Batman massacre: People killed at Dark Knight premiere

[babomb]

Here's some interesting material I use when teaching about conspiracy theories to my students. In fact I use the 9/11 inside job conspiracy as a casus to compare how science uses evidence/proof, in contrast to pseudo-science. http://youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/ and of course this: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.be/ This quote I found quite enlightening in regards to this thread. It was taken from Skeptic.com's article linked above: The American government deceived its citizens about the real human costs of Vietnam, and resorted to military tactics that were ethically questionable even by the standards of war. The revelations of Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, and other nefarious schemes great and small have understandably eroded public confidence in government. Couple that with an administration, that took office after the most controversial presidential election in more than a century, and one that backed out of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, misled citizens about the science of global warming and stem cell research, initiated a war in Iraq based on unsupportable “intelligence” about weapons of mass destruction, and failed to respond in adequately to the effects of a hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, and you have strong motivations for suspicion.40 (Suffice it to say, admiration for George W. Bush is not my motivation for defending him against the claims of conspiracy theorists). However, there are a few things to be said about suspicion. First, there is the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing — any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously. Second, the mistakes made by our government in the past are qualitatively different from a conscious decision to kill thousands of its own citizens in order to justify the oppression of others. Most importantly, there is the fact that most of what we know about the bad decisions made by our government is only knowable due to the relative transparency with which our government operates, and the freedom to disseminate and discuss this information. All this does is drive my point further. That there's so much disinformation circulating in regard to these issues and events that it's impossible to tell truth from fiction on these matters. There's evidence to support both views. And each side thinks that the evidence to support their own view is stronger than the oppositions. The evidence to support the inside job theory isn't conclusive enough to justify total belief. And evidence to debunk it isn't conclusive enough to completely thwart it. So you have to look at other aspects. Like the track record of our government. Questionable practices and amazing coincidences. We choose to err on the side of caution because our government does nothing to allow us to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything. So as Americans we don't know what to believe. Which itself is suspicious because that's the goal of disinformation, to confuse people and discredit ideas. It's all suspicious because we know better than to trust our government. So everything they say and do is suspect. So even though some things seem far fetched, we distrust our government so much that we can't bring ourselves to totally rule them out. Are you of the belief that there are no conspiracies? That all conspiracies exist only in the mind of those who believe them? This is a situation that the government has created by it's secretive nature. It's not created out of nothing. And what about the MKULTRA program? It's not a conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. But you seem to want to disregard that for some reason. When a government engages in such activities they simply can not be trusted. Because they're so secretive, we just can't put anything past them. Nobody is trying to make you believe any of this. We're just justifying our extreme suspicion of our government because you seem to be saying that we have no reason for such extreme suspicion. Which is absolutely not true. Since you aren't from here it's easier for you to give them the benefit of the doubt. Because no matter what the outcome of that is it doesn't effect you directly. But we have more of an emotional investment in it which makes that difficult for us to do. We're a society that's fabricated to the core. And everything is capitalized on for political purposes. Our government uses crisis to push its agenda. We've seen this time and again. So to us it's not a stretch to think that our government would create crisis in order to further an agenda. no, we can't prove it. But that only adds to the suspicion. I'd like to know why you think that such a vast majority of Americans believe in conspiracy theories and have such a deep suspicion of the government. Surely you can't think that it's just a bunch of individuals that are pre-disposed to distrust and paranoia, and that there's no logical basis for it. There's something in our society that creates this.

[bassman]

Wow, this thread went down hill fast. Well, before it gets locked for getting just a wee bit too heated, they've charged the shooter: Holmes, who was represented by a public defender at the hearing at the Arapahoe County Justice Center, was charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder and 116 counts of attempted murder. His attorneys asked for more time before entering a plea. For each of the 12 fatally shot moviegoers, Holmes faces one count of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder with "extreme indifference." The maximum penalty is death, the Denver Post reported.

[AcesandEights]

No more personal attacks, please. If you feel the need to make them, step away from your computer for a bit and give yourself a reality check.

