Previous Post
Next Post

By Brandon at

A Smyrna, Georgia city worker who happened to be at a car wash during an attempted car jacking is begin hailed a hero today after stopping the suspect. The incident happened Friday afternoon when a suspect got into a vehicle in an attempt to steal it. As he was taking off in the car, the car’s owner jumped on the hood in an attempt to stop him . . .


In case you’re wondering; no, I would not have done the same thing. While I love my Jeep, it’s not worth my life to jump on the hood and take the chance of this guy flinging me off at a high rate of speed.

Anyway, back to the story. A good samaritan saw what was happening and is caught on camera drawing his firearm and running toward the car. He fired a single shot at the suspect and struck him in the shoulder, stopping the theft and saving the car’s owner from serious injury.


Would you have intervened? If I had a clear picture of what was happening, I would have done the same thing. If a person wasn’t on the hood, however, I would likely dial 911 instead.

But wait… according to the article, the good samaritan fired the shot while the woman was still on the hood:

The video shows the men inside a red minivan scoping out the parking lot and then the woman jumping onto the hood of her car as they tried to drive away with the Honda.

Seconds later, a gunshot stopped the getaway as the city worker shot the carjacker, and the Honda’s owner safely slid off the hood of the car.

Depending on the angle, how close the man was, etc., I’d have to be very comfortable to take a shot like that with the woman so close to the intended target. I am by no means saying that this good Samaritan did the wrong thing, and I certainly wasn’t there to assess the situation. I’m simply mentioning these things because they create a good debate, and they are things to always keep in mind when thinking about situations like this.

It’s an opportunity to think and learn.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’d like to know more about the positioning and exact circumstances of the shot, but it seems like it was a damn good one on his part.

    Also note the local media keeps referring to him as a “good Samaritan”.

    • “Armed Good Samaritan” is a fantastic label for guys like this. It’s the exact opposite of “wannabe hero.”

      • agreed. Nobody wants to be a hero. I hope to live my life and die having never had to defend my self or others with deadly force. Nobody can guarantee me that I wont and I will be prepared to if I have no other choice.

    • Local media can’t always get away with being as flagrantly out-of-touch elitist lefties as national media can.

      • Our local media has a pretty good habit of calling intervening CC holders Good Samaritans, and are generally pretty good about being somewhat fair about gun reporting in general. Remember the fatal shooting of the would be robber at the Lebron James shoe release last year? That was here too, and they were generally pretty well, at least neutral, about it then, too. DGUs seem to come in spurts in ATL, so we’ll get a few more here in the next couple of months. It’s finally getting warm enough to go out and do work, after all.

  2. This is a good thing for the pro gun publicity, just glad the shot hit its mark or this would have been very bad. This is definitely a case of I don’t know what I would have done without being there.

  3. Carjacking stopped, victim safe, concealed carrier unharmed — what more is there to say? The result speaks for itself.

    • From another report: “Another armed witness chased after them, but said he backed off when the van’s door opened and a man pointed a gun at him.”

      That’s 2 citizens with a gun in that time and place. Imagine what those criminals in the van must have been thinking as they fled. It’s a dangerous job to be a criminal in a state that allows their citizens to defend themselves.

      • The state doesn’t “allow” them, they just don’t infringe as much as other states regarding inalienable rights.

  4. Jumping on a car to try and stop a thief is stupid and changes the situation from one of property to one of life.

    And justifies the shooting. Contrary to the article I see the woman’s presence on the vehicle as being the REASON so shoot, not one to hold off. Had the carjacker been able to continue his actions he very well may have driven off and killed or seriously injured the hood ornament.

  5. im also wondering a couple other things: was he on the clock/does his employer have a weapons policy/will he be disciplined if he has violated it? and wholl be responsible for the broken window and probably bloodstained portions of the interior?

    • IANAL, but here goes. Georgia law prohibits private employers from preventing you from keeping a gun in your car. Until last year’s so called guns everywhere bill, damn near all government buildings were off limits. Now, any private, non-government employee can carry into an unsecured government building. AFAIK, there wasn’t a carve out for government employees to be banned in those same buildings. That is where I am totally unsure, so if I’m wrong, I wouldn’t be surprised, but it would make his actions legal (being armed at work and such) and we all know that CC permit holders are the most law abiding bunch imaginable…

  6. A ‘city worker’……I’ll bet he was LEO of some kind. DA investigator, bailiff, maybe someone working an undercover assignment needing to be anonymous…..something along those lines.

