Top Menu

Ohio Woman May Face Charges After Shooting Carjacker

On May 1st, a woman was sitting alone in her car parked in the 1400 block of Oakland Park Avenue in Columbus. It was around 9:30 PM when a man who she did not know approached her vehicle. He was brandishing a handgun. He demanded that she get out of her car, and the young 20-year-old complied.

car jacking columbus ohio

The man got into her vehicle and apparently was intending to drive away. However, according to reports, before the armed suspect hit the gas, he pointed his handgun at the woman.

It was at this point the woman believed that the suspect posed an imminent, deadly threat. She drew her handgun, then fired into the vehicle at the armed carjacker. The violent criminal was struck by the woman’s gunfire and died at the hospital.

Justified Self-Defense, But Still Facing Charges?

At first glance, we would say that the woman did an excellent job of being compliant when she felt it appropriate. Still, when she determined that the armed suspect posed an imminent threat and had the opportunity, she responded with deadly force.

So why has a grand jury been summoned to determine if the young woman should face charges?

Ohio is a state that allows open carry of a loaded handgun. However, to conceal it or carry it inside a vehicle, the possessor must have a CHL. According to news reports, the woman did not have a concealed handgun license (CHL), required in Ohio.

These Incidents Are More Common That We Think:

It is not uncommon for someone to use justifiable defensive force but commit a statutory violation of law related to firearm possession. In these cases, it is the job of the District Attorney’s Office to weigh the value of prosecuting the survivor for violation of the law.

carjacking victim faces charges

No matter how good your case may seem, you do not want to spend time inside the courtroom.

In this case, it seems that the DA’s Office feels that pursuing charges is in the public’s best interest.

Of course, I don’t know the entirety of the facts of the case. Furthermore, I only have the sparse facts reported on by the local news station. However, I find this and similar stories very disturbing. For police to determine someone used appropriate force in self-preservation, but punish them for not obtaining a license to carry a firearm, exposes one issue with handgun permits.

We Don’t Know All The Relevant Facts:

Now because she is 21 years old, she cannot possess a handgun in Ohio. In this case, the DA is in a challenging position. The point I want to make is that even in self-defense cases, the DA should weigh if there is a benefit to prosecute the surviving victim.

Imagine a case where this woman was with her child in the vehicle. The bad guy kills the child during the gunfight, yet the woman survives. In addition to losing her child, she may end up facing felony gun possession charges just for defending herself.

Hopefully, we will have updates in this case and learn what she faces in the near future. In the meantime, if you can, obtain a concealed handgun license. I know we shouldn’t “have” to get a permit, but we also don’t want to end up in a situation like this young lady is facing.

You can check out our list of CHL class dates in Ohio. And if you live in another state where we have an instructor, you can check out our list of class dates here.

As always, stay safe!

, , , , , , , , , ,

45 Responses to Ohio Woman May Face Charges After Shooting Carjacker

  1. Keith Clark May 12, 2021 at 1:18 pm #

    That is why the Constitution says “Shall NOT be Infringed”

  2. Patrick Smith May 12, 2021 at 1:19 pm #

    It seems more restrictions are placed on the victim than the criminal. She was totally justified in the shooting and if more citizens would exercise that right car jackings would stop.

    • KEVIN May 12, 2021 at 10:51 pm #

      amen to that brother

    • Jim Bolinski May 13, 2021 at 7:27 am #

      Truth

  3. John May 12, 2021 at 1:22 pm #

    Self defense no doubt about. Has right under 2nd amendment state law or not.

    • tim meenan May 12, 2021 at 4:43 pm #

      they should give her a medal and thank her for her service for getting rid of a dirt bag !

  4. Krymson May 12, 2021 at 1:36 pm #

    I find it irresponsible for the District Attorney to file charges against a woman who defended herself from an armed carjacker. Had she not responded as she did, would the young woman be alive today? Would she be shot and wounded? Would she be scarred for life, physically and mentally? Had this young woman been shot, because of a lack of action on her part, would the case be solved or would the carjacker simply drive away and be free for the rest of his life?

    R. Hagler

    • T Rollins May 14, 2021 at 9:45 am #

      The law is the law, all laws should be followed or amended, a great 2nd amendment attorney should represent her (pro-bono) and the jury should find her not guilty using jury nullification( members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway)

  5. William Herndon May 12, 2021 at 1:49 pm #

    Is there any way one can be assured of receiving follow-on information on this case. I wowuyld appreciate being advised as this moves thru the bureaucracy.

