- Numerous stories of heroes have come out in the wake of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
- Those being hailed as heroes in El Paso include a soldier who grabbed several children in a playpen and moved them to safety, as well as a young mother and father who died protecting their child.
- In Dayton, the police officers who stopped the shooter in 30 seconds are among those who have been praised as heroes.
Heroes From El Paso
Stories of heroes have begun to emerge in the days since two separate mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio left 31 dead and dozens more injured.
On Saturday morning, a man opened fire on a Walmart near the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso killing 22 people and injuring at least 24 others. According to reports from the El Paso police, authorities began receiving calls about an active shooter around 10:30 a.m.
Eyewitnesses said the shooter fired at people in the parking lot before entering the building. Police reportedly responded to the shooting in six minutes, and the shooter surrendered shortly after without incident, or without the police firing any shots.
One of the most widely circulated stories from El Paso was that of Jordan and Andre Anchondo. The Anchondo’s were young parents of three who died saving the life of one of their children.
According to reports, Jordan died directly shielding her baby, while Andre died trying to shield them both. The baby was injured but lived because his parents saved him.
Another person being hailed as a hero in the El Paso shooting is a man named David Johnson, who reportedly stepped in front of the gunman to save his wife and granddaughter. Both survived, though Johnson was killed.
A solider named Glendon Oakley who was at the mall at the time of the shooting has also been praised as a hero.
In an interview with CNN, Oakley said after he heard gunfire, he ran towards a playpen where children were playing without their parents and grabbed as many children as he could to move them out of harm’s way.
“I was just focused on the kids, I wasn’t really worried about myself. So just put my head down and just ran as fast as I could,” Oakley told CNN. “I did that because that’s what I was trained to do and that’s what the military has taught me to do.”
Heroes From Dayton
Just 13 hours after the shooting in El Paso, a man wearing a mask and bulletproof vest opened fire outside a popular neighborhood in downtown Dayton, killing nine people, and wounding 27 others.
Among the dead is the shooter’s sister. The shooter was killed by police 30 seconds after opening fire. Currently, there is no known motive for the shooting, though it has been reported that in high school the shooter had a “hit list” and a “rape list.”
In Dayton, officials are hailing the officers who killed the shooter as a hero. Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley said the officers saved “literally hundreds of lives.”
A nurse named Kayla Miller stopped to perform CPR while dodging gunfire is also being praised in Dayton. According to reports, witnesses say she tried to resuscitate five people.
“I’m grateful to be able to be alive and talk to my family and friends and tell them I’m OK, but my heart breaks for these families. It’s just not fair,” Miller told the TODAY Show.
What We Know About the El Paso Shooter
While little is known at least publicly about the motive of the Dayton shooter, more information has come out about the El Paso shooter, who is currently in police custody.
Investigators and police later found what they described as a “manifesto” they believe was written by the alleged shooter. The manifesto was posted on the message board 8Chan less than 20 minutes before the police received the first call about the attack.
That post has since been deleted, but an archived version of the post contained an attachment of what the author referred to as “the actual manifesto.” Another document with the first initial and last name of the shooter was also attached.
In the manifesto, the author wrote, “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”
The author referred to immigrants as “invaders” four separate times. They also say that they are against “race mixing” and said that the country should be divided up so each race has their own territory.
The author notably included a list of the type of guns they wanted to use for their attack and said they did not spend much time planning the attack or writing the manifesto.
The manifesto concludes with the author saying that their views predate President Donald Trump and his campaign and that Trump should not be blamed.
The author also added that the media will call them a white supremacist and blame their actions on Trump’s rhetoric, which they believes is an example of “fake news.”
On Sunday, officials in Texas formally announced that they would be treating the alleged shooter as a domestic terrorist.
U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas John Bash made the announcement in a press briefing.
Bash also said that his office was “seriously considering” bringing federal hate crime and federal firearm charges against the shooter, which carry a possible death penalty sentence.
The El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza separately said that his office has already charged the shooter with capital murder and will seek the death penalty in any state-level prosecution.
The federal domestic terrorism case, however, depends on whether or not it is confirmed that the alleged shooter wrote the manifesto.
To that point, El Paso Police Department Chief Greg Allen said it looks increasingly like the alleged shooter in custody wrote the manifesto, according to NPR. The New York Times also reported that a federal law enforcement official confirmed that it was written by the suspect.
Others have also pointed out at the fact that the suspect was from the suburbs of Dallas but drove nearly 10 hours to get to El Paso, a border town where more than 80% of residents are Hispanic or Latino, according to the most recent census.
The legal charges involving the El Paso shooting are also not limited to the U.S. On Sunday, Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard announced that the Mexican government will be taking legal action against the U.S., but did not specify what that would be.
