Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TX: Not Guilty, and Handcuffed; Woman Forced to Shoot Attacking Ex
Gun Watch ^ | 5 April, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 04/04/2015 8:26:47 AM PDT by marktwain


The young woman shown above was clearly justified in shooting the ex-boyfriend who attacked her.  There were witnesses.  She repeatedly attempted to disengage, and only resorted to shooting after being repeatedly attacked.  From clicktohouston.com:

The woman said she was forced to shoot her ex-boyfriend in the leg because he was threatening to hurt her. Houston police said the man started following the woman near Highway 59 and South Gessner Wednesday morning and things escalated from there. Investigators said at one point he forced his way into her car and tried to crash it.


Even though it was self defense, the police handcuffed her when the put her into the police car.  This picture shows the handcuffing.  It appears that her right hand is not cuffed at this point.   I do not see any signs of a belt or a holster.
"He came banging on the window, he forced her away from the driver's side to the passenger side, then he became the driver. Once he was inside the vehicle, he was hitting her in the face, and other stuff ensued, and she pulled out her weapon and shot him in self-defense," said Clint Ponder, with the Houston Police Department.

Link to video





While the police investigated this situation, the victim was kept in the police car, under restraints, as though she were the person who had committed a crime.  This is a fairly common, but not universal, police procedure.  The police do not know who did what until they  investigate.



If you are in a defensive shooting, do not be surprised if you are treated as a criminal as the police sort things out.  This is especially likely in large city police departments, where crime is common, such as in Houston.   Expect it.  In some cases you will be held in jail a period without seeing a lawyer or a judge.   The police are allowed up to 24 hours to process your case.   If they forget or make mistakes, it can take much longer.

There have been cases where people were arrested on warrants that did not apply to them, cases of mistaken identity, where people where held in jail for months before the mistake was found.

Those are rare.  In this case the young woman was released after the preliminary investigation determined that she was justified in using deadly force to defend herself.

From the picture of her car, and her open purse, I suspect that this was a case of off body carry that worked.  It was fortunate that she was able to access her firearm and defend herself.


Women are often reluctant to change their wardrobe to accommodate belts and holsters.  There are always trade-offs.   The proposed reform in Mississippi allows for purse carry in recognition of some women's preferences.  If you carry off body, more care must be exercised in controlling the container that has your weapon.   A purse designed for that purpose offers advantages.  It is best if the firearm has its own separate compartment.   Women often developed habits to maintain control of their purse, as it  contains numerous valuable and personal items. 
The ex was shot in the leg, is in the hospital, and will go off to jail when he is released from the hospital.  The woman did not submit to a beating, or to being kidnapped, or to a carjacking.   For those who say that women should not have guns to defend themselves, this is a clear counter example.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


TOPICS: Government; Local News; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: armedwoman; banglist; ccw; tx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
A young armed woman defends herself from an attack of her ex. Not. Guilty.
1 posted on 04/04/2015 8:26:47 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Justified.


2 posted on 04/04/2015 8:29:21 AM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It is to bad we let the government get so far down the gun control road in this country. We need an immediate return to maximum firearm freedom, minimum gubmint interference.


3 posted on 04/04/2015 8:35:14 AM PDT by exnavy (An armed society is a polite society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Yes. She was justified in her shooting.

I contend that on freerepublic, she is Not Guilty.


4 posted on 04/04/2015 8:58:09 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If you are going to shoot anybody, shoot to kill. If you are willing to use a lethal weapon, then use it for its intended purpose.

Not criticizing, just saying.


5 posted on 04/04/2015 8:59:01 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Poor thing looks stunned and in shock while sitting in that car. She shot him in the leg. The fact that she protected herself is good. However, I have to wonder what will happen to him when he is released from the hospital and subsequent police custody? If she was my daughter, she would be packed up and sent to a loving relative to keep her safe. The ex has proven himself to be violent. I just hope there isn’t any further violence perpetrated upon this young woman.


6 posted on 04/04/2015 8:59:41 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If you are entitled to use deadly force, you probably shouldn’t be shooting someone in the leg. Although it isn’t clear whether the car was moving at the time.


