Taylor Woolrich: Disarmed Dartmouth Student Describes What It Is Like to be Stalked

Students for Concealed Carry Logo

A guest post by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) Taylor Woolrich is a Dartmouth student whose story is continuing to make a difference in explaining to people why it is important that stalking victims have the right to be able to defend themselves, which the school is denying her.

Students for Concealed Carry Logo
Taylor Woolrich, 20, is a former beauty-pageant contestant from California. She wants to carry a concealed weapon on Dartmouth’s campus to protect herself against a stalker, but the school has said no. Image and logo courtesy of the Crime Prevention Research Center.

From the BBC:

A former beauty pageant contestant from California, 20-year-old Taylor Woolrich is the first to admit she’s not your usual guns rights campaigner.

She’s fighting for the right to carry a weapon on [Dartmouth’s] campus, for a very personal reason.

For years she’s been stalked by a man she first came into contact with while waitressing at a cafe.

He would turn up to see her every day and began to track her down outside work. An emergency restraining order failed to deter him.

Things became even more terrifying when she moved across the country to study at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

“It wasn’t even on my mind, and then he contacted me via LinkedIn and used social media to continue to contact me — sent me various very frightening messages, making it very specific he knew where I was,” she says.

One summer, when she went home to California, he turned up at her parents’ doorstep. She says police found what they call a “rape kit” — rope tied as a slip-noose, gloves, duct-tape, flash light, and a sweatshirt — inside his car.

Taylor’s stalker is currently in jail. His sentence will soon be up….

Her story has garnered national and even some international media attention. To read more about her efforts to protect herself while at college, watch this video (8:58 minutes) from the August 2014 conference for Students for Concealed Carry.

 Some Coverage at Dartmouth

Tell us what you think about universities and colleges allowing students to carry while on campus in the comment section.

SLRule The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives organized and operated for similar purposes. It has 501(C)(3) status, and does not accept donations from gun or ammunition makers or organizations such as the NRA.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (16)

  1. The Supreme Court stated in Heller that the government may keep guns out of “sensitive” places, notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the basic human right of armed self-defense.

    A place is not “sensitive” so as to allow guns to be excluded, unless adequate security is provided so ALL guns are kept out — not just the guns of the law-abiding citizens who forego their right to armed self-defense in those places.

    Ultimately, this problem will resolve itself if people sue if they are harmed in “gun free zones” that are “protected” only by signs, rather than by ACTUAL security.

    1. What about knives, box cutters, etc. and most often hands? Law suits may stir administration into action, after someone is harmed or killed! As someone who has been (is) stalked you have to been there to understand. As one detective explained,” you (speaking to me) have to take care of yourself. Our job is to mob up the blood and fill out the paper work!” There is no way someone else can protect you 24/7!

  2. Sure you can Arm teachers,but why not make the schools a little harder to access by Gun Toting Criminals,Why do we allow our schools to have access where a criminal can just walk in with a AR-15 and take hostages,We have more security at a Football game or concert than we do at a public school,maybe changing this some what would help to keep our kids safer ever hear of a metal detector at entrances where the public has access,How about off site parking only for people other than school employees and buses with secure points for the public to come thru to get on school grounds away from the buildings,Rather than allowing criminals and killers to just walk up and enter our schools armed to the hilt,lets use some common sense here ,And as a last line of defence yes we can arm our teachers.

    1. Smal,
      I wholeheartedly agree. We use far more security to protect things that are far less precious than our children. Apparently the idea of using armed adults and greater physical security to protect schoolchildren is more repellant to the anti-gun crowd than seeing those same children massacred by lunatics bent on mayhem. If we treated schools with the same sanctity that we treat air travel we might actually experience some success in mitigating this problem.

  3. I had a friend that went to my old college, we were talking about weapons and the best way to conceal carry when the subject of no gun zones came up. He made a statement that kind of stuck with me, he said “I would rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6”. The whole purpose of concealed carry is no one is supposed to know you have it, but if you need it you REALLY need it.

  4. We are talking a matter of life and death! If I were this young lady I would damn well arm myself and God forbid she have to use it deal with the aftermath. There is not a damn jury in the world that is going to find her guilty of defending her life from an attack by a sick creep like the one that is stalking her! Better to live and fight than be a forgotten statistic by liberal democrat creeps, who are just as sick for thinking she does not have a right to defend herself. Would these wierdos actually allow their OWN daughter’s to be at such risk?

