Heartstrings Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 (edited) 5 hours ago, Grace Hopper said: I’m just going to add one more post here to share an item addressing the TMZ article. FYI, this video is from tiktok. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8waudAP/ You can find the same video cross posted to Instagram I for one am shocked that TMZ would sensationalize something for clicks and views. Seriously though, I thought everyone knew TMZ was celebrity GOSSIP publication, not straight shooting journalists. They are a tabloids with a bit more glitz. They’re like 2 steps removed from alien abductions and Elvis sightings. Edited February 17 by Rosie_0801 I don't think the vid is allowed 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 4 minutes ago, Heartstrings said: I for one am shocked that TMZ would sensationalize something for clicks and views. Seriously though, I thought everyone knew TMZ was celebrity GOSSIP publication, not straight shooting journalists. They are a tabloids with a bit more glitz. They’re like 2 steps removed from alien abductions and Elvis sightings. TMZ is actually usually pretty accurate with stories like this. Even mainstream news outlets often cite TMZ when it comes to celebrity news. And there have been no accusations from the Chiefs that I'm aware of that the TMZ reports were inaccurate. But hey, that TikTok video that @Grace Hopper posted was made by some random Swiftie (the woman's description, not mine,) so let's be sure to accept that as the Gospel truth. 🤣 As it turns out, it sounds like several of the players opted NOT to attend the event, so apparently at least some of them had a little respect for their fans and for the victims of the shooting. Good for them! Also, TMZ reported some very positive things today. Patrick Mahomes and his wife visited the hospital today to meet the victims, and they also reported that Taylor Swift donated $100k to the family of the woman who was killed at the parade shooting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 10 minutes ago, Heartstrings said: I for one am shocked that TMZ would sensationalize something for clicks and views. Seriously though, I thought everyone knew TMZ was celebrity GOSSIP publication, not straight shooting journalists. They are a tabloids with a bit more glitz. They’re like 2 steps removed from alien abductions and Elvis sightings. So they faked the picture of Kelce? Bc that’s all I needed to see to know he was pulling a d-ck move. As was anyone else who attended. How hard would it have been FOR ANYONE FROM THE KCC ORG who attended to err on the side kindness and sensitivity and compassion and reschedule the get together? Not hard at all. Many of them could have afforded to pay for the party…and have the food donated somewhere else. Shelter. Hospital. Firehouse. Police station. Anywhere… Then the restaurant gets their money, people who might need a meal get fed and the people who attended don’t look like shallow d-bags. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHP Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 57 minutes ago, pinball said: If the people providing security to the church shot the little boy, it was an accident but the fault of it lies with the person who brought him into the church and started shooting. Everyone can make all the cutesy little jokes they want (and it’s disgusting) but it’s the fault of the criminal, not the security. It is 100% the fault of the person who pulled the trigger for not ensuring an accurate and clean shot and being aware of people near and behind their target. If they didn't have a clean shot they they should not have pulled the trigger. Training is needed. 5 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faith-manor Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 6 minutes ago, SHP said: It is 100% the fault of the person who pulled the trigger for not ensuring an accurate and clean shot and being aware of people near and behind their target. If they didn't have a clean shot they they should not have pulled the trigger. Training is needed. This. If the "good guys with guns" buy the guns, carry the guns, and shoot the guns, then it sucks to be them when they eff up. This was a major eff up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartstrings Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 24 minutes ago, pinball said: So they faked the picture of Kelce? Bc that’s all I needed to see to know he was pulling a d-ck move. As was anyone else who attended. How hard would it have been FOR ANYONE FROM THE KCC ORG who attended to err on the side kindness and sensitivity and compassion and reschedule the get together? Not hard at all. Many of them could have afforded to pay for the party…and have the food donated somewhere else. Shelter. Hospital. Firehouse. Police station. Anywhere… Then the restaurant gets their money, people who might need a meal get fed and the people who attended don’t look like shallow d-bags. I’m not going to argue about the definition of sensationalized. TMZ absolutely portrayed a team dinner out as a night of partying, which are activities with 2 very different connotations. No where did anyone suggest anything was faked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 minutes ago, Heartstrings said: I’m not going to argue about the definition of sensationalized. TMZ absolutely portrayed a team dinner out as a night of partying, which are activities with 2 very different connotations. No where did anyone suggest anything was faked. Right. The picture is legit and that’s says enough in and of itself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartstrings Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 minute ago, pinball said: Right. The picture is legit and that’s says enough in and of itself. Right, the well know “no selfies with a cop for 24 hours if you are within 100 yards of a shooting” rule. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 7 minutes ago, Heartstrings said: Right, the well know “no selfies with a cop for 24 hours if you are within 100 yards of a shooting” rule. No, it’s “don’t go out to a public celebration dinner a couple hours after people got shot and killed at a parade in your honor.” 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 11 minutes ago, pinball said: No, it’s “don’t go out to a public celebration dinner a couple hours after people got shot and killed at a parade in your honor.” And don’t forget that he was laughing and carrying an open bottle of beer on the sidewalk, so he had obviously been drinking even before he got inside the restaurant. Zero respect for the crowd of fans who were terrified at that parade. But hey, he’s gotta keep celebrating that Superbowl win, right? Why let a dead victim and other injured fans (including children) put a damper on the fun? Sickening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 hours ago, pinball said: If the people providing security to the church shot the little boy, it was an accident but the fault of it lies with the person who brought him into the church and started shooting. Everyone can make all the cutesy little jokes they want (and it’s disgusting) but it’s the fault of the criminal, not the security. I don’t have a gun, so I realize I can be wrong. Aren’t you supposed to aim at something before you fire a weapon? Did security aim at the five year old or did they fail to aim properly? Or, alternatively, aiming isn’t a thing & I watch too much tv. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 hours ago, pinball said: If the people providing security to the church shot the little boy, it was an accident but the fault of it lies with the person who brought him into the church and started shooting. Everyone can make all the cutesy little jokes they want (and it’s disgusting) but it’s the fault of the criminal, not the security. Nope. Try again. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSera Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 hours ago, pinball said: If the people providing security to the church shot the little boy, it was an accident but the fault of it lies with the person who brought him into the church and started shooting. Everyone can make all the cutesy little jokes they want (and it’s disgusting) but it’s the fault of the criminal, not the security. Things can be more than one thing at a time. The whole thing is absolutely the fault of the criminal and there’s something seriously wrong with people who would rather have the “accident“ of a little boy being shot in the head than pass laws to make it difficult for people like this to buy guns. Criminals are going to do wrong things, and I absolutely also hold partly responsible politicians who purposely decide not to make it harder for criminals to do so because it’s more politically profitable for them. I don’t know why some people are more outraged about where some football players went after a shooting than they are about a little boy being “accidentally” shot in the head. A couple of you are also completely missing the point about the TMZ thing. The point isn’t that it’s faked or that it didn’t happen, it’s that who cares so much about this particular part of the story? It can be totally classless and tone deaf for football players to go out to eat after a tragic event like this, and still not have it be an important talking point of the story. Why does anyone care that much? Why would TMZ be the place to look for relevant news about this event? 6 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarita Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 11 minutes ago, TechWife said: I don’t have a gun, so I realize I can be wrong. Aren’t you supposed to aim at something before you fire a weapon? Did security aim at the five year old or did they fail to aim properly? Or, alternatively, aiming isn’t a thing & I watch too much tv. I believe hitting an intended target is harder than Hollywood would have you believe. So a lot of times people aim and miss. (It's what I've heard anyway.) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 5 minutes ago, Clarita said: I believe hitting an intended target is harder than Hollywood would have you believe. So a lot of times people aim and miss. (It's what I've heard anyway.) Yes, and this was a totally unexpected emergency situation with an active shooter who could have killed dozens of people (or more) had those two off-duty officers not taken action. It is horrible that the shooter’s son was shot. Horrible! But the shooter is the one I ultimately hold responsible for her son being so tragically wounded. She intentionally brought him into that church, knowing she was going to shoot people. Who knows — she may have figured that no one would shoot back because of her son, so she could shoot as many people as she wanted to. Had the officers done nothing or been slow to act, everyone here would have called them cowards. It was an awful, no-win situation. Has it been established for sure that the woman didn’t shoot her own son? Initially at least, there was some question about that. It seems most likely that one of the two officers was responsible, but I don’t know for sure. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faith-manor Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 12 minutes ago, Clarita said: I believe hitting an intended target is harder than Hollywood would have you believe. So a lot of times people aim and miss. (It's what I've heard anyway.) On a moving targets the FBI - far more weapons training than State Police and Sheriff and have higher standards for weapons certification - average hitting the peep 38% of the time. In an active shooter situation, the 2022 statistics for police was 20% of fired rounds hit their intended target. God only knows where the other 80% went. 4 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 29 minutes ago, KSera said: Things can be more than one thing at a time Yes, people can be simultaneously ignorant and stupid, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 On 2/14/2024 at 9:00 PM, Catwoman said: This isn't about protest. This is about a total lack of feeling for the dead and injured. Innocent people who were at that parade to celebrate Travis Kelce and his team's victory. It is sickening that he would be smiling for the cameras and carrying his beer into a bar/restaurant as though nothing has happened. Idk how him going out to dinner after an incident he had no part in is any different than people who live in KC going out to dinner and posting pics of their food on IG or watching TMZ clips together on their phones. For every person who wants to light a candle and publicly cry on the street about it - there’s a very large number of others who have accepted this is just life now. Another day, another shooting, and the living still going about living as best they can. And that’s not entirely bad. Don’t let the bastards keep you down isn’t an all wrong approach to tragedy. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHP Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 (edited) I don't think that specific football player was the only person in Kansas City drunk and/or drinking that night. Just saying. Edited February 16 by SHP 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 hours ago, pinball said: If the people providing security to the church shot the little boy, it was an accident but the fault of it lies with the person who brought him into the church and started shooting. Everyone can make all the cutesy little jokes they want (and it’s disgusting) but it’s the fault of the criminal, not the security. Actually I disagree. A general rule of guns is to never ever open fire in a crowd for a reason - the chances of hitting someone other than the target is higher than hitting the target. This is very very well documented fact. Security shouldn’t have even pulled their weapon. The goal should have been to get everyone to safety as fast as possible. Life is not as seen on tv. Every person who pulls the trigger on a gun is responsible for pulling that trigger and the results of who it hits. Security and cops and random citizens included. 8 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHP Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 9 minutes ago, Murphy101 said: Actually I disagree. A general rule of guns is to never ever open fire in a crowd for a reason - the chances of hitting someone other than the target is higher than hitting the target. This is very very well documented fact. Security shouldn’t have even pulled their weapon. The goal should have been to get everyone to safety as fast as possible. Life is not as seen on tv. Every person who pulls the trigger on a gun is responsible for pulling that trigger and the results of who it hits. Security and cops and random citizens included. Nailed it. There is a reason none of the 800+ LEO's, including the snipers, tried to shoot the shooters. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 17 minutes ago, Catwoman said: Had the officers done nothing or been slow to act, everyone here would have called them cowards. It was an awful, no-win situation. The second that woman got a gun it was a no-win situation. But that’s a lie that I would call anyone a coward just bc they don’t shoot someone else. Even if it meant other lives. A person who pulls the trigger on a gun is responsible for where that bullet hits. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think security is some horrible person. I can imagine (bc I am indeed imaginative) that in a tv like moment of a shooter holding a gun to a kid and about the pull the trigger. Maybe someone having either way too much confidence or just panicking and try to hit the target and god help them, they end up hitting the kid themselves. They show that crap on tv but the truth is most well-trained people stand down and wait for better odds in that situation exactly bc they don’t want to risk living with the odds of hitting an innocent person, absolutely not a kid. 17 minutes ago, Catwoman said: Has it been established for sure that the woman didn’t shoot her own son? Initially at least, there was some question about that. It seems most likely that one of the two officers was responsible, but I don’t know for sure. I sincerely hope she did. Because it will or should be a brutal thing to live with that I wouldn’t wish on anyone else. The suicide rate of heroes is high for a reason. Even when they do things right and it goes as well as it could and nothing is their fault - there is a toll. But all that aside. This is all wasted time in distraction and why nothing ever changes. The problem is gun/ammo access. 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkibelle Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/news/2024/02/15/democrats-gun-laws-parade-shooting Travis Kelce? Really? I’m supposed to clutch my pearls about how he may or may not have acted later that night? This is some bullsh*t that the state Senate Majority Leader had to say “…we live in a free society, so there’s only so much you can do to ensure safety.” Here in my state, politicians tried nothing and since that didn’t work they’ve decided shrugging their shoulders and loosening regulations is all they can do. 7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSera Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 hour ago, Catwoman said: But the shooter is the one I ultimately hold responsible for her son being so tragically wounded. She intentionally brought him into that church, knowing she was going to shoot people. No one has disagreed that the shooter bears responsibility. It’s simultaneously true that this was made possible by her being able to purchase the gun. Do you think with her history, she should have been allowed to buy that gun in December? Do you support red flag laws? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 3 minutes ago, KSera said: No one has disagreed that the shooter bears responsibility. It’s simultaneously true that this was made possible by her being able to purchase the gun. Do you think with her history, she should have been allowed to buy that gun in December? Do you support red flag laws? Of course I agree with you that she shouldn’t have been allowed to buy that gun. I come from a state with very strict gun laws and I like it that way! It has been horrifying to learn that there are states where children are allowed to carry guns. It’s bad enough that any random adult seems to be able to carry guns pretty much wherever they want to carry them, but I had no idea that children were allowed, too! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) It’s almost like we live in a country where anyone can be irrationally and even publicly violent. Like a baller could get aggressive with his coach on a live broadcast game and it’s okay/shrugged off bc of stress or adrenaline or whatever BS or bc it’s different bc the coach has known their family and him for years and they are close. Or like some random could have a problem with their life or whatever but well they must be mentally ill or just a loser/jerk or idk what all BS but well what can we do bc stranger just be strange sometimes.🤷♀️ oh wait. It isn’t almost. It is like that. It’s a free for all out there people. We have had more mass shootings than days in the year so far. Pray hard. Voter harder. Edited February 17 by Murphy101 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, Catwoman said: Yes, and this was a totally unexpected emergency situation with an active shooter who could have killed dozens of people (or more) had those two off-duty officers not taken action. It is horrible that the shooter’s son was shot. Horrible! But the shooter is the one I ultimately hold responsible for her son being so tragically wounded. She intentionally brought him into that church, knowing she was going to shoot people. Who knows — she may have figured that no one would shoot back because of her son, so she could shoot as many people as she wanted to. Had the officers done nothing or been slow to act, everyone here would have called them cowards. It was an awful, no-win situation. Has it been established for sure that the woman didn’t shoot her own son? Initially at least, there was some question about that. It seems most likely that one of the two officers was responsible, but I don’t know for sure. I hold the government leaders ultimately responsible. There should be rigorous background checks, extensive training, and massive liability insurance requirements to purchase and own any firearms, along with stringent storage laws once you do own them. There should also be limitations on type of firearm and ammo available to citizens to purchase. As for 2A, I'm fine with randos owning the exact firarms and ammo that was available at the time of the 1st writing of it. 🤷🏻♀️ Nobody at the church, parade, mall, grocery store, movie theatre, concert, backyard BBQ... should be carrying any weapons, and especially not high capacity ammo weapons. Edited February 17 by fraidycat 6 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 13 hours ago, SHP said: It is 100% the fault of the person who pulled the trigger for not ensuring an accurate and clean shot and being aware of people near and behind their target. If they didn't have a clean shot they they should not have pulled the trigger. Training is needed. 