On Monday, Ebrard said that eight Mexican nationals had been killed in the shooting.
Editor’s Note: At Rogue Rocket, we make it a point to not include the names and pictures of mass murderers or suspected mass murderers who may have been seeking attention or infamy. Therefore, we will not be linking to other sources, as they may contain these details. Instead, we will be linking to donation pages for those impacted by the shootings.
San Francisco Lawmaker Proposes CAREN Act to Make False, Racist 911 Calls Illegal
- San Francisco City Supervisor Shamann Walton introduced an ordinance this week called the CAREN Act, which would make false, racially discriminatory 911 calls illegal.
- The acronym stands for Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies. It is named after “Karens,” a nickname for white women who throw unwarranted fits in public.
- These fits often appear racially motivated and have led to “Karens” calling the police on people of color.
- California Assemblyman Rob Bonta has also introduced a similar piece of legislation that would outlaw these calls throughout the state.
Why the “CAREN” Act?
A lawmaker in San Francisco has introduced an ordinance that would outlaw making false, racially discriminatory 911 calls, dubbed the CAREN Act.
City Supervisor Shamann Walton introduced the ordinance. In a tweet announcing the act on Tuesday, he called racist 911 calls “unacceptable.”
The CAREN Act stands for Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies, but its name bears much more weight. A “Karen” is an Internet nickname for white women whose privilege and entitlement leads to loud complaints, threats of legal action, calling supervisors, and often, calling the police. The unjustified outrage of Karens has been documented in countless viral incidents, and in many cases, they show a clear prejudice against people of color.
One video that went viral in May has been pointed to as a prime example of this. In that clip, Amy Cooper, a white woman in New York, called the police on a Black man named Christian Cooper. Both were in Central park at the time when the man asked her to put her dog on a leash, as she was required to do in that area.
However, that confrontation escalated when she desperately told a 911 operator that she was being threatened when she was not. Many felt her instinct to weaponize her white privilege and make a false claim could have had serious consequences considering the fact that Black Americans are more likely to face police brutality and die in police custody. She has since been charged with filing a false report after much public outrage.
While videos of this nature have often gone viral, this incident came at a cultural tipping point. Not long after it made its way across the Internet, another story received national attention: a video of George Floyd being killed by police officers in Minneapolis. This sparked a movement of people confronting systemic racism and police brutality, and since then, more “Karen” videos have spread online in an effort to hold people accountable for their racist behavior.
What the Ordinance Does
While filing a false police report is already illegal, Walton is pushing for more to be done to stop people from calling the authorities on people of color for no real reason. The CAREN Act would make it illegal to fabricate a report based on racial and other kinds of discrimination.
“Within the last month and a half in the Bay Area, an individual called the police on a Black man who was dancing and exercising on the street in his Alameda neighborhood and a couple called the police on a Filipino man stenciling ‘Black Lives Matter’ in chalk in front of his own residence in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights,” he said in a statement.
This is not the only proposal of its kind. California Assemblyman Rob Bonta has introduced a similar ordinance. His proposed legislation, AB 1150, would make state that “discriminatory 911 calls qualify as a hate crime, and further establish civil liability for the person who discriminatorily called 911.”
“AB 1550, when amended, will impose serious consequences on those who make 911 calls that are motivated by hate and bigotry; actions that inherently cause harm and pain to others,” Bonta said in a statement. “This bill is incredibly important to upholding our values and ensuring the safety of all Californians.”
Catholic Church Granted at Least $1.4 Billion in PPP Loans
- An analysis from the Associated Press found that the Catholic Church received at least between $1.4 and $3.5 billion in federal coronavirus relief aid.
- The report identified 3,500 loans the Church received from the Paycheck Protection Program, but leaders have previously stated that as many as 9,000 bodies of the Church received funding.
- However, government data only shared who received loans over $150,000. Smaller churches that received under that amount were not on the list, meaning the Catholic Church could have collected even more than records show.
- Usually, religious groups would not be eligible for funding from the Small Business Administration, but the Church allegedly spent a good chunk of money lobbying so that there would be an exception for the PPP.
Catholic Church Receives Billions in PPP Funds
While houses of worship and religious organizations are usually ineligible for federal aid from the Small Business Administration, an exception was made for the Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to keep American businesses afloat as the pandemic shut the country down.
The AP found records of 3,500 forgivable loans for Catholic dioceses, parishes, schools, and other ministries. That number, however, is likely higher.
The Diocesan Fiscal Management Conference has claimed that 9,000 Catholic bodies received loans. Government data only shared loans over $150,000, so smaller churches who got less were not on the list, meaning the Church may have pocketed even more than $3.5 billion.