[babomb]

No more personal attacks, please. If you feel the need to make them, step away from your computer for a bit and give yourself a reality check. My apologies everyone... As to the situation itself with the shooter and new information coming out, it's just fishy. He had a profile made on a site called Adult Friend Finder. You can see images of it if you search google images. The profile was made a week before the incident I think. On that profile is some of his personal information and status. His status is-"Will you come visit me in prison?" That, coupled with the details we already knew, would indicate that his plan is what? To gun down as many people in the theater as possible, blow up his apartment, surrender and go to prison? That just doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it. So he meticulously plans out this complex attack on the theater, builds complex and elaborate explosive systems in his apartment, just to surrender and go to prison? It would make sense if would've killed himself after the attack. Are we supposed to think he wanted to go to prison? Why wouldn't you kill yourself if you knew that what you were about to do was gonna land you in prison for the rest of your life? And some of the details in his personal information. Odd. It asks if he smokes, he prefers not to say. It asks if he does drugs, he prefers not to say. Then the kicker, it asks about his "male endowment" and he answers-short/average?? So, he doesn't want to say if he smokes or does drugs, but has no problem telling everyone he has a small dick? It just makes you wonder WTF is going on with this situation. Did he really setup that profile? It seems convenient and suspicious. Holmes' father was also set to testify against the banks I'm not saying that it's some vast conspiracy. It's just my nature to question things so i can't just see it as "who knows what goes on in the mind of these types". Just like I don't accept the religious argument of "God works in mysterious ways". It's too convenient. Other things, like when you listen to the audio from the theater, there's talk about multiple suspects. One wearing blue and white with a large red backpack. When Holmes is apprehended he's sitting in the passenger seat of his own car. Police find multiple gas masks and a 2nd handgun. Outside that rear exit there's a blood trail that leads back INTO the theater, with spurts consistent with a severed artery toward the rear exit not away from it. There was a special on CNN called Madness at Midnight. A witness account from someone who saw someone exit through that rear door claims that he kept the door open with his foot. I don't see how he could've geared up like that right outside the door with his foot propping it open.

[krisvds]

I understand your government has done some suspicious things in the past. I'm not questioning that. But every time a tragedy, like this shooting, occurs you will see the same thing happening: people putting it in a political context. No matter how many independent experts dig up proof to the contrary (9/11), it all becomes part of the old argument: the may be part of a conspiracy... It's like that quote I posted earlier: suspicon alone doesn't prove anything in a case like this. Anyways; over here in Europe people grew up in vastly different world concerning these 'rights'. I firmly believe my personal freedoms end where other's begin. I am more than willing to give up some right to carry arms to make my surroundings safer. It's still a free world over here too you know? And yeah, there is no need for personal attacks. That's why I like this forum so much. I can tell how different your views are to mine: it hasn't stopped us from having a discussion before and it hasn't here. But maybe this isn't the place to do so. I can understand many believe it to be in bad taste to discuss philosophy and politics so close after such a devastating emotional drama occurs. I guess we all love the movies so much that we were all shocked by this insanity.

[Neil]

I am more than willing to give up some right to carry arms to make my surroundings safer. That's my opinion 100% too over here in the UK. But I don't have that opinion for the US. For them to lose their guns would be a huge undertaking, and I simply can't see how that could do it. To the US folks? What is the current state of mind over this attack then? I'd imagine there's a certain feeling that change is required, but then reality hits on how could such a change take place such that it would actually achieve anything?

[Tricky]

I've been away for a week relaxing in Greece and it seems I've upset a few people in this thread reading back over it. I'm allowed an opinion on the US just the way the US seems to have a condescending view of the UK as if we are the ones ignorant to the rest of the world and are somehow prisoners because we don't carry guns. I'll leave it at that.