  6. Carney Layne May 12, 2021 at 1:54 pm #

    The fact that she is 20 years old is why she does not have an Ohio issued CHL. One must be 21 years old to qualify. I do not see how these laws make anyone safer.

  7. Richard May 12, 2021 at 2:00 pm #

    Guy commits crime, gets shot, case solved! She should not be prosecuted!

  8. Daniel Passer May 12, 2021 at 2:08 pm #

    Clearly, the moral thing to do is to kill the carjacker who threatened the victim by having pointed the muzzle of a firearm at the victim. The credibility of the armed carjacker is absolute zero. The intentions of the armed car jacker(s) can reasonably be assumed to be to commit violent crime(s) against additional victims, while using the victim’s vehicle as a means to commit additional violent crimes – therefore, killing the carjacker is without any question the morally right thing to do.

    Now, we need to get the heads of the politicians out of their a**es; however – only G-d can accomplish such miracles, so we must continuously pray to G-d for such miracles, ASAP. We must also pray to G-d that the evil politicians – such as the members of “The Squad” – be quickly smitten; along with every single dastardly evil so-called “teacher” – teaching evil to our precious children

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  9. Marmot May 12, 2021 at 2:35 pm #

    So the DA is weighing his decision as to whether or not he should “prosecute the surviving victim.” Since when in America do we prosecute victims? This is one of the most idiotic cases I”ve heard yet. Taken to it’s next logical conclusion, to avoid being branded a felon, EVERY victim is obligated to first, allow him or her self to be injured or murdered before it’s lawful for them to defend themselves. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!!

    • Michael May 12, 2021 at 6:47 pm #

      100% agree! If this girl needed a gun to keep from being murdered than the law needs to be changed. Seriously, why are we prosecuting victims? It’s not like this girl just randomly shot someone, she used her gun to defend her life – open carry, concealed carry – makes no difference.

  10. james v jeffreys May 12, 2021 at 2:55 pm #

    Democrat run city .

    • Herb Spickard May 14, 2021 at 2:14 pm #

      That’s it exactly, James!!

  11. Dennis J Bader May 12, 2021 at 3:02 pm #

    she was out of the car when she shot him, no longer concealed

    • Matthew Maruster May 12, 2021 at 3:07 pm #

      “No longer concealed”, means at one time she possessed it while “it was concealed”. She is also 20, not 21. I don’t agree with the charges, but strictly speaking, she was in violation of the law.

      • buck May 12, 2021 at 4:46 pm #

        bull crap ! 2nd amendment !

      • Peacock May 12, 2021 at 5:01 pm #

        Instead of prosecuting the women for possessing a concealed weapon. The DA should push to revap the current laws that do not protect law abiding citizens. I can see if she using that very gun to commit a crime. Not preventing herself or others from imminent danger. This case regardless of flawed laws is another example of tyrannical anti 2nd amendment lawmakers push. If this case is won by this idiotic DA, it will only restrict individuals right to preserve life during a violent criminal act. They attack police officers for having to use deadly force against an armed suspect, they attack law abiding citizens for using deadly force against an armed criminal, they victimize criminals and criminalize victims. I am a firm believer in proper training and ccw background checks. Just because a person has the right to carry does not mean they should. My opinion of course. Yet most current and upcoming laws and legislation do not protect the innocent. Laws are only effective if adhered to and with your background you should understand criminals don’t adhere to laws. The current trend in control laws as well as the defunding of police is only creating more victims and turning law abiding citizens into criminal. Hence the idiotic term surviving victim.

      • Ed Ortiz (GySgt ret.) May 12, 2021 at 7:41 pm #

        A Law Abiding Citizen is a person that follows the law… She was not, therefore, as cold as it sounds she is guilty of possession of a firearm without a permit.
        Without laws, rules and regulations, there’s no order.

        • Matthew Maruster May 12, 2021 at 8:10 pm #

          Very fair point.

