Batman massacre: People killed at Dark Knight premiere

[shootemindehead]

It's horrible to say, but I was actually surprised by how totally unsurprised I was by this story. These type of massacres have become so common-place in America, it's just one in a long line of similar events.

[Tricky]

Yeah, cuz anything strange to you is wrong, correct??? And if you wouldn't do it, or if you don't understand why someone else would be into that, then there must be no need for it, right? Why WOULD anyone want bulletproof vests and gasmasks? It's not like bullets and contaminated air can kill you!? And only the good guys use those against the bad guys, right!? For 1 thing, in case you didn't notice, we're living in crazy times. You never know what's gonna happen. Obviously, as per the subject at hand. Another thing, even though you don't think so, there are good reasons for citizens to own vest, helmets, and masks. It's strange to me that you would even entertain the idea that these things should not be available to the public. For 1, they save lives, 2 they don't on their own pose any threat to anyone. You can't kill or hurt someone with a helmet, vest or mask. So it's kind of like you're saying that just in the odd chance that the authorities might need to use lethal force against you, you shouldn't be allowed to own things that can protect you from them. There are high profile people like celebrities, politicians, witnesses, and people who feel that at some point their lives could be put in danger so they like the piece of mind that protection from these items gives them. It's not up to other people to decide that that's strange or wrong and should therefore be outlawed. Those types of people are civilians, average Joe's. So if you outlaw those things, how would people who really have a use for them be able to get them? How about Bail Bondsmen, and journalists? They aren't law enforcement or military. So should people then apply to be considered a different class of citizen, so they can posses items that other small minded people don't think they need? There's also collectors, who like to own things like that just like others collect rocks, comics, stamps. None of these items pose a threat to people, so what would the problem be? What about violent movies and video games? What possible need could people have for those? A conclusion could be drawn that anyone who enjoys violence on screen is just a nutjob waiting to happen. So why not outlaw it? A compelling case could be made in favor of banning it outright. It could really cut down on the amount of violence that occurs in real life. The only thing in favor of allowing it is a little thing called freedom. And what's that even worth? I mean, c'mon, safety is so much more important than freedom. we should create a list of approved activities. Ya know, things that pose no threat in any way. Things that aren't strange to anyone, things that could never be used in a crime of any sort. Games of any kind are out! Because someone could get upset they lost, and become violent. Or someone could cheat and get something they didn't earn. I really hope you were kidding!!!! Well this shows the huge difference between the UK and the US, because to be honest as much as people here don't particularly like successive governments or trust them, there are very, very few people in this country that feel the government is "out to get them" or that they need to be "prepared" for some apocalyptic scenario by stockpiling all that kind of kit. The only places you can buy that kind of kit in the UK is from military surplus shops or online sites, and by & large the only people who buy it are Airsoft/Paintball Walter Mittys who get a bit carried away, nutjobs or serving soldiers who want a bit more kit than the standard stuff they are issued. You can buy hard hats, hazmat suits & respirators from hardware shops for working with chemicals etc, but none of it is dolled up like military/SWAT gear. For the record I have access to a rifle, several shotguns and a collection of air rifles for pest control. I also own a Russian gas mask, kevlar British Army flak jacket and an Iraqi kevlar helmet, all of which are just relics brought back from Op Desert Storm back in '91 and given to me when i was a kid, cool to own but in no way would I even think of them as "preparation" for some imagined threat. We just don't live under that kind of fear over here.

[Mr. Clean]

Brace yourselves folks....gun control bills are about to go CRAZY.

