TexasCHLforum.com

Woman takes gun, shoots would-be carjacker

Frisco: Teen hospitalized in critical condition for wound to stomach


12:00 AM CST on Wednesday, February 28, 2007
By PAUL MEYER / The Dallas Morning News
pmeyer@dallasnews.com

A 60-year-old woman confronted an armed teenager trying to steal her car, wrestled away his gun and shot him in the stomach Tuesday evening outside a Frisco apartment complex, police said.

Frisco police Sgt. Gina McFarlin said the woman was getting out of her car about 7:45 p.m. at the Wade Crossing apartments when the 19-year-old approached and demanded her keys.

The woman refused, and the teen pulled a small handgun. During an ensuing scuffle, the woman gained control of the gun, shot the carjacker once and dropped the weapon. He then picked it off the ground and fled. Police found the man in a nearby apartment complex and recovered the firearm from some bushes near where the woman was attacked.

The teenager was undergoing surgery late Tuesday night at Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he was listed in critical condition. The woman was not injured.

Police found two shell casings at the scene of the attempted carjacking, which occurred in the 9300 block of Wade Boulevard near Preston Road. It remained unclear whether the suspect may have fired one shot into the air as a warning to the woman.

"We don't recommend it," Sgt. McFarlin said of the woman's decision to confront her attacker.

"Always the safe thing to do, unless you're in fear of imminent bodily injury, is to comply."

killerquad wrote: "We don't recommend it," Sgt. McFarlin said of the woman's decision to confront her attacker.

"Always the safe thing to do, unless you're in fear of imminent bodily injury, is to comply."

You have a gun pointed at me but I am not in fear of any great body injury so I will do anything you say. Surely a criminal would not hurt someone.

Good thinking officer.

Yeah a criminal would never harm any one because that would make them criminals or something.

The Sgt. quoted is the Frsico PD's mouthpiece. That is defintiely the dumbset thing that I have ever heard her say. I certainly hope that nobody listens to that advice.

We don't recommend it," Sgt. McFarlin said of the woman's decision to confront her attacker.

"Always the safe thing to do, unless you're in fear of imminent bodily injury, is to comply."

Advice like that could get somebody killed if someone tries that with me I won't have to take their gun to shoot them I will just use my own.

"We don't recommend it," Sgt. McFarlin said of the woman's decision to confront her attacker.

"Always the safe thing to do, unless you're in fear of imminent bodily injury, is to comply."

Here we have a clear example where a citizen exercises her responsibilty to defend herself successfully. Despite the outcome, the response by the police Sgt is to repeat the official party line. Ridiculous! The police act as if self defense is solely their responsiblity. The concept of "police protection" is a misnomer, which seems to apply only to digniataries. Us private ciitzens are on our own.

Thanks for posting! Good update

killerquad wrote:the woman gained control of the gun, shot the carjacker once and dropped the weapon.

The lady almost got herself killed doing this. After you get control of a weapon, even if the BG is wounded or not moving, just dropping the weapon is a horrible idea. If the police show up, and tell you to drop the weapon, by all means do... but until the police show up, leaving a weapon for the BG or his friends to pick up is a bad move.

This is probably not a big deal with this group, but most people out there don't think about it all that clearly.

In my martial arts class, I would see capable fighters disarm an 'attacker', take the weapon and put the attacker to the ground, and then drop the weapon right next to the attacker... as they were 'done'... not good.

Liberty wrote:

killerquad wrote: "We don't recommend it," Sgt. McFarlin said of the woman's decision to confront her attacker.

"Always the safe thing to do, unless you're in fear of imminent bodily injury, is to comply."

It amazes me that some LEO's still offer this advice when FBI reports/study would show the reverse to be true. Unarmed resistance is more likely to result in injury or death to the victim than would compliance, but resistance with a gun is less likely to result in injury or death of the victim. I need to find the actual document for this and post it or a link. Maybe after the legislative session is over.

Chas.

Even though I understand the frustration...I believe we should consider removing the emoticon...

I have just joined the group for the ethical treatment of walls (PETW)...

And I would just hate to have my friends "the walls" suffer anymore than they have too...














Y'all know I'm just yanking yer chains right???

stevie_d_64 wrote:Even though I understand the frustration...I believe we should consider removing the emoticon...

I have just joined the group for the ethical treatment of walls (PETW)...

And I would just hate to have my friends "the walls" suffer anymore than they have too...














Y'all know I'm just yanking yer chains right???

stevie_d_64 wrote:Even though I understand the frustration...I believe we should consider removing the emoticon...

I have just joined the group for the ethical treatment of walls (PETW)...

And I would just hate to have my friends "the walls" suffer anymore than they have too...












Y'all know I'm just yanking yer chains right???

LOL

In my martial arts class, I would see capable fighters disarm an 'attacker', take the weapon and put the attacker to the ground, and then drop the weapon right next to the attacker... as they were 'done'... not good.

Yup,

Another classic mistake "Martial Arts" students make....is to disarm their opponent.. and then "take down" or throw them right next to the weapon.

I can not count the number of times I have seen this.

Just because the BG doesn't have the weapon in his/her hand any longer, does not mean the fight is over.

I could not agree with you more, good post.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:

killerquad wrote: "We don't recommend it," Sgt. McFarlin said of the woman's decision to confront her attacker.

"Always the safe thing to do, unless you're in fear of imminent bodily injury, is to comply."

It amazes me that some LEO's still offer this advice when FBI reports/study would show the reverse to be true. Unarmed resistance is more likely to result in injury or death to the victim than would compliance, but resistance with a gun is less likely to result in injury or death of the victim. I need to find the actual document for this and post it or a link. Maybe after the legislative session is over.

Chas.

i've always said the same thing to people..."i wouldn't suggest fighting/shooting/etc. with a criminal." but then, i usually follow it up with, "if it was me, i'd whoop the dog out of them, and make them think twice about doing it again." most people get the message. you just have to make a distinction between your professional answer, and your personal answer. how good would it look if this lady was severely injured, then came back and said, "well, officer X said i should try and take their gun away."

Chris wrote:how good would it look if this lady was severely injured, then came back and said, "well, officer X said i should try and take their gun away."

About as bad as it would look if she had taken their advice to comply with the criminal, and had been taken somewhere, raped, and killed.

The police should just stop giving bad advice. People need to figure out what to do for themselves. A single course of action is not suitable for everyone.

- Jim