Samuel Moreno-Carranza, age seven, was injured after his mother fired a rifle inside church and police responded, killing her
A boy who was shot in the head at celebrity pastor Joel Osteen’s Houston megachurch on 11 February has lost “a portion of his frontal lobe” while recovering at the hospital, according to his grandmother.
In a Facebook post three days after the shooting, Walli Carranza said her seven-year-old grandson, Samuel Moreno-Carranza, “has lost a major part of what makes us who we are” after “half of his right skull [had] to be surgically removed during two surgeries done in less than 24 hours”. Samuel had endured “cardiac arrest multiple times, and no one can determine whether he has significant brain activity because his scalp tissue is too friable” to let doctors attach electroencephalogram wires to him, Carranza added in a post that doubled as a criticism of the US’s lack of meaningful gun control.
Wow the article worked really really really hard not to tell you it was the police who shot the boy. It wasn’t until near the last 2/3 of the report, and lookit:
Samuel – whose mother had brought him to the church – was struck in the head during the exchange of gunfire that killed Moreno. A 57-year-old man was also hit, in the hip.
It appears the only people injured in this were shot by the two off-duty officers. I’m not even saying those two are in the wrong, but i have a real problem with the way its reported here
I have questions about how necessary it was to fire at the woman in the first place.
•if she’s in an empty lobby with her and her son, and two security officers, could they not have tried to negotiate and get the kid away first?
•Did security actually see “materials consistant with manufacturing explosives” inside her trenchcoat before firing, or is that something they alleged after they shot a 7yo in the head. There were no explosives found on her body or at home.
I know it’s hard to judge these situations, but I feel like there could have been a resolution where the kid doesn’t sacrificed by everyone involved.
The police opened fire after the mother did. It is notoriously difficult to negotiate with someone who is actively shooting - aside from needing absolutely every target to be in excellent cover, you have to make yourself heard over the gunfire.
How many rounds did the child fire before taking a police bullet to the brain?
I have questions about how necessary it was to fire at the woman in the first place.
You don’t believe the police should engage in gunfights with active shooters? Are you perhaps a member of the Uvalde Police Department?
Lemmy users try really hard to blame cops for everything.
Shit, I thought it was the nother - edit: mother, how the fuck did autocorrect get that
Have they said how many rounds the woman was able to get off before she was killed? I’m starting to wonder if the answer is 0.
I had to look around for any mention of it but i did finally find this.
Wearing a trench coat and backpack, she entered the converted sports arena between church services and opened fire in a hallway with an AR-platform rifle, Hassig said. One federal law enforcement source told CNN she fired around 30 bullets. (emphasis mine)
Two off-duty officers were at the church: a 28-year-old Houston Police Department officer and a 38-year-old agent with the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, both with less than five years of service. The two officers engaged the shooter and she was fatally hit, the police chief said.
It was zero, she shot zero times.
Source?
Edit: genuinely asking, I can’t find anything saying that.
That guy is full of sh.it:
So the good guys with the guns may have shot and killed a 7 year old? Great argument to justify not doing anything resembling gun control.
On another note, Houston has an excellent Medical Center and I wish the little boy the best of luck. How awful for the entire family.
The ,“good guys with guns” shoot and kill a lot of Innocent people.
Isn’t it crazy to begin with that Texas’s churches have armed guards? Shouldn’t Jesus protect them?
With enough prayers 🙏 anything is possible right? Right?
The guys who shot were off-duty police officers. Don’t wrap gun owners into this when it’s not relevant.
Sounds like they were just gun owners
Other articles I’ve seen said that they were two off-duty cops working security for the church.
https://apnews.com/article/church-shooting-joel-osteen-texas-ea557401f2eef247020e34297159536a
Sounds like they were just gun owners
two off-duty cops working security
I’m not sure if you’re saying they obviously didn’t own the guns they were firing - hard to prove and little difference - or that professional gun-users with standards of accuracy and control under stressful situations as part of their training and job are somehow more likely to shoot innocents than a bunch of randos with shooty-pow-pow fetishes.
Yeah I can see that… But cops being bad at shooting is kinda just expected at this point.
Why does a church hire security?!
Was the woman with a rifle they shot at, subsequently hitting her son, also an off-duty cop? Maybe she was a relevant gun owner.
deleted by creator
You’re talking about the woman wearing a trench coat who entered the church and started shooting, right? In this case she’s a criminal, not the “good guy with a gun”.
You’re still blaming the general population of gun owners for something the police did, lmao.
EDIT: My point is, the parent-commenter is calling the off-duty cops the “good guys with guns”, but they’re not because they’re police officers (and let’s be real, even if there was no 2nd amendment, cops would still be able to carry while off-duty).
You could argue that the woman who did the shooting was a “good guy with a gun” before the incident, but that’s irrelevant to what I’m saying because I’m responding to the person calling the off-duty cops the “good guys with guns”.
cops the “good guys with guns”.
I find it hard to come up with a simpler description of a cop.
I wouldn’t say cops are good guys.
If you’re being sarcastic like that…
Am I saying anything about the general population’s right to own a gun? Am I even implying anything about it? No. Nor am I equating the shooter to the “good guy with a gun”, or saying that anybody other than the cops directly had anything to do with the child being shot.
What I am pointing out though is that either this woman came into legal and rightful possession of a gun, or otherwise obtained it illegally, both of which are relevant to a conversation on gun control.
Am I saying anything about the general population’s right to own a gun? Am I even implying anything about it? No. Nor am I equating the shooter to the “good guy with a gun”, or saying that anybody other than the cops directly had anything to do with the child being shot.
No, but the user I first replied to is by saying that “off-duty cops” are “good guys with guns”- they’re not the same. Your response was seemingly backing up the parent-commenters comment, making me think that you were agreeing with them.
