Shooting near KC Chief's parade

[Heartstrings]

4 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.”

 

The police know which bullet it was, the guns used were very different, they’ve already marked out the angles.  They know.  If it was the mother’s bullet they would be shouting that from the rooftops.  That they are still not releasing the information makes it pretty clear that they are protecting the security people by giving them plausible deniability.  They will most likely never officially release whose bullet killed the child.  This is unlikely to ever go to court, they just have to wait a week or so before the next shooting causes everyone to move on.  

I’m not saying that I think it’s necessarily bad to protect them from that information getting out.  I think that’s a complicated issue.  

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

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.

I think it’s relevant to point out that in the KC shooting it was unarmed bystanders that took the shooter down. An armed assailant does not necessitate an armed response.  An unarmed response was an option in that church that day.  Guns were the go to because they were available.   Tables, chairs or tackling (which was used in KC) were options.  Which options could or should have been used is unknowable.  

[Murphy101]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

The police know which bullet it was, the guns used were very different, they’ve already marked out the angles.  They know.  If it was the mother’s bullet they would be shouting that from the rooftops.  That they are still not releasing the information makes it pretty clear that they are protecting the security people by giving them plausible deniability.  They will most likely never officially release whose bullet killed the child.  This is unlikely to ever go to court, they just have to wait a week or so before the next shooting causes everyone to move on.  

I’m not saying that I think it’s necessarily bad to protect them from that information getting out.  I think that’s a complicated issue.  

This is my stance too. I’d like to be wrong. No snark at all, very sincere in that. But there’s no way they don’t know already. 

I think they should protect the officer bc he is a person but they should absolutely not hide this. The last thing we need these days is for everyone with a gun to think this was a smart brave thing to do. It isn’t. In a hallway full of panicked innocent people, the odds of not killing an innocent person are very low.

There’s no way we are going a whole week without another shooting.  At this point, going a whole week without a shooting would be bigger unusual news than having a shooting is.

 

[Vintage81]

2 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

The police know which bullet it was, the guns used were very different, they’ve already marked out the angles.  They know.  If it was the mother’s bullet they would be shouting that from the rooftops.  That they are still not releasing the information makes it pretty clear that they are protecting the security people by giving them plausible deniability.  They will most likely never officially release whose bullet killed the child.  This is unlikely to ever go to court, they just have to wait a week or so before the next shooting causes everyone to move on.  

I’m not saying that I think it’s necessarily bad to protect them from that information getting out.  I think that’s a complicated issue.  

I’m not disagreeing that they know, based on bullet types, etc. I was simply clarifying that the info has not yet been released publicly. I think it’s a very high probability that the off-duty officers are the ones who shot the boy, but how it happened is unclear until they release more information. (If they do.) I agree it’s a complicated issue. 

[Murphy101]

It isn’t complicated.  People want to distract from the issue at hand by saying is complicated and they feel bad for him. 

In a crowded hallway of panicked people the odds are very low that adding another gun to the scenario is going to not end up in another dead/injured innocent person. That is not complicated. It isn’t.

What needs to happen is to highlight the ever-lovin hell out of that fact. It should be a part of gun laws that training is a must. Give them a 2-3 dozen moving practice targets some innocent and one that looks like all the others but in a split second they have to decide whether it’s a clear shot of not.  Do a mock up of where everyone was and how they were moving and bring in an expert shooter to see if they could make the shot and how often out of 10 it would be accurate.  Then have those who aren’t experts try it.

People need to stop thinking real life is like tv dammit.

While I have compassion for his mistake, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have responsibility. I don’t think the officer should be put in prison but there should be an investigation and judgement on him for this.  He should be accountable for his gun use and any damage his trigger pull causes.  ANYONE who cannot be held accountable for their gun use - should not have a gun or shouldn’t ever have one again. (Tho honestly, if I would think if someone accidentally shot a kid, they wouldn’t ever touch a gun again without feeling like throwing up anyways.)