          • Charles Mercer May 12, 2021 at 10:33 pm #

            Granted Matthew, it is a fair point. However in my opinion the 21 year of age requirement is vague. How was it determined, and by using what person’s logic.? If the “DA” feels he has to adhere to law, then perhaps a small fine
            would be in order. Absolutely NO jail time.
            Since the politicians have been harping on gun control, and the media is airing every single incident country wide, have you noticed an increase in violent crimes being committed using guns.?
            This in itself only adds to the probability that weak minded criminals will “copy cat” another’s crime.
            Making it more expensive and difficult for law abiding citizens to own / carry will have absolutely no effect on the lawless.

  12. Floyd May 12, 2021 at 3:07 pm #

    I believe in our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment that states it is our right to keep and bear arms. Per the facts given, she was allowing the thief to take her car and did not fire at him until he threatened to shoot her as he was about to drive away and she fired in self defense. If these facts are correct then I don’t understand the District Attorney’s action against her. She should sue the District Attorney for allowing armed car jackers to roam free and commit crimes. The District Attorney should be prosecuted for allowing this to happen. Life without possibility of parole seems an appropriate sentence.

  13. Linda Wellin May 12, 2021 at 3:07 pm #

    It should be short and sweet. The victim was able to defend herself and the evil doer dies. The victim is a hero. End of story.

  14. Mason May 12, 2021 at 3:22 pm #

    I think the prosecutors will likely say that she had an obligation to run or hide first. Then of course the problem of being underage to be carrying a weapon. The fact that she used the gun by taking it out of her purse??? or whatever, when she was exiting the vehicle, could go under premeditated when losing the car alone was not an assault. This will be an interesting case to follow, indeed. I think a jury would aquit her.

    • Ray May 12, 2021 at 9:24 pm #

      Ohio recently passed stand your ground. No legal requirement to run and hide for her case. She def broke the law of possession without a permit. I hope they just give her a slap on the wrist and let it go.

  15. Jim Coles May 12, 2021 at 3:26 pm #

    What the DA probably means is prosecuting this woman is in his or her best interest … How can the public be served by ‘hanging’ this crime victim for a technical violation of an unnecessary law?

  16. JOHN T. FOX May 12, 2021 at 3:33 pm #

    WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CHARGE A CITIZEN WITH A CRIME BASED ON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOR DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM A CRIMINAL? THE ONLY THING THAT SHOULD DETERMINE HOW ONE CARRIES THE GUN IS THE WEATHER! THE REJECTS ARE ALWAYS SCREAMING IT’S A WOMANS CHOICE, WELL HERE A WOMAN CHOSE!

  17. Roger May 12, 2021 at 3:57 pm #

    The district attorney has one and ONLY ONE obligation – GET RE-ELECTED !
    Especially in a democrat run city/county/state/country !
    I wish I was on that (grand) jury.
    FIJA.ORG is something everyone needs to study.

  18. Vincent Santos May 12, 2021 at 4:39 pm #

    Our Legislative and Judicial system is so messed up. It just makes no sense anymore.

  19. Michael D Ochoa May 12, 2021 at 5:39 pm #

    The US Constitution is very clear; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… what is ambiguous about that? She clearly has the right (from God) to defend herself from this thug… why is this prosecutor even considering charging her? Because the media and the liberals think it is OK for thugs to steal cars at gunpoint. At least that dirt-bag will not try this again…! Thank you, Miss Ohio! I think you should run for that DA’s position…

  20. Jim May 12, 2021 at 7:20 pm #

    IAW Ohio recommendations, the woman was compliant; however, when she was further subjected to threat of deadly force, if she had not defeated the carjacker, the Ohio Law Enforcement would have “tsk, tsked,” and written her death off as another “unsolvable crime!”

  21. Bruce May 12, 2021 at 7:34 pm #

    This case shocks the sensibilities of most of us. The result are repugnant. Yet by law, in order to claim self-defense as justification for the use of deadly force, one must be an “innocent party.” Innocent means you must have not been the aggressor, you must have had the right to be where you were, and you must have been legally in possession of your weapon at the time.

    If you were not “innocent” then your use of deadly force is not deemed justifiable, and you lose your right to claim self-defense. You can expect to spend decades in prison for mayhem or homicide, and lose your wealth in a civil lawsuit as well. It’s ugly.

    I have had a California carry permit for 35 years, and have been a California lawyer for 47 years. I thought I understood the self-defense laws. I did not.

    PLEASE read and STUDY these two books: “The Law of Self-Defense – The Indispensable Guide for the Armed Citizen” by Andrew Branca, Esq., and “Deadly Force – Understanding Your Right to Self-Defense” by Massad Ayoob.

