Man arrested in shooting of two Texas cheerleaders after one mistakenly got into the wrong car

Status
Not open for further replies.

seadoug

Well-known Member
Location
Texas
People in the US have gone crazy lately. First, it was the young black man shot in the head when approaching the wrong house. Then, it was the young girl who was shot and killed while turning around in someone's driveway. Now, this.

Man arrested in shooting of two Texas cheerleaders after one mistakenly got into the wrong car​

One of the victims was critically injured in the shooting that unfolded early Tuesday outside an H-E-B supermarket in Elgin, Texas, police said.

April 19, 2023, 5:47 AM CDT / Updated April 19, 2023, 12:22 PM CDT
By Chantal Da Silva
A man has been arrested after two Texas cheerleaders were shot, one critically, after one of them mistakenly got into the wrong car, according to police and the owner of the gym where they trained.

Officers in Elgin, about 25 miles northeast of Austin, responded to reports of shots fired outside an H-E-B supermarket around 12:15 a.m. local time (1:15 a.m. ET) Tuesday, the Elgin Police Department said in a news release.

"Information suggests that an altercation occurred in the parking lot of H-E-B, and multiple shots were fired into a vehicle," police said. Two of the car's occupants were struck by gunfire, with one victim sustaining serious injuries and transported by helicopter to a hospital, where they were listed in critical condition, police said.
The suspect, Pedro Tello Rodriguez Jr., 25, has been charged with deadly conduct, a third-degree felony, police said.
The H-E-B grocery store at 1080 E US 290 in Elgin, Texas where two cheerleaders were shot on April 18, 2023.
The H-E-B store in Elgin, Texas, where a shooting took place early Tuesday. Google
Lynn Shearer, owner of Woodlands Elite Cheer Co., told NBC affiliate KXAN of Austin that the two people shot were cheerleaders who were on their way home from practice.

Shearer said the cheerleaders typically carpooled from the Austin area to her gym. On Monday night, she said at least four cheerleaders were on their way back to the Austin area and had to stop at an H-E-B, where some of the members had parked their cars. One of the girls accidentally tried to get into the wrong car, Shearer said. That's when, she said, a "guy got out and they saw that he had a gun. And so they tried to speed off and he shot his gun, like five times or so into the car." Woodlands Elite did not immediately respond to an overnight request for comment. The Elgin Police Department also did not immediately respond to an overnight request from NBC News seeking to confirm these details.

According to ABC News, Heather Roth, a cheerleader with the Woodlands Elite, said in an Instagram Live post that she was the one who got out of her friend's car and opened the door of another vehicle she thought was her own, only to notice a man was in the passenger seat. She said she got out of the car and back into her friend's vehicle, the report said. Roth reportedly said the man approached their vehicle and she rolled down a window to apologize. That's when the man started shooting, she said, according to ABC News. The Instagram Live post was no longer available early Wednesday, but Roth shared a number of posts that appeared to be related to the incident. She did not immediately respond to overnight request for comment.

Victim critically injured known as a 'role model'

Shearer identified the cheerleader who was critically injured in the shooting as Payton Washington, of the Round Rock Independent School District.
“She’s won every title there is to win in all-star cheerleading. She’s literally a role model for the kids in this industry throughout the country,” Shearer said. “Everybody knows her. She’s literally one of the very best that’s ever done this sport.”

Messages of support for Washington have poured in on social media in the wake of the shooting, with a prayer organized by Woodlands Elite held Tuesday. Meanwhile, a GoFundMe page organized by the Woodlands Elite Generals to help raise money to cover her hospital costs had raised more than $60,800 as of early Wednesday.
The GoFundMe page said Washington was "stable in the ICU and will have a long road to recovery."

Shearer said the cheerleaders had "grown up" in her gym. "We’ve known them for years, some of them literally, since they were, you know, 8, 10 years old,” she said. “So they’re like our family.” The shooting, she said "was unfortunate. These girls were just trying to get home."
As Washington faces a long road to recovery, Shearer said, she and the Woodlands Elite team would be there to support her and others affected by the shooting every step of the way. “Our goal right now is to take it one day at a time and be there for them,” Shearer said.

