|
This is a tragic event. Let's not derail the thread with a gun control debate. Posts from page 9 onward will be moderated for steering the discussion towards gun control. |
Canada379 Posts
On July 22 2012 02:14 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 02:09 M7Jagger wrote:On July 22 2012 02:06 Zath.erin wrote:On July 22 2012 01:56 M7Jagger wrote:On July 22 2012 01:54 PanN wrote:On July 22 2012 01:52 M7Jagger wrote:On July 22 2012 01:47 PanN wrote:On July 22 2012 01:42 M7Jagger wrote:On July 22 2012 01:36 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 22 2012 01:16 M7Jagger wrote:
How come all these things always take place in america? They don't, but it's a big country. Really big country. So is Canada, but I don't hear about any school shootings in Canada. Why are you bothering to speculate if you're just going to say really ignorant things such as "LOL U ALL MUST HATE EACHOTHER". If you're curious you'd be curious and not be saying jackass esque things. If what i say is ignorant, tell me why my it's ignorant. I don't need to explain to you why saying an entire nation must hate each other because of the few sick individuals we have had in the past is ignorant. Figure that out yourself. But then tell me why these things always happen in America and not in Canada for example. There is obviously wrong with your country, no offence. Canada has 1/10th the population and stricter gun control, and it does happen in Canada, there was a shooting in Toronto last week that killed a few people. That's true, but USA has the higher rate. Not per capita
Yes, per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
|
I think this guy should be locked up in solitary confinement for life and be given a butter knife. If it gets so miserable he wants to kill himself, he'll know what to do.
|
On July 22 2012 10:25 Okiesmokie wrote:
That isn't what I said at all. I said the theater should have employed more security officers during a midnight screening of a big movie. It's just common sense to me that they would attempt to enforce the safety of the movie-goers when they know for a fact there will be a large amount of people there, that late at night. They do this where I live, it just baffles me that they didn't do it in Colorado.
Do you actually have any facts as to how many security officers were there? You seem to be talking out of your ass otherwise. From what I understand police were at the scene from the moment it started, ie they were on duty there to handle situations that could arise (fights and distubances, definitely not this). Seen this regularly at large openings around here and would imagine the same situation there as well. As well, what would security officers be able to do in this situation, besides direct people to run for the exits?
|
On July 22 2012 11:45 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:25 Okiesmokie wrote:
That isn't what I said at all. I said the theater should have employed more security officers during a midnight screening of a big movie. It's just common sense to me that they would attempt to enforce the safety of the movie-goers when they know for a fact there will be a large amount of people there, that late at night. They do this where I live, it just baffles me that they didn't do it in Colorado. Do you actually have any facts as to how many security officers were there? You seem to be talking out of your ass otherwise. From what I understand police were at the scene from the moment it started, ie they were on duty there to handle situations that could arise (fights and distubances, definitely not this). Seen this regularly at large openings around here and would imagine the same situation there as well. As well, what would security officers be able to do in this situation, besides direct people to run for the exits?
Adding my two cents on this as a night shift security officer.
Many of us are unarmed. City folk in particular, as well as many large companies, don't want us armed. One is because armed guards cost more, and two is the belief that armed guards make people uncomfortable.
No matter how many officers were on site, its unliekly they could have stopped this man unless they were armed, and I have NEVER seen an armed guard at a theater. So again, guard numbers wouldn't have mattered: a few would possibly have tried to flank this guy and take him down, but would most likely have jsut added to the body count. And the rest would have been hiding/running, just like everyone else. Most unarmed security personnel are not trained to do anything but open the exits and then get the hell out of dodge, and none of the unarmed guards are paid well enough to stand in the open and attract fire away from the crowd.
Hope this clears up that little part of this discussion.
More to the point of this thread: Gods bless those who were hurt and those who have lost loved ones, if it is right that it be so.
|
Canada379 Posts
On July 22 2012 11:45 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:25 Okiesmokie wrote:
That isn't what I said at all. I said the theater should have employed more security officers during a midnight screening of a big movie. It's just common sense to me that they would attempt to enforce the safety of the movie-goers when they know for a fact there will be a large amount of people there, that late at night. They do this where I live, it just baffles me that they didn't do it in Colorado. Do you actually have any facts as to how many security officers were there? You seem to be talking out of your ass otherwise. From what I understand police were at the scene from the moment it started, ie they were on duty there to handle situations that could arise (fights and distubances, definitely not this). Seen this regularly at large openings around here and would imagine the same situation there as well. As well, what would security officers be able to do in this situation, besides direct people to run for the exits?