    Only with a firm understanding of the law should you risk venturing forth with a deadly weapon. You can express outrage because the laws are absolutely NOT what you think they should be – but don’t get crushed by them.

    Take great care, my fellow patriots.

    • B.R.Therrien May 14, 2021 at 12:16 pm #

      I agree with you Bruce. The law isn’t what people think it is because they have a CHL, CWP etc.. She may have legally possessed the handgun, but wasn’t “Legally” in possession when concealed without a Ohio CHL.
      My wife and I both have a CWP with Florida. Myself as a resident, my wife as a non- resident. We part time in FL In the winter months, but she remains a Maine resident since we have a home in ME, and rent in FL. ME & FL are reciprocal, but ME is a Constitutional Carry State, CWP being optional. I retired from the US Army in 91 with 20 plus years in the MP Corps, and served as a DOD Security Specialist with the Army, and retired from the US Treasury as an Investigator in 2003. I didn’t feel the need to own a firearm since that time, having carried one all those years. But I decided in 2020 that it was time for my wife and I to be armed when I was informed of shootings taking place, one fatally, of a young mother, near our ME residence. She & I will now get a CWP from ME.
      I recently purchased “The Law of Self Defense”, by Andrew Branca, (He’s considered the foremost authority on Self Defense Laws in the US), that my wife and I are currently reading. It definitely is an eye opener. For anyone who “THINKS” the 2nd Amendment is all you need to conceal carry, with our without a permit, and defend yourself, your in for a rude awakening. This young woman, did defend herself, but the justice system will put her thru he’ll if the DA decides to prosecute.

    • B.R.Therrien May 14, 2021 at 12:21 pm #

      Please excuse some grammatical errors in my reply.

  22. Jerry May 12, 2021 at 9:02 pm #

    The first rule of self defense is “Don’t put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation”. Was she stopping for gas on her way to/from work, OR coming from a bar, in a bad part of town.

    Now insert the rest of the story —>

  23. Dennis Sumner May 12, 2021 at 10:30 pm #

    Doesnt she understand the only people allowed to shoot and kill other folks are gang banging thugs!?

  24. John Wilson May 13, 2021 at 1:40 am #

    This is sad. Had she shot him before entry to the vehicle or on approach to the vehicle? That would be helpful info. She is justified though. If anyone is a threat it is obvious or should be.

  25. Scott Harrison May 13, 2021 at 3:11 am #

    A law abiding citizen would be dead right if she wanted to be legal hardly makes sense to me.

    It may be wrong of me to say so, but nice staying calm under pressure and hitting what your were aiming for.

    Gun control is hitting your target.

    I can’t imagine losing a child over a vehicle.
    If it was my brother that was car jacking someone and they were killed I’m going to side with the victim.

    When you choose armed robbery as a profession how could you possibly be surprised when you do get shot.

  26. Dwain May 13, 2021 at 6:15 am #

    Having your car jacked is no easy thing to deal with. taking a life under any circumstance is no easy thing to deal with. what more does our legal system want from us?
    Let this poor girl get what help she needs and stop beating her up for doing the right thing.
    God know but that she may have saved her life and others down the road.

  27. Joseph. May 13, 2021 at 3:17 pm #

    If you need to charge her for anything charge for not having a CHL and not for defending her life (that’s bull) it was probably not her intent to kill him but the guy was an a-hole

  28. Eric May 13, 2021 at 5:44 pm #

    Pretty crappy on the DA’s part. My guess is that the DA wanted to put one in the win column more than taking things into consideration. Sadly a win is a win no matter the cost.

  29. G Liufau May 17, 2021 at 1:03 pm #

    This is a safe form for one to share an opinion for ones personal safety and protection.
    Along with voicing our opinion on important matters as this we can support both the men and women in the political arena that will support and/or help change law(s) to protect and serve
    “ We The People”

    I agree and support Bruce regarding the two books shared in his contribution to this form (May 12, 2021 posting) The two books are a must ready if we are to totally protect our Family, Friends and Self within that very fine line.
    Fir me, Correct and Accurate Information,
    Total Understanding of The Law of Self Defense is the Weapon. What we hoister is the Protection until help arrives.

    Your thoughts are much appreciated.

Leave a Reply