Shooting comes following 2 similar incidents

The shooting comes on the heels of two other eerily similar high-profile incidents in which the victims were allegedly shot after mistakenly approaching the wrong addresses.
 

American gun culture has gone rabid. I have accidentally tried the door handles of cars in parking lots identical to mine, and many have turned around using the mouth of someone’s driveway. These behaviors could be fatal nowadays…
 
Used to be national news orgs. would comb through local news outlets for seemingly endless drive-by shootings. Now, bullets flying by accident are all the rage. Everyone should put down their guns and cool off. How about a national moratorium? Or pick a fight with someone outside the US? :rolleyes:
 
One idiot shoots someone who knocks on his door by mistake, claiming he feared for his life, even though he outweighed him. Another gun toting crazy shoots a cheerleader who gets who gets into his car by mistake. How many more innocent people have to die before the morons of one political party, begin to value a human life, more than they do getting campaign donations from the NRA and assault gun manufacturers?

By the way, when I was younger, and if a cheerleader got in my car by mistake, I would have thought that someone was giving me an early Christmas present.
 
One idiot shoots someone who knocks on his door by mistake, claiming he feared for his life, even though he outweighed him. Another gun toting crazy shoots a cheerleader who gets who gets into his car by mistake. How many more innocent people have to die before the morons of one political party, begin to value a human life, more than they do getting campaign donations from the NRA and assault gun manufacturers?

By the way, when I was younger, and if a cheerleader got in my car by mistake, I would have thought that someone was giving me an early Christmas present.
How about approaching it intelligently and simply removing the CRAZIES from the equation?
 
The media has everyone in the country scared to death. All it spews is violence and pestilence. Just check out gun sales in the last few years.
People may have to begin paying attention to what they are doing. Is our country ready for this? I predict a lot of meltdowns and unhinged citizens running around. Cheerleaders will be shooting guys in cars and old men afraid to open their own door...well that's yet to be known.
 
The grandson of the 84 year-old who shot the young black man who knocked on his door said his grandfather was "paranoid" and into "weird, random, racist things". Wonder where he learned that? A certain "news" station that will have to pay $787 million in damages for false claims comes to mind.
 
How about approaching it intelligently and simply removing the CRAZIES from the equation?
What exactly do you have in mind here? Annually putting all citizens through stress tests to attempt to predict how they might react on a bad day and then rounding them all up into concentration camps? I don't call that intelligent or simple, just stupid and impossible.
 
Yesterday a gun owner said to me, "It's the person that kills another person. The gun doesn't work unless a person pulls the trigger." There are lots of variations to this argument in favor of freedom to own weapons, and they are all intended to end all further debate. Now the claim by itself in logically rock solid. And I've always weighed that heavily when considering what we should do about gun violence, and find myself caught somewhere in the middle.

But yesterday after hearing the claim for the umpteenth time, I got to thinking. While the claim is solid logic, how does it actually relate to curbing gun violence? Does it actually address the issue? It's a solid claim but supports the right to own weapons using the fallacy of non-sequitur (DOES NOT FOLLOW). It goes like this:

Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefore, restricting guns does no good.

The non-sequitur occurs in line three, which doesn't follow the first two. It's a separate claim or a new premise in a separate argument. It may or may not be valid. It's implied, quite clearly in fact, but it cannot be derived from the first two claims, even though those separate claims may be self evident.

Does restricting gun ownership reduce violent crime? In science, theories are considered empirically valid through testing. But we have no data available to eimpirically test this theory, because we have never limited gun ownership. Both owning guns and restricting guns are purely ideological positions, and we don't know what happens if we use one or the other to solve the problem. And without having actual knowledge, we have a controversy, a stalemate, and we avoid the issue politically.
 
Yesterday a gun owner said to me, "It's the person that kills another person. The gun doesn't work unless a person pulls the trigger." There are lots of variations to this argument in favor of freedom to own weapons, and they are all intended to end all further debate. Now the claim by itself in logically rock solid. And I've always weighed that heavily when considering what we should do about gun violence, and find myself caught somewhere in the middle.