What I am pointing out though is that either this woman came into legal and rightful possession of a gun, or otherwise obtained it illegally, both of which are relevant to a conversation on gun control.
Agreed 100%, but again the parent commenter didn’t mention anything about the woman, they mentioned the off-duty cops that they called “good guys with guns” that shot the 7-year old.
So yes, I will agree that the woman had legal possession of a gun and committed a crime with it, that IS relevant to a conversation on gun control.
However, the off-duty cops shooting the 7-year old is NOT relevant to a conversation on gun control because they are cops.
off-duty cops shooting the 7-year old is NOT relevant to a conversation on gun control because they are cops.
Right. Because they didn’t have guns and weren’t shooting? Because then the victims don’t exist? Because they had more Range time? Because they were trained in high-stress situations and extremely familiar with their weapons?
This all sounds like me challenging Tony Hawke to a freestyle competition.
Because they are cops, not civilian gun owners. Again, even if there was no second amendment, I guarantee cops would still be able to carry while off-duty. I’m saying the cops who shot the kid shouldn’t be wrapped with civilian gun owners because they aren’t civilian gun owners.
If the cops directly shot the child without there being the presence of a firearm near the child, then that would be a fairly different conversation. And yeah, the parent comment may have assumed the “good guy with the gun” was not a cop, but instead a citizen. However, with these being cops, and their decision to shoot spawning from a citizen with a firearm who had intent to use that firearm to harm innocent people, it is still valid for there to be a gun control debate, because if you take her gun out of the equation, there likely was not going to be a police initiated shooting in this situation.
deleted by creator
“Guns aren’t the problem.”
They’re a pretty massive part of it. Abolish the second amendment.
“But how are we going to defend ourselves against all the other people with guns?”
The US is messed up.
That’s it right here.
As a person of color, removing the second amendment affects us more. Gun control was considered when the Black Panthers armed themselves. During the more chaotic weeks of BLM protests, armed protesters were the reason cops behaved.
We would need a thanos-level snap to change - from cops, to people’s minds - everywhere all at once.
But while cops are killing dogs, shooting shoplifters in the back of the head, and emptying their gun when they hear an acorn fall… Disenfranchised communities will be the most affected by this.
I don’t see a single helpful point in your comment though. It all reads like “Things are bad but if you try to make things better they might get worse for a bit so don’t do that.”
Gun control IS THE ANSWER. Will there be shitty consequences? Yes. But I feel like shitty consequences for a few years while national identity is changed is a lot better than the status quo where the hallways of elementary schools are painted red with blood every other week.
Turbulence and turmoil for a time as people sort their shit out or endless dead kids and endless mass shootings? Kind of a no brainer.
I love Americans who think their guns are gonna protect them against the u.s government, who could shoot a guided drone up their asshole and make it look like an accident, before they even knew what hit them
I think there is the gun owners who absolutely fantasize they can hold off a trained army with their guns with Rambo. But thats a minority.
The real gun mindset is, “If you’re going to do it, I’ll make it difficult for you”. This is a key shift here. It’s the mindset that “there is going to always be thieves, crazies, rapists, house burglars… I’d rather own a gun and protect myself rather than wait for help.”
Most of the world doesn’t think like that. They laugh at Americans. But this is our American gun culture.
We don’t trust cops (Uvalde school shooting just being the recent example). And I’m not saying any of this is right. But when one side believes they can use guns to threaten the opposition (BLM protests, abortion clinics), suddenly when both sides are armed, it’s suddenly a “peaceful event”. During those proud boy protests and Nazi protests, when armed liberals told them to fuck off… They did. But if it was unarmed townsfolk, they laughed. And worse, the cops either ignored them or put up a barrier to protect them.
Again, not saying this is the world I prefer - not by a long shot. But I want to break that whole opinion that gun owners only want to defend against “da gubberment”.
There’s also just a general lack of trust in other people in the US. Not just the government. People always have to walk around looking over their shoulders. It’s not like that in other developed countries. The guns play into that. In the US, you just never know if someone’s going to be armed. In most other countries, it’s pretty safe to assume that people are unarmed.
I dunno coast guard?
Clearly we need personal owned nukes.
That’s also true about a lot of non-shot members of Osteen’s church.
Poor kid though. He didn’t deserve any of what he got.
Removed by mod
“hE’s JuSt TeStInG yOu”
…from Joel’s sermons.
Right. Are we sure he had it when he came in?
His Mom was a murderous terrorist supporter, he was fucked before he ever stepped foot into the Church. Poor kid. Hope he gets quality care for the rest of his life.
He won’t and may already be functionally dead. The chance to save any of these people evaporated a long time ago. It was deemed “not profitable”.
You’re right. The people who support the cause she had emblazoned on her gun don’t do shit fuck all if it means more than standing next to a flag and posting on social media.
And yet, it was the cops that shot him.
Hey, next time maybe don’t bring your kid along when you plan on doing terrorist things while supporting a fucking terrorist organization.
Sucks for the kid, but this is mom’s fault all the way down the line. I say that as a strong acab believer too.
A small price to pay so that the NRA can earn more money.
Religion is dangerous to the proper functioning of one’s frontal lobe.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Dude. He was seven. How much did you know about the world when you were seven? You probably mostly knew what your parents told you.
The kid had plenty of time to realize the church was lying to him. He probably never will now.
See below, fellow human.
Nope. It was something about becoming a republican
Hey, at least you weren’t wrong about it being tasteless, eh? Lookit them downvotes. (It’s alright, I have intrusive heckling thoughts, too, and sometimes it helps to point them out for what they are: kinda deflates their power in a way, to laugh at them instead of with them)
So, like “in poor taste,” but also “totally spot on” at the same time? Yeah, I have those thoughts sometimes too.