[Murphy101]

17 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think it’s relevant to point out that in the KC shooting it was unarmed bystanders that took the shooter down. An armed assailant does not necessitate an armed response.  An unarmed response was an option in that church that day.  Guns were the go to because they were available.   Tables, chairs or tackling (which was used in KC) were options.  Which options could or should have been used is unknowable.  

Absolutely.  Most times the best way to save the most lives is to not add more guns. 

[Corraleno]

The fact that the child was even put in that situation represents another failure of the system. The grandmother repeatedly begged CPS to intervene, telling them that Moreno was seriously mentally ill and off her meds, that she had unsecured guns lying around the house where the child could get them, she was threatening to kill her ex-husband and had pulled a gun on him in front of the child, etc., and CPS just shrugged and said there was nothing they could do until Moreno actually shot someone or the child was injured. 

God forbid anyone actually do something to try to prevent a tragedy from happening, instead of just letting it happen — and then exploiting it for political gain. Politicians stand around making sad faces and offering thoughts and prayers, and then a week later they're taking donations from the NRA and purposely stirring up fears that "those other guys" wanna take away your guns — guns that you need to protect yourselves from crazy people whose guns we refused to take away.

Why would politicians want to do anything to stop mass shootings, if keeping people angry and frightened keeps them in power?

[Corraleno]

25 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

It isn’t complicated.  People want to distract from the issue at hand by saying is complicated and they feel bad for him. 

In a crowded hallway of panicked people the odds are very low that adding another gun to the scenario is going to not end up in another dead/injured innocent person. That is not complicated. It isn’t.

What needs to happen is to highlight the ever-lovin hell out of that fact. It should be a part of gun laws that training is a must. Give them a 2-3 dozen moving practice targets some innocent and one that looks like all the others but in a split second they have to decide whether it’s a clear shot of not.  Do a mock up of where everyone was and how they were moving and bring in an expert shooter to see if they could make the shot and how often out of 10 it would be accurate.  Then have those who aren’t experts try it.

People need to stop thinking real life is like tv dammit.

While I have compassion for his mistake, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have responsibility. I don’t think the officer should be put in prison but there should be an investigation and judgement on him for this.  He should be accountable for his gun use and any damage his trigger pull causes.  ANYONE who cannot be held accountable for their gun use - should not have a gun or shouldn’t ever have one again. (Tho honestly, if I would think if someone accidentally shot a kid, they wouldn’t ever touch a gun again without feeling like throwing up anyways.)

I agree with this except for the part about a crowded hallway. This happened between services and I haven't seen any reports indicating the hallway was crowded; I think the fact that the only people injured were Moreno and her son, plus one other guy who was shot in the leg, suggests that the hallway was not crowded when she started shooting — if she'd been spraying a crowded hallway with an assault rifle, there would have been a lot more casualties.

To me that makes it even worse that the security guys shot the child, because they should have been able to get a much safer shot that avoided hitting a 7 year old in the head. (And for all we know, the other victim may have been caught in police crossfire as well.) It seems likely that they heard shots and went into panic mode and just started shooting without really assessing the situation or making sure the child was safe.

[SHP]

56 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

ANYONE who cannot be held accountable for their gun use - should not have a gun or shouldn’t ever have one again.

QFT

[SHP]

5 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.

 

My understanding of the law is that it means they could use deadly force againat the person who was a threat to others, not that they could use deadly force against innocent bystanders who posed no threat to others. 

[TechWife]

5 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. 

There’s no way to know that. It’s also possible someone could have tackled her. It worked in KC. 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

 

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.

 

We actually have no way of knowing that. Maybe that’s true. Or maybe she was seeking suicide by cop and the man shot in the leg would’ve been the only casualty. We don’t even know how much ammunition she had. I don’t think we can say that we know if even a single other child would have died without the cop having shot her child. Maybe they would have and maybe not. But I do think it’s likely there could’ve been a result where she was stopped without the child being shot.