    • Or maybe he was the street sweeper or the trash man, becuase he js definitely helping clean up the streets. I have mentioned on here before I am a nurse, I work for a local goverment working with people that have mental illness. My job has rules preventing me from carrying at work, and policy does not allow me to even keep a pistol locked in my car if using my personal car for work purposes(happens a few times a week, and usually spontaneously). I have 2 choices in the matter I can violate policy with a very slight chance of getting caught, but getting caught would mean termination(loss of rewarding career and pension) or option 2 follow policy and only carry in my car on days I know it will stay parked. I follow option 2 and I hate it. I have very good situational awareness, I minimize stops at gas stations, party stores or ATMs while not armed.

      • You said “street sweeper.”

        I remember, probably about 20 years ago, reading an article about Kennesaw, Georgia, and their law requiring residents to have a firearm. Apparently the town’s fortunes had improved, and tax revenue was up, so they were buying a “streetsweeper.” Though pro gun, that magazine wasn’t POTG and probably never noticed the double meaning.

    • I’m thinking the same thing, every article I’ve seen says he was “identified as a city employee”. That’s identifying someone? He’s got a cop haircut too. A piece of evidence against him being a cop is the excellent trigger discipline.

  7. So far, sounds like a solid story and it’s too bad that the suspect got away.

    Still can’t fathom why the women felt like her car was that important and I think she got very lucky w/ how it ended.

  8. If he is a city worker and not a LEO, he will fired for carrying the gun while working. He will loose any pension he has. He and his family will be under a death threat from the crimilal’s family. Depending on the race of the suspect, he may even be labeled a racist monster by the news media, Jesse and Al. He will be will face a civil law suit. Did I forget anything?

    • They never say he was on the job, just that he is a city employee. I doubt he was at work, cause he was getting his car washed. Usually implies he’s on his own time.

  9. My wife was telling me about this earlier today. Supposedly the hero is now facing criminal charges.

    In my local media outlets, this story would lead as, “Man takes the law into his own hands.” Can we as a society ban that stupid phrase?

    • Where did you get that info? I’ve seen coverage from several different sources, and none say that the shooter is facing any charges.

    • I hope that’s not true, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The government wants everyone to be dependent on them, so they don’t like this kind of thing happening (people being self-sufficient) and they’ll do anything they can to prevent it.

  10. I can’t jump on the “score one for the good guys” bandwagon. The legal principle when defending an innocent third party is “in her shoes,” meaning the samaritan can legally only shoot if the lady on the car could have legally shot and I don’t think she could have.

    She was defending property, which is not a justification for the use of deadly force. Yes, she was in danger of imminent bodily harm, but she put herself in that danger. Grabbing on to the hood was a stupid, stupid move. If she had a gun, she would not have been justified in shooting, so therefore the shooter was not justified either.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad it turned out the way it did and I hope the shooter does not get charged or successfully sued, but I think he left himself open to both. I would not have shot. I would have yelled at the lady to let go of the car.

    • That’s pretty terrible legal analysis. Dude steals chick’s car — she tries to stop him (not using deadly force). He then attempts to drive away (a potentially lethal situation created by his attempted larceny). Hell, his friend in the van will be lucky if he doesn’t get charged with felony murder.

      • That’s the way it should be. In many jurisdictions, I wouldn’t be surprised if it played out the other way. The only people who don’t have to deal with the adverse consequences–however unexpected or unpredictable–of their deliberate acts are criminals.

        I’m thinking of locales where you can get sued if a burglar injures himself due to a “hazardous condition” in your house. Or if your gun is stolen from your house and used in a crime.

  11. Shoot I used to work a half mile from there! Interesting area. “transitional” so there’s an interesting mix of high dollar private school families and “up to no good” types.

  12. Hah That carwahs is 1.5 miles from Glock’s HQ, also located on Highlands Parkway. I wonder if said “city worker” was coming back from Glock getting new nightsights on his gat?,+Smyrna,+GA+30082/GLOCK,+Inc.,+6000+Highlands+Parkway+Southeast,+Smyrna,+GA+30082/@33.8302618,-84.5138163,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x88f51a428d6c2fc7:0xfd0bf46d3c34d11d!2m2!1d-84.4928034!2d33.828714!1m5!1m1!1s0x88f51a2279ad8ffd:0xb28a0a36047afff1!2m2!1d-84.515766!2d33.83313

Comments are closed.