Houston- Adult, child injured in shooting at Joel Osteen’s Lakewood church

"The women who spoke said things got so bad in the neighborhood that five of them spent a day about five months ago talking to local elected officials, police, the sheriff's office and city's legal department. They wrote letters to the neighborhood's property management company and met with its lawyer, and they called media, said L, who lives in the neighborhood."

"We're being told 'see something, say something.' Well, we're seeing stuff, we are saying stuff... and Conroe PD is not helping us," H said. "I don't want to bash them, but help us. Please."

The truth is if you do SEE something, and SAY something rarely anything is done until they kill someone.
 
so who, besides her, is responsible for her son dying?

the judge that gave her custody? the mother-in-law who didn't show up for court when custody was decided? the father who landed himself in jail so he couldn't fight for custody of his son? the law that somehow makes it ok for a mentally unstable person with a criminal record to buy a gun?

all of the above?

and are we supposed to refer to her as a female even though she used male aliases?
Yes because no evidence points to that being a gender identification, only an alias.
 
Article posted above states that the shooter's ex-mother in law lives in France but has returned to Texas and is likely at her grandson's side, Samuel, and says that he is a fighter and that she thinks that he can survive. I pray that is the case, although LE have stated that Samuel is in critical condition and that his survival is not likely.

Prayers for Samuel.
 
Extremely sad case. To follow-up on other post(s), note that there were a lot of red flags & complaints re: this perp. Things should never have been allowed to escalate to this point. The system obviously failed here. I.e., this perp. was obviously a danger to others - long before this happened.

That being said, if this perp. had been put away because of their threatening actions over the years - <modsnip> You can't win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Extremely sad case. To follow-up on other post(s), note that there were a lot of red flags & complaints re: this perp. Things should never have been allowed to escalate to this point. The system obviously failed here. I.e., this perp. was obviously a danger to others - long before this happened.

That being said, if this perp. had been put away because of their threatening actions over the years - <modsnip> You can't win.

I agree, I feel like Red Flag laws should be universally supports, but it isnt
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure Red Flag law would have necessarily resulted in anything different here. And it doesn't sound like laws were being enforced as is. But we do need to wait for more facts to come out.
How so? Strong red flag laws, when enforced should have never allowed her to own a gun. The issue is the lack of enforcement and the lobby pushing hard against it.
 
I agree, I feel like Red Flag laws should be universally supports, but it isnt
How so? Strong red flag laws, when enforced should have never allowed her to own a gun. The issue is the lack of enforcement and the lobby pushing hard against it.
Red Flag laws put a temporary hold on things. Red Flag laws do NOT take away a person's right to own a firearm. But even with a red flag law situation is triggered, and a right to possess is suspended, then something has to happen. You need further legal action. She made threats in the past and was charged, but apparently those were not felonies. So she isn't deprived of rights to possess a firearm. However, I still think there are a lot questions that still need answered.
 
so who, besides her, is responsible for her son dying?

the judge that gave her custody? the mother-in-law who didn't show up for court when custody was decided? the father who landed himself in jail so he couldn't fight for custody of his son? the law that somehow makes it ok for a mentally unstable person with a criminal record to buy a gun?

all of the above?

and are we supposed to refer to her as a female even though she used male aliases?
This story states, in so many words, that she and her ex-husband are/were both disasters waiting to happen, and their son hasn't really had a chance.

 
Article posted above states that the shooter's ex-mother in law lives in France but has returned to Texas and is likely at her grandson's side, Samuel, and says that he is a fighter and that she thinks that he can survive. I pray that is the case, although LE have stated that Samuel is in critical condition and that his survival is not likely.

Prayers for Samuel.
Per the link I just posted, she is also a rabbi.
 
Red Flag laws put a temporary hold on things. Red Flag laws do NOT take away a person's right to own a firearm. But even with a red flag law situation is triggered, and a right to possess is suspended, then something has to happen. You need further legal action. She made threats in the past and was charged, but apparently those were not felonies. So she isn't deprived of rights to possess a firearm. However, I still think there are a lot questions that still need answered.
Still, with a history of mental health problems, multiple prior arrests, and temporary involuntary hospitalizations, I think she would have violated federal firearms laws - not once but on multiple occasions. Per linked articles in this thread, she was charged with forgery, assault and theft. She was also not eligible to purchase a firearm due to the involuntary hospitalization for mental illness. She also pled guilty to illegally carrying a firearm. The Federal instant check system used for most US firearms purchases should have stopped her from purchasing a firearm. The only thing that would cause the instant check system to fail is the failure to enter her prior offenses and involuntary hospitalization into databases. That was a factor in the Charleston, SC church shooter's ability to purchase a firearm.

I am interested to know how and when she purchased a firearm. Hopefully, that information will emerge soon.
 
Last edited:
Red Flag laws put a temporary hold on things. Red Flag laws do NOT take away a person's right to own a firearm. But even with a red flag law situation is triggered, and a right to possess is suspended, then something has to happen. You need further legal action. She made threats in the past and was charged, but apparently those were not felonies. So she isn't deprived of rights to possess a firearm. However, I still think there are a lot questions that still need answered.
That is not necessarily true. This is why they need to make even stricter red flag laws. If those laws were even more strict, it would help society so much.
I heard the trope of a "bad guy with a gun"... but it seems people don't want to stop bad people from getting guns.



Red Flag Gun Protection Law
The Red Flag Law, also known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order law, prevents individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing any kind of firearm.

The Red Flag Law provides procedural safeguards to ensure that no firearm is removed without due process while helping to prevent tragedies, like the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the racist mass shooting in Buffalo.
 
I was just thinking about this case and it suddenly occurred to me: Couod she have brought the child with her as a “human shield “? In other words, did she think a small child next to her would keep anyone from shooting at her?
 
Still, with a history of mental health problems, multiple prior arrests, and temporary involuntary hospitalizations, I think she would have violated federal firearms laws - not once but on multiple occasions. Per linked articles in this thread, she was charged with forgery, assault and theft. She was also not eligible to purchase a firearm due to the involuntary hospitalization for mental illness. She also pled guilty to illegally carrying a firearm. The Federal instant check system used for most US firearms purchases should have stopped her from purchasing a firearm.

Exactly! The fact that this perp. was even able to own a weapon like this is unconscionable. WTF?!!!
 
Red Flag laws put a temporary hold on things. Red Flag laws do NOT take away a person's right to own a firearm. But even with a red flag law situation is triggered, and a right to possess is suspended, then something has to happen. You need further legal action. She made threats in the past and was charged, but apparently those were not felonies. So she isn't deprived of rights to possess a firearm. However, I still think there are a lot questions that still need answered.
What questions still eat at you?
I want to know why she wasn't charged more harshly before? Swerving to hit people with your car should be attempted murder, or at least assault with a deadly weapon.
I want to know what the neighborhood women reported five months ago.
I want to know why they were afraid of retaliation after going to the media.
I want to know why CPS failed.
 
This story states, in so many words, that she and her ex-husband are/were both disasters waiting to happen, and their son hasn't really had a chance.


this boy was failed from the very beginning by his own parents who allowed him to be born with drugs in his system and seems like it only got worse from there

poor kid
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
1,536
Total visitors
1,723

Forum statistics

Threads
594,928
Messages
18,015,653
Members
229,553
Latest member
Nursestump
Back
Top