[babomb]

To the US folks? What is the current state of mind over this attack then? I'd imagine there's a certain feeling that change is required, but then reality hits on how could such a change take place such that it would actually achieve anything? You have some folks screaming "we need regulation". Meaning they want there to be a way for the amount of ammunition someone buys to be tracked in a government database. You have some people wanting all out banning of firearms, especially assault weapons. But the general attitude toward it is that it's in poor taste to talk about the politics of it because of the tragedy, unless of course you agree with the politics being talked about. In other words, it's ok to talk about the politics if you are for stricter gun control, but in poor taste to talk about it if you oppose it. There was some stupid controversy regarding an article posted to facebook about some facial recognition software that was used on footage taken from Occupy San Diego, where there was a 96% accuracy rating that put James Holmes at OccupySD. Some women were furious that the event was being made political when there was 26 people killed in the theater. But then the same women proceeded to argue the politics of it. So basically, people want something done but they don't know what or how to do it. So surely it will be big government to the rescue with more laws and more intrusion in the lives of the people. Without getting into the gun debate all over again. My concern is with the idea that everything should be legislated. They want to regulate the size of sodas that are available to people at restaurants, they want to regulate baby formula for new mothers. Everything becomes a clusterfuck here and then everyone wants the government to step in and legislate the decisions that I think should be up to the people themselves. It's a sad state of affairs when a society becomes unable to make any decisions without government legislation. -- -------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ---------- I've been away for a week relaxing in Greece and it seems I've upset a few people in this thread reading back over it. I'm allowed an opinion on the US just the way the US seems to have a condescending view of the UK as if we are the ones ignorant to the rest of the world and are somehow prisoners because we don't carry guns. I'll leave it at that. Can't speak for anyone else but I don't think people in the UK are prisoners for not carrying guns. I personally value my right to bear arms, and I have a problem with someone else making the decision to prevent me from having that right. That's all. I've never done anything to give people the impression that I'm not responsible enough to handle that right. I have no problem with criminals and crazies being denied that right. But I'm neither, so I should be able to own as many firearms as I choose and as much ammo as I choose. And I shouldn't be flagged on a DHS or TSA list because i bought a brick of shotgun shells.

[Sammich]

Without getting into the gun debate all over again. My concern is with the idea that everything should be legislated. They want to regulate the size of sodas that are available to people at restaurants, they want to regulate baby formula for new mothers. Everything becomes a clusterfuck here and then everyone wants the government to step in and legislate the decisions that I think should be up to the people themselves. It's a sad state of affairs when a society becomes unable to make any decisions without government legislation. You hit the nail right on the head. There are people that are so afraid of their own lack of self-control that they project this inadequacy to all of society. Instead of a Bill of Rights, they want government granted priviledges and permissions. They would rather live in a nanny state where arbitrary victimless crime laws can tell them what they can and can't do. Personal responsibility is alien to them. These people are just too immature to understand and appreciate the concept of freedom.

[babomb]

The article below relates to the Fast and Furious scandal where ATF agents purposely put guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartel members to create a situation that could be used to justify a gun control agenda. It's shit like this that makes us suspicious of everything. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/31/co...elated-murder/

[Sammich]

The article below relates to the Fast and Furious scandal where ATF agents purposely put guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartel members to create a situation that could be used to justify a gun control agenda. It's shit like this that makes us suspicious of everything. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/31/co...elated-murder/ The major issue is that when government sanctioned operations like this are exposed there is NO accountability. Fast and Furious type operations span both the Bush and Obama administrations to the highest levels and are comparable to the Iran/Contra guns for drugs affair that took place in the 80s. The latest with Fast and Furious is that 5 low level ATF are being made the scapegoats in an effort to make this go away and all this will do is incite even more to the existing public mistrust and suspicion in everything that the federal government does.