13 hours ago, Faith-manor said: This. If the "good guys with guns" buy the guns, carry the guns, and shoot the guns, then it sucks to be them when they eff up. This was a major eff up. 12 hours ago, fraidycat said: Nope. Try again. 12 hours ago, Murphy101 said: Actually I disagree. A general rule of guns is to never ever open fire in a crowd for a reason - the chances of hitting someone other than the target is higher than hitting the target. This is very very well documented fact. Security shouldn’t have even pulled their weapon. The goal should have been to get everyone to safety as fast as possible. Life is not as seen on tv. Every person who pulls the trigger on a gun is responsible for pulling that trigger and the results of who it hits. Security and cops and random citizens included. 11 hours ago, KSera said: No one has disagreed that the shooter bears responsibility. It’s simultaneously true that this was made possible by her being able to purchase the gun. Do you think with her history, she should have been allowed to buy that gun in December? Do you support red flag laws? All the quoted posts above yours have indicated that the shooter does not bear responsibility for her own son being shot. So all these people, including the people who liked them, has disagreed the shooter bears responsibility. Considering that YOU liked some of them…YOU have indicated that you disagree the shooter is responsible for her son being shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 11 hours ago, Catwoman said: Of course I agree with you that she shouldn’t have been allowed to buy that gun. I come from a state with very strict gun laws and I like it that way! There is a whole list of people who are not allowed to possess a firearm in Texas. That includes: felons, fugitives from justice, if you’re under indictment for a crime punishable by 1 year in jail, convicted of misdemeanor DV, if you’ve been committed to a mental institution, illegal alien or in US under non-immigrant visa. There has been a list of issues with the church shooter in the media. Base on reporting, it looks like already she fell under 1 or more of these categories of where it was illegal for her to possess a firearm. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 11 hours ago, Murphy101 said: Like a baller could get aggressive with his coach on a live broadcast game and it’s okay/shrugged off Oh like all the people who did that in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 13 hours ago, SHP said: Nailed it. There is a reason none of the 800+ LEO's, including the snipers, tried to shoot the shooters. 800 officers in an outdoor situation, with approximately 1 million people spread out over a 2 mile parade route Which officer had an opportunity to do something while the shooting was active? vs 2 security within a few yards of 1 active shooter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faith-manor Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Hey Pinball, way to put words in other people's mouths! I never, not once EVER on this thread said that the mother who took her child to a mass murder bears no responsibility! My freaking, gosh. It just simply goes without saying. BUT you made it known you do not think that those who returned fire have any responsibility for where those bullets go, for pulling the trigger. That is NOT the case. Not legally, not morally. Not ever. They have responsibility too. And you know I never said that the mother has no culpability here. Go ask military personnel about using guns. They have EXTREME burden of responsibility for where their bullets land. Talk to some JAG lawyers about that. Own the gun, own the ammo? You also own the liability. What's that saying? "With great power, comes great responsibility." 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 25 minutes ago, Faith-manor said: Hey Pinball, way to put words in other people's mouths! I never, not once EVER on this thread said that the mother who took her child to a mass murder bears no responsibility! My freaking, gosh. It just simply goes without saying. BUT you made it known you do not think that those who returned fire have any responsibility for where those bullets go, for pulling the trigger. That is NOT the case. Not legally, not morally. Not ever. They have responsibility too. And you know I never said that the mother has no culpability here. Go ask military personnel about using guns. They have EXTREME burden of responsibility for where their bullets land. Talk to some JAG lawyers about that. Own the gun, own the ammo? You also own the liability. What's that saying? "With great power, comes great responsibility." You agreed with the who wrote it is 100% the fault of the person who pulled the trigger. You quoted that and wrote “This” and then expounded further about how it was a “major eff up” So if you say it’s 100% the fault of the security, what percentage is left for the mother? Given what has been reported so far, I absolutely think it is 100% the mother’s fault. Security was acting in defense of others. Legally, they will most likely be fine in Texas. Their law allows deadly force in defense of others. Morally, the defense of others is also justified. As for JAG/military, etc…how’s your American cousin (or nephew or whoever it was) who went to go fight in Ukraine? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 2 hours ago, pinball said: There is a whole list of people who are not allowed to possess a firearm in Texas. That includes: felons, fugitives from justice, if you’re under indictment for a crime punishable by 1 year in jail, convicted of misdemeanor DV, if you’ve been committed to a mental institution, illegal alien or in US under non-immigrant visa. There has been a list of issues with the church shooter in the media. Base on reporting, it looks like already she fell under 1 or more of these categories of where it was illegal for her to possess a firearm. I didn’t know any specifics about Texas gun laws, so thanks for that info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeAgain Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 hour ago, Faith-manor said: Hey Pinball, way to put words in other people's mouths! I never, not once EVER on this thread said that the mother who took her child to a mass murder bears no responsibility! My freaking, gosh. It just simply goes without saying. BUT you made it known you do not think that those who returned fire have any responsibility for where those bullets go, for pulling the trigger. That is NOT the case. Not legally, not morally. Not ever. They have responsibility too. And you know I never said that the mother has no culpability here. Go ask military personnel about using guns. They have EXTREME burden of responsibility for where their bullets land. Talk to some JAG lawyers about that. Own the gun, own the ammo? You also own the liability. What's that saying? "With great power, comes great responsibility." This brings to mind the police officer who "returned fire" after an acorn hit a patrol car. His lack of responsibility and aimless shooting brought his training into clarity. Moreso, that there was none and he didn't think he should be held liable for his capabilities under duress. This is why military receive so much training and emphasis on when to shoot and how to take down an armed combatant in different ways. The liability for a general service member is a thousand times greater than the general public AND general police officers. The general public (and police) are not "a well regulated militia" and choose laws that benefit their lack of capability and liability. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, pinball said: You agreed with the who wrote it is 100% the fault of the person who pulled the trigger. You quoted that and wrote “This” and then expounded further about how it was a “major eff up” So if you say it’s 100% the fault of the security, what percentage is left for the mother? Given what has been reported so far, I absolutely think it is 100% the mother’s fault. Security was acting in defense of others. Legally, they will most likely be fine in Texas. Their law allows deadly force in defense of others. Morally, the defense of others is also justified. As for JAG/military, etc…how’s your American cousin (or nephew or whoever it was) who went to go fight in Ukraine? A few people seem to be completely disregarding the fact that those two men who returned fire probably saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives. Edited February 17 by Catwoman My phone autocorrect keeps adding commas in weird places! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSera Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 36 minutes ago, Catwoman said: I didn’t know any specifics about Texas gun laws, so thanks for that info. Police have said it’s likely she was legally allowed to purchase that gun in December. Her convictions—including her recent gun-related conviction in 2022–were misdemeanors, which did not disqualify her. The mental health crisis which brought her into emergency custody in 2016 does not appear to have gone as far as reaching the point in the process where she would have been considered formally committed, which is the requirement for it to affect gun purchasing. What Texas is lacking (in addition to other things) is red flag laws, which would have allowed all the unstable behaviors she was exhibiting to be reported by family and bar her from gun purchasing or ownership. Twice in the last five years red flag laws have been attempted in Texas, but they have failed both times. The gun restrictions Texas does have are primarily the federal ones they are required to follow. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 I'm more concerned with statements by our state officials rather than the actions of any football player. They went out to eat, they drank. SO WHAT? I bet a lot of people in KC had a drink after that event. I bet a lot of people went out to eat before heading home. I bet a lot of people were still in shock after that. Do we know the topic of conversation? Do we know that they weren't discussing how to handle this a team? Perhaps sharing the same feeling of hopelessness about what to do about the shootings. He took a picture with a police officer. A representative of the same force that also had dealt with the shooting incident. Are we criticizing the officer for asking for a selfie? No. Nor should we. We're critizing Kelce because he went out to dinner and he smiled in a photo. 