[babomb]

Well this shows the huge difference between the UK and the US, because to be honest as much as people here don't particularly like successive governments or trust them, there are very, very few people in this country that feel the government is "out to get them" or that they need to be "prepared" for some apocalyptic scenario by stockpiling all that kind of kit. The only places you can buy that kind of kit in the UK is from military surplus shops or online sites, and by & large the only people who buy it are Airsoft/Paintball Walter Mittys who get a bit carried away, nutjobs or serving soldiers who want a bit more kit than the standard stuff they are issued. You can buy hard hats, hazmat suits & respirators from hardware shops for working with chemicals etc, but none of it is dolled up like military/SWAT gear. For the record I have access to a rifle, several shotguns and a collection of air rifles for pest control. I also own a Russian gas mask, kevlar British Army flak jacket and an Iraqi kevlar helmet, all of which are just relics brought back from Op Desert Storm back in '91 and given to me when i was a kid, cool to own but in no way would I even think of them as "preparation" for some imagined threat. We just don't live under that kind of fear over here. Well, the US n UK GOV's are intertwined. So, IMO, you have the same things to worry about as we do as far as politics on the world stage are concerned. Your lives are still run by big business just like ours. Maybe the UK GOV does a better job of downplaying these things, IDK. I do know however that concerns about GOV corruption and totalitarianism are NOT unfounded. Our GOV is a very dangerous and out of control global entity. The US GOV is a threat to the entire world. Most of all to it's own citizens. You have to remember that the US is a nation born of violent overthrow of power. We're also only a little over 300 years old. So maybe the UK is just better at controlling its citizens because it's had alot more time to refine that craft. But I don't buy for a nanosecond that the UK is immune to or somehow efficient enough to avoid the problems that the rest of the world are currently experiencing. The US has certain things in the BOR that seem to be nothing more than an annoyance to those in power here. Yet, these things are very important to citizens. Like the 1st and 2nd amm. Our country is being outsourced by big business, which makes our way of life much harder. Our politicians only care about votes and private business contracts. The US is headed in a very dangerous direction, completely to the dismay and against the will of all of the people here. We're being dumbed down by advertising and TV so that our leaders have an easier time screwing us over. Here in the US, votes are purchased through promises that are never kept. Things are getting so bad here that it's becoming apparent that the only possible solution is violent revolution. And our leaders understand this, so they make every attempt to make this impossible. The big thing is private ownership of firearms, there's been people and groups that have been trying to abolish this for decades. And they do it under the guise of being concerned about the safety of the people. They don't listen to the people, or act out of true concern for the people in any other areas. But, we're supposed to believe that they want to save us from ourselves by abolishing firearms? Everything here in the US is based on lies and greed! Maybe that doesn't mean much to folks from other countries, but we're here living this nightmare every day. So to you and others from across the pond, violent revolution might seem like a pipe dream and an impossibility. But to us, it could be the ONLY hope to reclaim this nation. So no matter how far fetched others think it is, or how much of a pipe dream they see it as, we have to protect it as it may be the only option in the long run. No offense to anyone from the UK or anywhere else, but when you say that revolution is a pipe dream or impossibility, we see this as words from people with a broken spirit, people with no real fight left in them. That's what the Brit's said to the founding fathers of America back in the day, and look at what that impossible pipe dream resulted in! I mean, of course you don't see that as a viable option because it isn't an option to you. I don't really know how some of you guys see your situation abroad. What would your options be if your GOV became like our GOV? Where the vote was manipulated and perverted to the point where it no longer was even effective? Where all your jobs are going overseas and nobody has health care, hardly anyone has money to do anything, everyone is extremely far in debt and losing their homes, all your rights are being taken away in the interest of national security? I really don't think that people from other countries can truly appreciate the situation here in the US! All they see is what filters through the global media. Which is always spun in the way that certain interests want people to view the situation, it doesn't tell the whole story. US aggression as you see it in the world stage isn't limited to other nations. That same aggression is used against US citizens, it's just cloaked in politics. For instance, the Iraq invasion. Would the answer to that problem be for the Iraqi people to give up their weapons and ability to resist? no! That would make it an order of magnitude worse for them. Which is the same here. It seems like others think that the situation in the US is just politics, citizens that can't agree on how the nation should be run, and people who don't want to give up anything for the greater good. But that's not the case. The situation is that we're an occupied nation from within, being enslaved by corporate aggressors that care nothing about the people, and have perverted the political process that should be used to make things better for the people, not better for big businesses profit margin. You can't get a real perspective on the situation here by spending a week or 2 seeing the sights, or coming here on a work vesa for a couple years tax free. That doesn't represent what it's like to be a citizen here, to deal with the problems that citizens face on a daily basis. So you can't really sit back and say "America needs to get rid of their guns to create a more peaceful society", because you don't understand the bigger picture. You disregard the #1 reason for having those guns as a pipe dream or conspiracy theory. -- -------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ---------- Brace yourselves folks....gun control bills are about to go CRAZY. UN small arms treaty!!! read this-http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_Ja...alse_flag.html