My bigger issue is still that there was no way to stop her from purchasing this gun anyway.  And allowing schizophrenic abusive people to buy powerful weapons is going to cause problems no matter how many security guards with guns you have.

”In Dayton, Ohio, in 2019, an attacker shot 26 people and killed nine outside a downtown bar in the 32 seconds before a police officer on duty shot the attacker.” (just one example taken from article link below)

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

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.

 

I have wondered this as well. What is the acceptable number of  children to accidentally shoot while trying to stop the actual shooter? Had it been three children of parishioners killed, would that still have been acceptable, or is there a line somewhere?

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

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.

Knowing the weapons involved, this has unfortunately been my same thought about the child. I’m not ruling out therecould’ve been some strange circumstance such as the AR15 round just grazing him or something that could have allowed him to survive, but otherwise it’s just doesn’t seem very feasible.

Reports I have read have indicated today that the man shot in the leg was shot by the woman.

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

I think it’s relevant to point out that in the KC shooting it was unarmed bystanders that took the shooter down. An armed assailant does not necessitate an armed response.  An unarmed response was an option in that church that day.  Guns were the go to because they were available.   Tables, chairs or tackling (which was used in KC) were options.  Which options could or should have been used is unknowable.  

Exactly.  There have been a number of studies on how active shooting events usually end. A bystander shooting the assailant is fairly rare in the realm of things. When the shooter is stopped by bystanders, it has most often been with means other than a gun. In some of the cases where it has been by a bystander with a gun, other innocent people have been shot in the process. In some cases it’s been the “good guy with a gun” shot by police  when they arrived, as I mentioned was a concern I had for the Kansas City woman who retrieved the shooter’s gun. Gift link to a NYT piece on this topic:

Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?

37 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Politicians stand around making sad faces and offering thoughts and prayers, and then a week later they're taking donations from the NRA and purposely stirring up fears that "those other guys" wanna take away your guns — guns that you need to protect yourselves from crazy people whose guns we refused to take away.

💯 Truth. 

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

My bigger issue is still that there was no way to stop her from purchasing this gun anyway.  And allowing schizophrenic abusive people to buy powerful weapons is going to cause problems no matter how many security guards with guns you have.

QFT.

[Catwoman]

19 minutes ago, TechWife said:

There’s no way to know that. It’s also possible someone could have tackled her. It worked in KC. 

I would be very interested in hearing how the people who were actually present at Joel Osteen's church at the time of the shooting feel about all of this. They would know the situation firsthand, and I think their feelings about the mens' response to the shooter would be very helpful to know. 

[Scarlett]

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8w7ENxy/
 

language warning 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

…

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. …

I go to a very large church. There are two primary corridors used by most people between services.  In those hallways, between services, there are 750ish people going out and 750ish people going in, all close together. There are more people in the hallway between services, which is when this shooting took place, than there are in the worship center during a service.

[Heartstrings]

22 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8w7ENxy/
 

language warning 

Brilliant.  Truly. 

[TechWife]

30 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I would be very interested in hearing how the people who were actually present at Joel Osteen's church at the time of the shooting feel about all of this. They would know the situation firsthand, and I think their feelings about the mens' response to the shooter would be very helpful to know. 

In what way would that help? What someone thinks or feels about an past event doesn’t change the event. 

[KSera]

53 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I would be very interested in hearing how the people who were actually present at Joel Osteen's church at the time of the shooting feel about all of this. They would know the situation firsthand, and I think their feelings about the mens' response to the shooter would be very helpful to know. 

I’m another who’s not really sure how that would help, given that the child in critical condition with severe brain injury was the shooter’s child and not one of their own. I expect that’s likely to have a large impact on how they feel about it and that I also don’t really see how it’s relevant.