[babomb]

You hit the nail right on the head. There are people that are so afraid of their own lack of self-control that they project this inadequacy to all of society. Instead of a Bill of Rights, they want government granted priviledges and permissions. They would rather live in a nanny state where arbitrary victimless crime laws can tell them what they can and can't do. Personal responsibility is alien to them. These people are just too immature to understand and appreciate the concept of freedom. And our government is more than happy to oblige. They create an absolute dependence on government. I was watching an episode of Cops lastnight on G4. It was a domestic dispute where a guy went home drunk and started smashing shit in his house. he had a wife and 3 small kids. His wife was the one who called and she kept getting up close to the camera and calling for a ban on alcohol. This shows the mindstate of the uneducated masses(the majority) who feel that there should be a law to deal with everything. People are inviting this overbearing presence of authority into everyone's lives. It's getting to the point where everything has a law to govern it. So is it any surprise that we have such a high crime rate when laws make criminals out of everyday people? So now they're gonna end up implementing a government database that flags everyone who buys a brick of ammo at sams club or costco. Effectively creating domestic terrorists out of people who are just being thrifty. It sickens me! -- -------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ---------- Then there's this whole police brutality thing that happens pretty much daily these days in the US. I got a question for the UK members. Watch these videos. Does shit like this happen in the UK? Ever? Let alone daily. Then there's this youtube video where at least some of the media are asking the same questions I've been asking about the theater shooting: Seems as though me and Sammich aren't the only ones asking these "paranoid" questions...

[LouCipherr]

Seems as though me and Sammich aren't the only ones asking these "paranoid" questions... You're not - but we'll be the first ones labeled as conspiracy theorists, kooks, and tinfoil hat wearers all because we don't believe what's spoon-fed to us by the so-called "news" and "media" in this country. Did any of you hear the stupid interview with the one "witness" from the theater shooting? Witness to Second Shooter Right-click and "save as" and take a listen to that bullshit. He spits off statistics like an almanac (not a natural way of speaking for anyone - unless they're reading a script!) and he goes on and on about "casualties" and how he sat "precisely 4 seats from the aisle" (do you remember that kind of detail after you go see a movie? What seat did you sit in the last time you were at the movies? Do you even remember?) and he seems to have an excellent top-to-bottom description of the shooter - even though the movie had started according to him (which means the theater was completely dark). He even said, and I quote, "When my girlfriend arrived on location..." When his girlfriend arrived "on location"? "casualties"?? Spitting out stats? Who the hell talks like this? When was the last time any of you were talking to someone and said, "when is your friend expected to arrive on location?" But yeah, we're the crazy ones for thinking there's more to the story than there is. As if we don't have reason to believe we're being lied to since our media, government and police forces have shown over and over again that they aren't to be trusted. It has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories" - it has everything to do with listening carefully and deconstructing what you're hearing and seeing.

[AcesandEights]

he goes on and on about "casualties" and how he sat "precisely 4 seats from the aisle" (do you remember that kind of detail after you go see a movie? What seat did you sit in the last time you were at the movies? Do you even remember?) and he seems to have an excellent top-to-bottom description of the shooter To be fair, I never had a traumatic life event take place at a movie theater (notwithstanding Diary of the Dead) that seered into my brain and had me probably replaying the event over and over afterward. Just thinking out loud.

[LouCipherr]

To be fair, I never had a traumatic life event take place at a movie theater (notwithstanding Diary of the Dead) that seered into my brain and had me probably replaying the event over and over afterward. Just thinking out loud. @ the Diary comment. I hear ya, Aces. Thank you for responding in a civil manner. This isn't directed at you, I'm also just thinking out loud: After listening to this "witness" interview, I had to ask myself something: when I go to the movies, do I remember anything about the strangers around me? The answer is always no. I spend most of my time either reading trivia on the screen (they show that kinda stuff around here before the trailers start) or talking to my friends that came with me, not even bothering to consider the people around me unless they do something to warrant attention. Someone's cell phone ringing prior to the movie starting doesn't cause me to suddenly pay attention to them (unlike this guy in the interview). It happens all the time. I'd tend to think most people are like that - yet, this guy gives a description of a stranger that is waaaaay too detailed for the average person going to the movies. Imagine how many people were there. I'd think it would be a packed full house, considering - and he picked out this one guy's actions before the shooter came in? Out of what, at least 100 (if not way more) people packed in there? As Bill S. Preston, Esquire once said, "Something strange is afoot at the Circle K." Something doesn't jive. I don't know what, but something isn't right. If that makes me crazy, well, then so be it. I've been called way worse.