[bassman]

So a thread about an undeniable tragedy has turned into a political debate? This is the world we live in, I suppose. I really shouldn't be surprised. Certain people should be ashamed of themselves.

[krisvds]

So a thread about an undeniable tragedy has turned into a political debate? This is the world we live in, I suppose. I really shouldn't be surprised. Certain people should be ashamed of themselves. My thoughts exactly. Pointless and in bad taste...

[babomb]

These are the implications of the tragedy at hand. Were we just supposed to post our condolences to the victims but not talk about the situation? I could see if we were at a funeral for the victims, but we're not. This is a message board on the internet. Why would we not talk about the situation and the implications of it? It just doesn't make sense. Nobody in this thread arbitrarily attached these political implications to the situation. They were already there. It's actually quite possible that this tragedy was engineered in order to create fear and drum up support for an already existent political agenda. Nobody in this thread created that, some of us just addressed it. So i don't understand why anyone should be ashamed of themselves for discussing it. I don't have all the social niceties that most people do. I have trouble picking up on social cues. So now I'm confused as to what we can talk about regarding this. Alot of the details of the situation don't add up. The shooter was an unemployed grad student. he collected unemployment. But somehow managed to accumulate upwards of $20,000 worth of tac gear, became proficient with it all, learned how to rig extremely complex explosive devices. But after the shooting he surrenders without incident. THEN, after learning to create and rig all those explosives, he tells the cops about them? He already killed multiple people and wounded many others. So you can't claim that he didn't want more people to die out of concern for his legal defense in the matter. he's already looking at the death penalty or life without parole. So he wouldn't be looking at any more time by killing police with his explosives. Allowing that to happen could have helped his case by destroying evidence that could be used against him. It's not like he could've planned this whole thing but never thought about the evidence in his place. What other reasons would he have to booby trap the house? Why would you wear a ballistic vest, leg, arm, neck, and groin extensions on it and a helmet, if you didn't plan on shooting it out with police? That was what he planned for. He wouldn't plan this, then execute the majority of the plan, then just get cold feet and decide enough people died and surrender himself and tell about the explosives. That doesn't fit the situation. I think this guy had help!

[Mr. Clean]

So a thread about an undeniable tragedy has turned into a political debate? This is the world we live in, I suppose. I really shouldn't be surprised. Certain people should be ashamed of themselves. It's an election year...You should expect no less

[wayzim]