34 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I go to a very large church. There are two primary corridors used by most people between services.  In those hallways, between services, there are 750ish people going out and 750ish people going in, all close together. There are more people in the hallway between services, which is when this shooting took place, than there are in the worship center during a service.

I saw one still pictur of some very large corridors that had only a few very scattered people. I don’t know how close those corridors were to where it happened. However, with the number of shots fired, it’s difficult to imagine it was a super crowded hallway and the only people hit by the shooter was the one man hit in the leg and then only the shooter and the child were hit otherwise. I just don’t see any possibility of that many shots fired and those the only injuries had it been crowded. But, obviously I can’t know that for sure.

 

[Catwoman]

50 minutes ago, TechWife said:

In what way would that help? What someone thinks or feels about an past event doesn’t change the event. 

Because some people here are villainizing the men who responded to the shooter, and I would be interested in hearing whether the actual people who were present (and conceivably in mortal danger) felt the same way, or if they viewed the men as heroes who may have saved their lives. 

[Scarlett]

I would not feel good about my life being saved at the expense of a small child. 

[Catwoman]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I would not feel good about my life being saved at the expense of a small child. 

That's absolutely understandable, but what if you had been there with your own child and your own child could have been shot instead? (Hypothetical question -- you don't have to answer.)

That's why I'm interested in hearing from the people who were there. They know how many people were at risk at that moment, and they know how they felt about what happened. 

The opinions of a bunch of us, sitting in the safety of our homes, aren't nearly as relevant as the feelings of the people who actually experienced that awful nightmare. 

Edited February 17 by Catwoman
Didn't want to put Scarlett on the spot!

[SHP]

6 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Because some people here are villainizing the men who responded to the shooter, and I would be interested in hearing whether the actual people who were present (and conceivably in mortal danger) felt the same way, or if they viewed the men as heroes who may have saved their lives. 

Not villainizing, pointing out that he, too, is responsible for every shot he fired. 

[SHP]

1 minute ago, Catwoman said:

That's absolutely understandable, but what if you had been there with your own child and your own child could have been shot instead?

That's why I'm interested in hearing from the people who were there. They know how many people were at risk at that moment, and they know how they felt about what happened. 

The opinions of a bunch of us, sitting in the safety of our homes, aren't nearly as relevant as the feelings of the people who actually experienced that awful nightmare. 

No life is worth more than another. 

[Catwoman]

Just now, SHP said:

Not villainizing, pointing out that he, too, is responsible for every shot he fired. 

Yes, but there has been quite a bit of judgment saying that the men should not have fired, and I wonder whether the actual victims agree with that sentiment or if they feel differently about it.

[Catwoman]

2 minutes ago, SHP said:

No life is worth more than another. 

So you would sacrifice your own child's life?

Sure you would. 🙄

But even if think you would, you weren't there, so you don't know what you would actually have felt or done.

Again, that's why I would like to know if anyone has seen any accounts from the people who were actually there.

Edited February 17 by Catwoman
Forgot something

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Because some people here are villainizing the men who responded to the shooter, and I would be interested in hearing whether the actual people who were present (and conceivably in mortal danger) felt the same way, or if they viewed the men as heroes who may have saved their lives. 

If the child was shot by someone who is still alive, I am 100% sure that person doesn't feel like a hero, and won't, regardless of how many others say that.

The term hero just isn't appropriate here.  I think it disrespects the fact that the people trying to stop the shooter were trying to save people, not kill innocents.

Everyone's talking like they were there, but was anyone on this board there to know how easy or difficult it would have been to stop this perp without a gun, or how many additional people would have been shot/killed in the process?  Do we know nobody DID try to stop the perp without a gun and how that went?  No we do not.

I 100% agree and it's painfully obvious that there were many lost opportunities to prevent this before that morning.  Gosh.  I agree the perp should not have been able to be in legal possession of a firearm OR of a child in that moment.  I hope that the investigation and follow-up related to this incident includes all those lost opportunities.