8 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkibelle Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 2 hours ago, Catwoman said: A few people seem to be completely disregarding the fact that those two men who returned fire probably saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives. Someone with no business owning a gun was easily able to purchase one because freedom. So yeah, “just be grateful more people weren’t murdered” is easy to disregard. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHP Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 3 hours ago, pinball said: 800 officers in an outdoor situation, with approximately 1 million people spread out over a 2 mile parade route Which officer had an opportunity to do something while the shooting was active? vs 2 security within a few yards of 1 active shooter I am not actually sure what your point is. There could have been a 1:1 ratio and they wouldn't have been able to prevent this. They key word is prevent. Same ratio and they couldn't have stopped him mid shooting either. The shooter was in the middle of a crowd. LEO wouldn't have had the time to react pull their gun, find the shooter, aim, ensure they had a clean shot, and take it. The shooting took seconds and what followed was people running in all directions. No trained LEO would have dared to try and shoot the shooter in that situation, the risk to innocent bystanders was too great and would have resulted in more casualties and possibly deaths. I guess if your intention is to show how badly needed intense training for firearm safety is then you have succeeded. Never shoot into a crowd is usually pretty high up there in training. Timeline with sounds of gunfire that shows how fast it was. Video shows how densely packed the area was. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinball Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 3 minutes ago, SHP said: am not actually sure what your point is My point was it’s ridiculous for you to compare the 2 situations and come to the conclusion that bc 800+ LEO didn’t shoot at the parade, then security shouldn’t have shot the woman at the church. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHP Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 2 hours ago, Catwoman said: A few people seem to be completely disregarding the fact that those two men who returned fire probably saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives. No, not ignoring it. What is the appropriate number of innocent bystanders that can be shot before you no longer view it as acceptable? Just the child because his mother was the shooter? What if it hadn't been her child and had been someone else? Is that still OK? What if the positioning had been different and those who stopped her had also, accidentally, shot into a crowded sanctuary? Serious question. There are consequences for pulling the trigger of a gun and every single person needs to be held accountable for every single bullet they fire. No one gets a pass. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 I don't know who shot the little kid. Obviously it was a horrific event, especially for the shooter if the shooter is still alive. It is horrible that the mass shooter used a child as a shield. This of course was for the purpose of being able to kill as many of other people's children as possible. Which unfortunately would have been the result had some off-duty cops not shot back. Prayers for the people who were in a situation requiring them to shoot back. Prayers for the child. At this point I don't even know if the child survived, but either way, what a horrific situation for that child and every other child who was present. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHP Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 14 minutes ago, pinball said: My point was it’s ridiculous for you to compare the 2 situations and come to the conclusion that bc 800+ LEO didn’t shoot at the parade, then security shouldn’t have shot the woman at the church. My point was that there is a reason that the 800+ Leo's, including snipers on top of Union Station did not shoot was because they wouldn't have been able to do so safely. Again, when taking a shot you have to be aware of your surroundings, what is near and behind your target. It wouldn't have been possible for a 1:1 ratio to stop the shooter at Union Station, there wasn't the time or the opportunity to take a clear shot. Had any LEO taken a shot they would have had a greater chance of hitting innocent bystanders. Knowing when not to shoot is as important as knowing how to shoot. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, SHP said: My point was that there is a reason that the 800+ Leo's, including snipers on top of Union Station did not shoot was because they wouldn't have been able to do so safely. Again, when taking a shot you have to be aware of your surroundings, what is near and behind your target. It wouldn't have been possible for a 1:1 ratio to stop the shooter at Union Station, there wasn't the time or the opportunity to take a clear shot. Had any LEO taken a shot they would have had a greater chance of hitting innocent bystanders. Knowing when not to shoot is as important as knowing how to shoot. I don't know how long the gunfire lasted at the parade, but if it was indeed a private dispute, I assume that by the time anyone had a chance to draw a gun and aim, it was pretty much over. Unlike the church situation where the shooter was going to keep shooting until everyone was dead, if nobody stopped her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 6 hours ago, pinball said: All the quoted posts above yours have indicated that the shooter does not bear responsibility for her own son being shot. Actually I started my response stating that the day the shooter got a gun this was a no-win situation. But the bottom line is that she is not the one who shot her son. That wasn’t her bullet. She is responsible for what she did. The security officer that shot her son is responsible for what he did. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and reactions. 6 hours ago, pinball said: So all these people, including the people who liked them, has disagreed the shooter bears responsibility. bullshirt. I repeat: Anyone who pulls a trigger is responsible for where that bullet hits. People are responsible for their own actions. 6 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vintage81 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Murphy101 said: Actually I started my response stating that the day the shooter got a gun this was a no-win situation. But the bottom line is that she is not the one who shot her son. That wasn’t her bullet. She is responsible for what she did. The security officer that shot her son is responsible for what he did. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and reactions. I don’t believe the police have confirmed who shot the boy…his mother or the off-duty officers. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/houston/2024/02/16/477813/lakewood-church-shooters-7-year-old-son-loses-part-of-his-brain-according-to-grandmother/ “Investigating authorities had not publicly specified as of Friday whether Moreno-Carranza was shot by his mother or one of the off-duty officers who were firing at her.” Edited February 17 by Vintage81 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 3 hours ago, pinball said: Security was acting in defense of others. Legally, they will most likely be fine in Texas. Their law allows deadly force in defense of others. Morally, the defense of others is also justified. Since when is okay to justify shooting a terrified boy who needed help as defense of others? It wasn’t justified. Idk that the man should go to prison for panicking but he shouldn’t be praised for this. Maybe more would have died is just that. A maybe. Would could maybe all day. But the fact is if the security guard had not fired - he would not have shot that boy. Maybe the mom would have. And then that dead baby would be on her. Maybe if he waited for a better chance he would have had a clearer shot. Maybe maybe maybe. But facts are the odds of his bullet not killing an innocent person in that scenario were extremely low. That’s a fact that we should not and cannot ignore for the sake of using a BS maybe/what if to justify how he used his gun so we can feel better about it. I wonder if everyone would think this was justified if it had not been the shooter’s son and some other random bystander’s son instead. Somehow I bet the conversation would be different if the child shot had a mother to grieve him that this security officer had to face afterwards. We cannot control others’ actions. But that doesn’t absolve us of responsibility for how we react to them. We are responsible for our actions. All of us. Everyone who owns a gun is responsible for who their bullets hit. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Vintage81 said: I don’t believe the police have confirmed who shot the boy…his mother or the off-duty officers. The only reason police won't confirm that security shot the child is because they know it looks bad that security shot a child. If the mother had shot her child in the head with an assault rifle at point blank range, he would be in the morgue, not the hospital. Also, an important fact that no one is mentioning is that the shooter was in a hallway, not in an open area full of people. The police have also not confirmed how the one other casualty, a man who was shot in the leg, was injured so it's quite possible that the only two people who were injured, other than Moreno, were both shot by security, not Moreno. Edited February 17 by Corraleno 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 6 minutes ago, Vintage81 said: I don’t believe the police have confirmed who shot the boy…his mother or the off-duty officers. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/houston/2024/02/16/477813/lakewood-church-shooters-7-year-old-son-loses-part-of-his-brain-according-to-grandmother/ “Investigating authorities had not publicly specified as of Friday whether Moreno-Carranza was shot by his mother or one of the off-duty officers who were firing at her.” And that’s fine by me. I have also said I really hope it’s all wrong and it wasn’t his bullet that killed that boy. But if we are going to be talking maybe/if all day long. Maybe if he did - then that bullet is his responsibility. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.