I don't have all the social niceties that most people do. I have trouble picking up on social cues. So now I'm confused as to what we can talk about regarding this. Alot of the details of the situation don't add up. The shooter was an unemployed grad student. he collected unemployment. But somehow managed to accumulate upwards of $20,000 worth of tac gear, became proficient with it all, learned how to rig extremely complex explosive devices. But after the shooting he surrenders without incident. THEN, after learning to create and rig all those explosives, he tells the cops about them? He already killed multiple people and wounded many others. So you can't claim that he didn't want more people to die out of concern for his legal defense in the matter. he's already looking at the death penalty or life without parole. So he wouldn't be looking at any more time by killing police with his explosives. Allowing that to happen could have helped his case by destroying evidence that could be used against him. It's not like he could've planned this whole thing but never thought about the evidence in his place. What other reasons would he have to booby trap the house? Why would you wear a ballistic vest, leg, arm, neck, and groin extensions on it and a helmet, if you didn't plan on shooting it out with police? That was what he planned for. He wouldn't plan this, then execute the majority of the plan, then just get cold feet and decide enough people died and surrender himself and tell about the explosives. That doesn't fit the situation. I think this guy had help! Lot of assumptions here. Getting unemployment doesn't automatically equal poverty - just like student doesn't mean punkass kid. James Holmes was going for his PHD, after all. That being the case, goal oriented research can take you far in planning a holocaust. According to the testimony of at least one gun shop owner, Holmes was on a learning curve where his arsenal was concerned, asking alot of questions on how to use the assault rifle, so we're not talking about an expert markmans here - which might explain why he couldn't clear his weapon after it jammed. So far I haven't heard that he was using any target ranges for practice - yet. The booby trapped apartment - there's a supposition that it had been meant to be a distraction for first responders, since Holmes had deliberately left loud music playing that night to attract attention there. It's been suggested that a noise complaint might have brought the cops and set off the explosives - lowering the number of responders at the cinema. I think that telling the cops might have been a final act of bravado - that perhaps he hoped they might actually set off the explosives in trying to disarm them? As for why he did all this, who really knows? Until he actually opens up his mouth, we'll never really know for sure. Way Zim

[Sammich]

What isn't being reported by the mainstream media is that Cinemark has had a no firearms policy in their theaters since 2009. There have been incidents of management forcing people legally carrying firearms being forced to leave. What also isn't being reported by the mainstream media is in March 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that University of Colorado students with concealed firearms permits were allowed to carry on campus. Colorado Supreme Court affirms that CU students with permits can carry concealed guns on campus It doesn't take a neuro scientist to figure out why Holmes didn't try pulling a Virginia Tech style shooting at his University and chose the "gun free" theater instead. Businesses with "no firearms allowed" policies have been repeatedly warned that it would open them up to all sorts of liabilities, as it implies that they are taking on the full responsibility for the safety of their patrons. Cinemark will most likely be sued into bankruptcy after the lawyers get in on the act. -- -------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ---------- I think this guy had help! Survivor statements imply that there was another person involved. There are also reports that Holmes had a room mate and both were seen leaving the apartment before the shooting took place.

[wayzim]

What isn't being reported by the mainstream media is that Cinemark has had a no firearms policy in their theaters since 2009. There have been incidents of management forcing people legally carrying firearms being forced to leave. What also isn't being reported by the mainstream media is in March 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that University of Colorado students with concealed firearms permits were allowed to carry on campus. Colorado Supreme Court affirms that CU students with permits can carry concealed guns on campus It doesn't take a neuro scientist to figure out why Holmes didn't try pulling a Virginia Tech style shooting at his University and chose the "gun free" theater instead. Businesses with "no firearms allowed" policies have been repeatedly warned that it would open them up to all sorts of liabilities, as it implies that they are taking on the full responsibility for the safety of their patrons. Cinemark will most likely be sued into bankruptcy after the lawyers get in on the act. -- -------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ---------- Survivor statements imply that there was another person involved. There are also reports that Holmes had a room mate and both were seen leaving the apartment before the shooting took place. I don't know anything about this room-mate story, could you provide a link? But the one dudes speculation about an accessory in this crime seems fairly doubtful right now. Most reports state that Holmes was already in theatre 9 ( where he'd bought a ticket ) that he'd exited through a door near the screen ( likely using something to block it from closing completely ) and went to his car which was parked nearby. Didn't know about the right to carry policy on campus, that's an interesting idea and we'll know more once the shooter starts talking. Way Zim

[Sammich]

Holmes supposedly had dayglo orange hair, yet none of the witnesses mention this about the person that got up to open the emergency exit. Also, aren't those exits supposed to be wired to an alarm? Here is another witness that says he had an accomplice: Witness: Someone let gunman inside Colorado movie theater "As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place." -- -------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ---------- As for the room mate it was reported on msnbc but the article has strangely been changed. Here is a mention I could find on another site: Theater shooting suspect was graduate student at Colorado medical school Public records indicate that Holmes lived with two roommates, also from California, in the Aurora building where police have found explosives, at 1690 Paris St., Apt. 10. The building is reserved for students, faculty and staff from the medical campus.