“The government grants special dispensation, and that creates a kind of structural favoritism,” Micah Schwartzman, a University of Virginia law professor told the AP. “And that favoritism was worth billions of dollars.”
According to the AP, the Archdiocese of New York received $28 million just for executive offices. St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City received $1 million. Diocesan officials in Orange County, California received four loans worth $3 million. The AP’s analysis suggests that the Catholic Church and its entities were able to retain 407,900 jobs with this loan money.
“These loans are an essential lifeline to help faith-based organizations to stay afloat and continue serving those in need during this crisis,” spokesperson Chieko Noguchi told the AP.
How Did the Church Get Aid?
Like many businesses throughout the country, churches had to shut their doors as large gatherings became unsafe as the coronavirus’ spread continued. Masses were canceled or moved online and celebrations for the Easter holidays were dropped, causing the Church to to fall behind financially.
While its global net worth is not known, the Catholic Church is considered the wealthiest religious organization in the world. It is also one of the most powerful groups of any kind, with an estimated 1.2 billion followers all over the planet. According to the AP, its deep pockets and far-reaching influence helped it receive federal aid.
The Catholic Church lobbied heavily to make sure religious groups were allowed to receive money from the PPP, the AP says. Their report found that the Los Angeles archdiocese spent $20,000 lobbying Congress to include “eligibility for non-profits” in the CARES Act, the legislation that formed the PPP. Records also show that Catholic Charities USA spent another $30,000 in CARES Act lobbying.
With its wealth and power, the Catholic Church is also plagued with controversy and scandal. For years, there have been reports that the Church has covered up for priests and other leaders who have been accused of sexual abuse. Many entities of the church have had to shell out large sums of money in legal fees and settlements.
The AP found that around 40 of the dioceses that have paid out “hundreds of millions of dollars” to related compensation funds or bankruptcy proceedings received loans. These loans totaled at least $200 million.
See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Business Insider) (Market Watch)
Employers Can Opt-Out of Birth Control Coverage, SCOTUS Rules
- In a Wednesday ruling, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 that employers can opt-out of birth control coverage on religious grounds.
- Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have been required to cover cost-free contraception to their employees. Exceptions had initially been made to houses of worship, but a 2018 Trump Administration rule expanded that to include most employers, ranging from large public businesses to universities.
- The court sided with Trump, ruling that his administration had the authority to provide religious exemptions.
- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the two dissenting votes, claiming it could harm healthcare access for women in the workforce.
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Wednesday morning, ruling that employers can opt-out of providing birth control coverage on religious and moral grounds
Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have been required to cover cost-free contraception to their employees, though exemptions were made for houses of worship who could refuse for religious reasons. Exemptions grew in 2014 when Hobby Lobby won a Supreme Court case ruling that certain closely held corporations, like family businesses, could also refuse birth control coverage if it contradicted their religious beliefs.
Wednesday’s ruling pertained to a 2018 Trump administration policy that would allow most employers – ranging from small private businesses, to universities, to large public companies – to opt-out of contraception coverage for religious reasons. That rule was challenged by the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which claimed they would have to cover contraception costs to those who lost coverage under the Trump administration.
The court’s decision responded to two cases: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania. In a 7-2 ruling, they sided with Trump. The two dissenting votes came from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, said that the Trump administration “had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections.”
“It is clear from the face of the statute that the contraceptive mandate is capable of violating the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” he added.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a concurring opinion, claimed that the administration was “required by RFRA to create the religious exemption (or something very close to it).”
This could leave as many as 126,000 women without access to contraception within a year. According to Planned Parenthood, nine out of ten women will seek access to contraception at some point in their lives. While birth control is often used as a contraceptive, it is also used for a variety of other health reasons, including regulating menstrual cycles, lowering risks for various forms of cancer, and managing migraines, endometriosis and other ailments.
“This Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets,” Ginsberg wrote in the dissent.
Ginsberg claimed that the court’s usually balanced approach of not allowing “the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs” was thrown away.
“Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests,” she added.
Responses to Ruling
She was not alone in critiquing the rulings. The National Women’s Law Center called it “invasive, archaic, and dangerous.” The Center fears the ruling could have a larger impact on low wage workers, people of color, and LGBTQ people.
Dr. Daniel Grossman, the head of a research group at the University of California, San Francisco called Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health also condemned the decision.
“No employer is welcome into the exam room when I talk to patients about their contraception options, why should they be able to dictate the method from their corner office?” he asked.
On the other side, Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council applauded the Supreme Court.
“It should be common sense to allow a religious group to conduct themselves according to their religious convictions, and yet government agents have tried to punish them with obtuse fines for doing just that,” Perkins said in a statement. “We are pleased to see the Supreme Court still recognizes religious freedom.”