[Catwoman]

Just now, SKL said:

If the child was shot by someone who is still alive, I am 100% sure that person doesn't feel like a hero, and won't, regardless of how many others say that.

The term hero just isn't appropriate here.  I think it disrespects the fact that the people trying to stop the shooter were trying to save people, not kill innocents.

Everyone's talking like they were there, but was anyone on this board there to know how easy or difficult it would have been to stop this perp without a gun, or how many additional people would have been shot/killed in the process?  Do we know nobody DID try to stop the perp without a gun and how that went?  No we do not.

I 100% agree and it's painfully obvious that there were many lost opportunities to prevent this before that morning.  Gosh.  I agree the perp should not have been able to be in legal possession of a firearm OR of a child in that moment.  I hope that the investigation and follow-up related to this incident includes all those lost opportunities.

Excellent points.

Thank you!

(When I said "hero," I should have chosen a different word, but I couldn't come up with anything. I meant that the people appreciated the men's efforts to stop the shooter and to save their lives, but wasn't sure how to phrase it. Thanks for pointing that out!)

[SKL]

Seriously ... it could have been a mother who accidentally shot that child.

I would be suicidal right now if that were me.

There really is no need to attack a person who accidentally shot a child while trying to stop other people's children from being murdered ... at least not until an objective investigation proves that there was negligence or callousness involved.

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

So you would sacrifice your own child's life?

Sure you would. 🙄

But even if think you would, you weren't there, so you don't know what you would actually have felt or done.

Again, that's why I would like to know if anyone has seen any accounts from the people who were actually there.

One life is intrinsically worth the same as another.  Of course I value my children over yours, I assume you value yours over mine.  Who wins?  But in the grand scheme of the world, it doesn’t matter.  

[SKL]

That other school shooting where they're investigating why all the cops stood around doing nothing while the shooter continued to murder children.

I guess some here think that was the more righteous approach.

Sorry.  I will continue praying for those faced with these horrible situations.

[nikkibelle]

It’s dystopian that we can compare and contrast recent mass shootings. 

[SHP]

39 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

Yes, but there has been quite a bit of judgment saying that the men should not have fired, and I wonder whether the actual victims agree with that sentiment or if they feel differently about it.

Unless the victims are qualified to judge a situation then anything they say would be emotion rather than facts. 

I would absolutely love for the police to release all details of who was where and have someone who trains military and LEOs look at it and determine if security was in the right or the wrong in shooting. Since the security were off duty cops, I would expect them to have been trained in when to, and when not to discharge their weapons. 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Catwoman said:

So you would sacrifice your own child's life?

Sure you would. 🙄

But even if think you would, you weren't there, so you don't know what you would actually have felt or done.

Again, that's why I would like to know if anyone has seen any accounts from the people who were actually there.

At the same time, you’ve proved the point yourself here that it doesn’t really matter how people feel if it’s not their own kid who is sacrificed. It wasn’t the kid of anyone there (except the now deceased shooter), so it is in fact entirely likely that they feel relieved it was someone else’s kid and not theirs. That doesn’t mean it’s any bit better that it was this kid rather than someone else’s though. From the sounds of it, this kid has had a hard enough life already 😔. 

[Murphy101]

3 hours ago, Catwoman said:

Because some people here are villainizing the men who responded to the shooter, and I would be interested in hearing whether the actual people who were present (and conceivably in mortal danger) felt the same way, or if they viewed the men as heroes who may have saved their lives. 

I am NOT villainizing him. He was wrong. That doesn’t make him a villain. I repeat. This is not as seen on tv. 