[Neil]

"As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place." You would think it would be difficult for him to get in through a fire escape without help! Surely they have CCTV around the outside of the cinema?

[babomb]

Lot of assumptions here. Getting unemployment doesn't automatically equal poverty - just like student doesn't mean punkass kid. James Holmes was going for his PHD, after all. That being the case, goal oriented research can take you far in planning a holocaust. Poverty or not, all that gear cost quite a bit of money. Some of it you just can't buy outright like that. You can't just buy tear gas grenades, or military grade smokers. You can still get smokers through other means, but surplus stores don't sell them and to order them out of a catalog or online you have to show proof that you're a law enforcement officer or active military. Most catalogs and online shops restrict ballistic vests like that also. This is due to that bank robbery in CA where the 2 guys wore them and the police didn't have sufficient weapons to deal with them at the time. I realize that student doesn't mean punkass kid. I never for a second thought he was some punk kid. My thoughts on him being a student were that students are usually struggling for money. With tuition, room and board, food, transportation. The booby trapped apartment - there's a supposition that it had been meant to be a distraction for first responders, since Holmes had deliberately left loud music playing that night to attract attention there. It's been suggested that a noise complaint might have brought the cops and set off the explosives - lowering the number of responders at the cinema. I think that telling the cops might have been a final act of bravado - that perhaps he hoped they might actually set off the explosives in trying to disarm them? That makes sense. Everyone would be at the apartment after the explosion, giving him time to get away. Which could also explain the smoke or tear gas grenade. He was planning on getting away. Between a distraction at his apartment, and concealing himself with the gas mask and grenade, he thought he could get away. So knowing that, it's really strange that he surrendered without incident. If he was having a difficult time learning to use the AR to the point where he couldn't clear the jam, learning to rig those explosives would've also been a challenge. A much bigger challenge. Yet, he never makes a mistake while rigging them, never accidentally sets any of them off. That takes some skill! That's not information you can get at the library, and we've not heard anything about the police having his computer and finding evidence of him browsing sites that teach ordinance making skills. Normally that's one of the 1st things you hear about when something like this happens. That the suspect had been talking online about things that may be related, or reading about things that would help him carry out his plan. Making a bomb/s draws on a few different skill areas. Chemistry, detonation mechanisms. Some of them were improvised munitions made by modifying fireworks, but others were very sophisticated devices. It wouldn't take this long to disarm improvised fireworks. The guy would also have to be a moron to think that fireworks would achieve the results he was looking for. Then there's the roommates. The guy must have wanted them dead or something. The most likely scenario for the explosives would've been for one of the roommates to set them off. The apartment is rigged with trip wires, there's music blaring, but where the hell are the roommates through all of this? Then there's the strange situation with the shooter having no background. He was basically non-existent. noboy knows anything about him. Only a few people have said that they've even seen the guy in passing on campus. And who knows if they even did see him or if they thought they did, or are just lying to have a moment in the spotlight. As for why he did all this, who really knows? Until he actually opens up his mouth, we'll never really know for sure. They'll never tell us that

[Neil]

In court... -- -------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ---------- Hate the way some sites are seemingly using this as a soap box, and almost just being patronising to people. For example, AICN had an article a few das ago, and now now we have "Stand Up And See The Dark Knight Rises This Weekend" at CinemaBlend. Do they think without their advice we'd all be cowering in fright at home - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Stand...end-32045.html We know he was a random loon... We know there's no real risk in going to the cinema or indeed even this specific film. So please so these stupid flag waving articles!