7 posted on 04/04/2015 9:09:50 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
If you are going to shoot anybody, shoot to kill. If you are willing to use a lethal weapon, then use it for its intended purpose.

How do you know what her intentions were? I contend that she was driving, fighting and apparently also shooting to defend herself. Did she close an eye and aim while using a good stance with both hands on the gun? I doubt that too. But your comment can be found on every single FR self defense shooting thread unless the bad guy took two in the chest and one in the head.

8 posted on 04/04/2015 9:11:02 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (POPOF. President Of Pants On Fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

BUMP


9 posted on 04/04/2015 9:22:30 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
I don't blame her for not hitting center of mass. It's hard to get a good sight picture while being punched in the face.

It does seem like she talked to the police before seeing a lawyer. What happens if you have a vehemently anti-gun prosecutor and you confess to some minor technical violation of how you were carrying or use the wrong words like being in fear of your safety rather than fear of your life? Shut up and talk to a lawyer before talking to the cops...even in Texas.

10 posted on 04/04/2015 9:26:25 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Darth Obama on 529 plans: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
Agree. . .but I think the reporter made an erroneous assumption that she deliberately shot the guy in the leg. The reporter wasn't there. The guy was hit in the leg and the reporter assumed that is where she was aiming. You know. . .people always hit where they aim, arm, leg, hand. . .whatever, even when in close quarters and during a struggle.
11 posted on 04/04/2015 9:30:40 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
I think the reporter made an assumption she was aiming for the leg. They were fighting, struggling in a vehicle. . .pretty big assumption she deliberately aimed at his leg.
12 posted on 04/04/2015 9:32:27 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Again not judging her, just a general statement. If that was all she could hit, well, so be it.

The decision to draw a weapon indicates a willingness to use lethal force. The possession and use of a firearm is very serious and should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, we have heard any number of people calling for police to shoot with the intent to wound. We also know that is unsound advice for any number of reasons.

Again, the general rules are to not draw a gun unless ready to use lethal force, and don’t own a gun unless you know how to, and are prepared to, use it.


13 posted on 04/04/2015 9:40:21 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
In this situation she was not in control of the vehicle, so possibly shooting him in the HEAD
while driving at whatever rate of speed wouldn't have been a good idea.

This would be one of those "Had to be there" situations where a split second
judgment call was required involving personal safety also.
She missed his balls, aim for the balls!

14 posted on 04/04/2015 9:49:36 AM PDT by MaxMax (Call the local GOP and ask how you can support CRUZ for POTUS, Make them talk!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Yes, she may have hit him in the thigh and been aiming a bit higher and toward the middle.

Still, it was probably a strategic error to leave him alive at this point.


15 posted on 04/04/2015 9:55:29 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

Wasn’t there, just offering general guidance.


16 posted on 04/04/2015 9:59:49 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1; SpirituTuo; KarlInOhio

What is really needed (and would have been especially appropriate in this case) is the implementation of principles such as those shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bm3GgDxPOM


17 posted on 04/04/2015 10:08:15 AM PDT by shibumi ("Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1; All

“If you are going to shoot anybody, shoot to kill. If you are willing to use a lethal weapon, then use it for its intended purpose.”

I believe that the above advise is unsound for a number of reasons.

First, every credible trainer that I know of advises people to shoot to stop the attack, not to shoot to kill. Shooting to stop may kill the attacker, and it may not. Shooting to kill shows a very likely illegal intent.

Second, the intended purpose of deadly weapons is highly debatable. If their purpose is to kill people, the vast majority fail miserably.

I contend that the purpose of deadly weapons (and all firearms) is to project force. In interpersonal relationships, it is to gain compliance, one way or another.

This seldom, but sometimes, involves killing.


18 posted on 04/04/2015 10:13:20 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

She needs counseling, not handcuffs


19 posted on 04/04/2015 10:16:46 AM PDT by GeronL (CLEARLY CRUZ 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“He came banging on the window, he forced her away from the driver’s side to the passenger side, then he became the driver”

That doesn’t make any sense. How about, lock your door. Actually that particular vehicle locks as soon as you put it in drive. But whatever. You’re in a damn car. Drive away.


20 posted on 04/04/2015 10:28:28 AM PDT by saleman (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson