?
I'm not suggesting that she should not prepare or fight back.
However, her best bet is to leave the state and move to one where he has no jurisdiction, no law enforcement buddies, and little or no means of influencing the law enforcement system to his advantage.
This might sound impractical.
But she would be better off using lethal force against him in another state than if she were to do it here--assuming she has all the things she'd need to win a fight with him (armed or unarmed).
Why do I advocate going to this length to ensure her safety?
Too many people in the system have too much willingness to give the alleged perpetrator the benefit of the doubt just because he is an LEO--despite reasons not to do so, which they conveniently ignore. Disagree with me about this?
The exception to this proves the rule.