    1. Agreed. If it was my daughter, she’d be carrying. Period. No one needs to know that she ccw. Shh.

    2. Why would she not carry. If the school finds out, what can they do other than expel her? At least she can defend herself.

  5. Yes, McRuger, understood and appreciated. I am glad that you stood up and spoke up when your employer’s policy made no sense.

  6. The biggest mistake this young lady is making is believing that she needs to seek permission to defend herself from from this very credible threat to her life and safety. My advice to her is to carry a firearm at all times and keep silent about it. It is highly likely that this stalker will go to great lengths to catch her by surprise. It is not a matter of if he will try but when.

    1. I wholeheartedly agree. Carry a concealed firearm. It is your 2nd Amendment Right. Nobody will give a sh#$t when your dead.

  7. Taylor Woolrich: Disarmed Dartmouth Student Describes What It Is Like to be Stalked.

    This is not complicated at all.
    The school is in violation of Taylor’s Constitutional Rights if they do not allow her to carry. The school should be sued for violating her Rights.

    1. Not really, McRuger.

      Dartmouth is not the government, and the 2nd Amendment does not restrict what Dartmouth can do on its own private property. As an owner of private property, Dartmouth has the right to tell people they cannot be armed on the campus. We all know that it is phenomenally STUPID for Dartmouth to do that, but freedom is nothing if it does not include the freedom to make stupid rules for one’s own private property.

      Bobby G. is right – Taylor should just do what she has to do to defend herself and be quiet about it. Even if Dartmouth knew she was armed, the worst thing Dartmouth could do against her for being armed would be to bring a charge against her for trespassing. The state of New Hampshire or the US Attorney also technically might be able to charge her for a violation of a state law prohibiting guns on school property — in which case she COULD assert her 2nd Amendment rights.

      But not only would the 2nd Amendment be a valid defense, the law of “necessity” prohibits conviction of people who commit what would other be a criminal act, if it is a necessity that they commit that act (being armed for self-defense in this case). So, unless Dartmouth or the state of New Hampshire or the federal government wants to foot the bill for a bodyguard for her or otherwise provide adequate security, it is a legitimate necessity for her to provide for her own personal security by exercising her basic human right of armed self-defense. A prosecutor would have to be an idiot to pursue a case against her. New Hampshire is a particularly bad place to take a stupid anti-freedom stance like that.

      Everyone who is ever attacked in a “gun free zone” ought to bring a lawsuit against the owner, because it is negligent to prohibit people from defending themselves adequately unless the owner provides adequate security. The fact that the attack happened proves that the owner failed to provide adequate security. If people would just do that, it would not take long for property owners to figure out that they incur substantially more risk by prohibiting people from defending themselves, than by allowing people to defend themselves.

    2. RESPECTFULLY PeteDub / Bobby G, sometimes passion gets the better of me. If you are advocating that she carry regardless aren’t we all saying the same thing. Darthmouth is denying her the God given right to protect herself. However she can choose not to recognize that violation of her rights, carry anyway and let the chips fall. For several years I worked for the world largest bank. I investigated abandon and foreclosed properties. My employer had a strict policy of no CCW. I cornered a VP at a training meeting and explained to him that it was not uncommon to find squatters, Fresh drug Paraphernalia, tons of booze bottles and even very unhappy former owners in these properties. He was aware of this of course. I told him that I was not going to become a victim and that I am ccw everyday on the job. I told him that the policy needed to be reconsidered because if something happened to an ageny as a result of following the banks policy The agent would likely become a new owner of a large part of the bank. Nothing more was said. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah… No one can deny a person their legitimate right to protect themselves and although I acknowledge there are iffy cases this in not one of them.
      No I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

    3. WRONG. That pesky Second assures that THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, and COMMANDS government, ALL government, to not infringe upon that right. Dartmouth are NOT above the law. They can no more infringe upon her (or my) right to arms than they can prevent me from writing this, or joining the congregation of my choice next Lord’s Day, or “hanging out” with whichever other tudents on campus I feel like. That Second addresses government, not you and I. It states we have the right to arms, then commands government to protect it. That “shall not be infringed” is not telling government they cannot infringe. It COMMANDS government to make certain that right is not infringed.. by an ything or anyone. Their job (government) is to protect and guard our rights.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.