He isn’t a hero or a villain. This isn’t an action movie. He isn’t a villain. He isn’t a hero. He is another victim of gun violence endorsing national policies.  And there will be little to no mental health care to help him cope with it either.  He is just a man with a gun who made the error of shooting his gun and the bullet hit a little kid instead of a deranged murderer.  I think he was untrained and uneducated about gun use.  I think this could have been prevented and this should be investigated to show exactly how it could have been prevented. Instead our society has decided to they’d rather have multiple generations struggle to live with the mental illness of gun trauma.

 

[KSera]

I knew from previous stories that this little boy had not had an easy life, but this is just tragic. So many failures 😢

7-Year-Old Son of Houston Church Shooter Still Struggling to Survive

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I knew from previous stories that this little boy had not had an easy life, but this is just tragic. So many failures 😢

7-Year-Old Son of Houston Church Shooter Still Struggling to Survive

I had heard some of those things, but there were so many awful details in that article that I hadn't known about until now.

That poor little boy. I have no words. 😢

[KungFuPanda]

I read the entire thread.  My takeaway is that people believe they can judge a person’s demeanor for the entire day based upon a single photo and a dinner.  Extra points are deducted if there is alcohol at that dinner. By this metric every family funeral I have ever attended on my Dad’s side (Irish) of the family would be deemed inappropriate and unfeeling. 
 

I don’t know the guy. Maybe he was apathetic or maybe he was upset.  The point is you can’t tell from a photo of a single moment. I’m not even willing to concede that you shouldn’t be with your inner circle when bad things happen.  I imagine if you are a highly photographed public figure then every photo can be judged. I’m glad that’s not my life. 
 

I absolutely get the impulse of the wife to grab the gun. I would have done the same thing. I think I would grab it so the assailant couldn’t, empty it, and THEN realize holding it was a mistake and drop everything. 
 

Concerning the Olsteen church, by my count the Good Guys With Guns caused all the death and severe injury.  How did professional security even let a person with a yard long rifle in the building?  It doesn’t sound like some random parishioner stepped in.  I do think the woman did way more than yell fire in a theatre, but it seems like a church with that budget could afford more competent security.  It also seems that security could disable her with a stun gun or tazor or rubber bullets. The whole set up is just confusing. 

 

[KSera]

29 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

The whole set up is just confusing. 

Agree with this. It sounds like security stationed outside of the building is unarmed and she showed her weapon and he let her in, but then they have the people who are armed inside the building. Though I’m not sure I’m clear if the ones inside are actually officially part of security or if they just attend there and are people who just carry wherever they go. The discrepancy would make sense if the latter is the case (I mean makes sense as much as any of this does, which is not much at all). 

[SKL]

40 minutes ago, KSera said:

Agree with this. It sounds like security stationed outside of the building is unarmed and she showed her weapon and he let her in, but then they have the people who are armed inside the building. Though I’m not sure I’m clear if the ones inside are actually officially part of security or if they just attend there and are people who just carry wherever they go. The discrepancy would make sense if the latter is the case (I mean makes sense as much as any of this does, which is not much at all). 

My first impression was that the people who returned fire were members of the congregation who cc while off-duty cops.  I did not get the impression they were stationed as security.  However, we all know that early reports are unreliable.  This wasn't the only "fact" that has changed since the day it happened.

I'll wait until official information comes out, if it ever does.

[KSera]

50 minutes ago, SKL said:

My first impression was that the people who returned fire were members of the congregation who cc while off-duty cops.  I did not get the impression they were stationed as security.  However, we all know that early reports are unreliable.  This wasn't the only "fact" that has changed since the day it happened.

I'll wait until official information comes out, if it ever does.

That was my initial impression as well, but I’m seeing quotes today from both Joel Osteen and the Lakewood church spokesperson identifying them as members of their security detail. The church spokesperson said they typically have 40 to 50 uniformed and plain clothes officers working each service. 

[Vintage81]

This article says the police chief will be releasing video of the incident in a few days, so maybe some clarification will come (depending on what they release). 

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/02/18/lakewood-church-to-have-first-sunday-services-since-deadly-shooting/