But yesterday after hearing the claim for the umpteenth time, I got to thinking. While the claim is solid logic, how does it actually relate to curbing gun violence? Does it actually address the issue? It's a solid claim but supports the right to own weapons using the fallacy of non-sequitur (DOES NOT FOLLOW). It goes like this:

Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefore, restricting guns does no good.

The non-sequitur occurs in line three, which doesn't follow the first two. It's a separate claim or a new premise in a separate argument. It may or may not be valid. It's implied, quite clearly in fact, but it cannot be derived from the first two claims, even though those separate claims may be self evident.

Does restricting gun ownership reduce violent crime? In science, theories are considered empirically valid through testing. But we have no data available to eimpirically test this theory, because we have never limited gun ownership. Both owning guns and restricting guns are purely ideological positions, and we don't know what happens if we use one or the other to solve the problem. And without having actual knowledge, we have a controversy, a stalemate, and we avoid the issue politically.
Chicago had a gun ban. Have you noticed how 'well' that worked for them?
 
Yesterday a gun owner said to me, "It's the person that kills another person. The gun doesn't work unless a person pulls the trigger." There are lots of variations to this argument in favor of freedom to own weapons, and they are all intended to end all further debate. Now the claim by itself in logically rock solid. And I've always weighed that heavily when considering what we should do about gun violence, and find myself caught somewhere in the middle.

But yesterday after hearing the claim for the umpteenth time, I got to thinking. While the claim is solid logic, how does it actually relate to curbing gun violence? Does it actually address the issue? It's a solid claim but supports the right to own weapons using the fallacy of non-sequitur (DOES NOT FOLLOW). It goes like this:

Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefore, restricting guns does no good.

The non-sequitur occurs in line three, which doesn't follow the first two. It's a separate claim or a new premise in a separate argument. It may or may not be valid. It's implied, quite clearly in fact, but it cannot be derived from the first two claims, even though those separate claims may be self evident.

Does restricting gun ownership reduce violent crime? In science, theories are considered empirically valid through testing. But we have no data available to eimpirically test this theory, because we have never limited gun ownership. Both owning guns and restricting guns are purely ideological positions, and we don't know what happens if we use one or the other to solve the problem. And without having actual knowledge, we have a controversy, a stalemate, and we avoid the issue, politically.
Interesting views, well thought out....but, it doesn't take into account the reasoning for the 2nd amendment. I will paraphrase....To protect ourselves from the tyranny of government.
2) Restricting guns open up killing zones for criminals as we see every day in the news
3) By not addressing the underlying causes, mental illness, lax judicial punishment. People not afraid of the consequences are not going to obey laws. So, you have only criminals with guns.
4) There are many instances where guns saved lives, but, they do not make the Left Wing media airwaves because it goes against their narrative of government control.

You view on non-sequitur brings to mind another example and a more prime example:
BLM.jpg
Although no one can disagree with 1,3,4,5,6,7...there is a stark disagreement with the second. There is more evidence that the 2nd as the organization is a corrupt group of racists that are attempting to leverage their voices in violent ways.

Well thought out views though. I disagree with your approach and what I think is the conclusion is, it is well thought out.
 
I bet if you were ever in a mass shooting incident, you would pray for a legally armed American to step in and stop the threat.
I bet most gun owners fantasize about being that person in the crowd who saves everyone from the mass murderer. That desire to be the John Wayne hero is ingrained in our culture and it's commendable, but...

I bet some of those same people are the ones who shot the women turning around in the driveway, shot the cheerleaders mistaking his car for theirs, shot the teen who was at the wrong address, shot the neighbors who's basketball entered his rental yard.

Because opportunities to use your gun to save yourself or others don't really come up very often, but moments of bad temper, fear or panic come up almost every day for some people and if the gun is right there -- well look what happens. Not having a gun handy gives people time to think.
 
Interesting views, well thought out....but, it doesn't take into account the reasoning for the 2nd amendment. I will paraphrase....To protect ourselves from the tyranny of government.
There are certainly more arguments on both sides. I'm just saying that particular one, which is one of the most common, is not one I see as logically valid as the solution to gun violence. And I'm not offering a solution, just testing validity of one particular claim.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top