Disturbing video shows towering, knife-wielding woman gunned down after repeatedly stabbing cop

Disturbing bodycam video captured the moment a towering 6-foot-tall woman was fatally shot by a veteran Virginia cop just seconds after she charged at him with a knife and repeatedly slashed him.

Sydney Wilson, 33, was fatally shot by Fairfax County officer Peter Liu in the hall of her apartment building in Reston, just outside Washington D.C., on Sept. 16 after cops were called to carry out a welfare check on her, police said.

The graphic footage, released by police on Monday, showed an “agitated” Wilson opening and then abruptly slamming her door in the officer’s face after he knocked just after 10 a.m.

After nearly three minutes of trying to convince her to re-open the door, Wilson suddenly emerged in a bathrobe, calmly asked “How are you?” — and then immediately brandished the kitchen knife, the video shows.

Wilson was caught on camera swiping at the officer — knifing him in the face, police said.

The cop, a 14-year-old department veteran trained in crisis intervention, quickly pulled his firearm and backed up down a dead-end hallway, according to the bodycam clip.

A crazed Wilson was filmed coming towards the officer with the blade held above her head as the officer repeatedly shouted for her to “back up.”

The point of a pelvic girdle shot is to immobilize the person, not to eventually kill them.

It is not the right choice in a gun fight.

Chest shots do not necessarily immobilize immediately unless they hit the spine.

Most of what I see "discrediting" pelvic girdle hits is all about people continuing to be able to pull a trigger. That is not what we are talking about in this case.

Here is a Dave Spaulding discrediting pelvic girdle shots:

I’ve talked to several people over the years who have either been involved or have been witness to armed conflict in which a pelvis shot was delivered, and all describe the victim of said wound going down but remaining in the fight. This being the case, one must ask themselves if incapacitation is the same as immobilization? Incapacitation means being unable to take action while immobilization means not being able to move; are they the same thing?

If a person with a contact weapon is more likely to be immobilized with a pelvic girdle shot than with a chest shot, the pelvic girdle shot has validity. With a contact weapon, immobilization can be more important than incapacitation several seconds later.

So, the question becomes, which is quicker at immobilizing the threat: Chest shots or pelvic girdle shots? We know chest shots often take a while to take effect, perhaps many seconds to a couple of minutes. But Spaulding says all the cases he knows of "went down" with pelvic girdle hits. We know that is not the case with chest hits.

The alternative is, of course the central nervous system, which can work very well, and often is (but not always) near instantaneous.

The counter to that is the head is more mobile, more subject to movement out of the line of fire as the opponent sees the firearm being pointed at them.

There is a lot of theorizing, very little data. I would like to see how many people shot in the pelvic girdle remain able to walk, instead of crawl.

That would give us a better handle on whether it is an effective technique or not.

In practice, you shoot at what is available, because you do not always have a choice.

I have a friend who described several gunfights he was in. Two he resolved with head shots, but, they were gunfights, not fights with someone who had a contact weapon. I will ask him his opinion on pelvic girdle shots. He shot quite a few people, mostly with a .45.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.