The suspect drove up to the back door and walked in unhindered. That is fact.
|
I'm just curious if someone can answer me this question.
I know the police had a really quick response time in arriving at the theater (around 90 seconds according to the Chief of Police).
I wonder was the rear door that Holmes exited an emergency exit which set off an alarm that alerted the police?
I know there are many types of theaters, and several layouts and some have more exit doors than others (usually based on total occupancy of theater).
From what I read (and it's all internet reporting so take that for what it's worth), Holmes bought a ticket, entered the theater then exited (about 30 mins into the movie) it though a rear door/exit and went to his car then returned to the theater via the same door.
I'm just thinking that maybe there was an alarm and since there were 25+ police on duty that night (according to Chief of Police during July 21 Press Conference) that a few of them responded very quickly to the call.
Just curious if anyone who works/ed at a movie theater has any incite on this question.
|
There were occasionally two police offices who moonlighted as security for the theater but they weren't there that night. (Just a random tidbit). So it's not like the theater never had security, they just didn't have any that night.
|
On July 22 2012 11:45 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 10:25 Okiesmokie wrote:
That isn't what I said at all. I said the theater should have employed more security officers during a midnight screening of a big movie. It's just common sense to me that they would attempt to enforce the safety of the movie-goers when they know for a fact there will be a large amount of people there, that late at night. They do this where I live, it just baffles me that they didn't do it in Colorado. Do you actually have any facts as to how many security officers were there? You seem to be talking out of your ass otherwise. From what I understand police were at the scene from the moment it started, ie they were on duty there to handle situations that could arise (fights and distubances, definitely not this). Seen this regularly at large openings around here and would imagine the same situation there as well. As well, what would security officers be able to do in this situation, besides direct people to run for the exits?
Just to clarify, this was from the Chief of Police (July 20, Press Conference), there were no off duty police officers working security at the theater the night of the shooting. According to Chief Oates off duty police usually only provide security on the weekends, and as this movie opened on a Thursday (12am Friday) they were not present. But due to a Summer program to increase their presence on the streets there were 25+ uniformed police working in that jurisdiction. And the police arrived within 60 to 90 seconds of being informed of there being a situation (911 calls).
Also it appears that you two are both saying that there should have been a security presence for midnight showings (regardless of what day it is). No need to argue when you both seem to agree.
|
+ Show Spoiler +So, let me get this straight... some joker rolled up during the premier and had a blast with people who were dying to see the movie, which turned the otherwise happy evening into a very dark night indeed?
too soon?
User was warned for this post
|
Go looks at the photos of the dad trying to find his son who was missing. Watch the interviews of survivors talking about those who shielded others and dying in the process. Just try to picture yourself actually being there and knowing the hell you'd have gone through and how you'd never be able to forget it for the rest of your life. Then, try and figure out how funny that is.
Edit: taking the quote out if you change your mind. Come on now man ;/
|
I understand this is a terrible event... but how is it any different than any other terrorist act that occur daily throughout the world? Because it has had a ton of media coverage?
|
On July 22 2012 16:20 ZaplinG wrote:
I understand this is a terrible event... but how is it any different than any other terrorist act that occur daily throughout the world? Because it has had a ton of media coverage?
It's not an organized act. That's why it's different. (Or rather, only one person did any of the organizing and did it in a very methodical way)
|
On July 22 2012 16:20 ZaplinG wrote:
I understand this is a terrible event... but how is it any different than any other terrorist act that occur daily throughout the world? Because it has had a ton of media coverage?
Because for a lot of people, this struck pretty close to home after a summer where the state had already been ravaged by wildfires. Not to mention this is one of worst incidents like this to happen in some time.
I work with some people that were actually in the theater that night, and to make light of it in the face of anything else is rather low. I don't usually post at all on this site but seeing the joke you posted made me kinda sick to my stomach. I've talked to people who had to see it happen, and could just have easily died, easily one of the most kind spirited, light hearted people I know was there and I've never seen someone so shaken up.
So is this worse or "different" than any other incident like this that happens globally? No, you can't really measure that, but this doesn't happen every day in the states, and its impacted far more than the 12 lives that were lost (several in critical condition still, and many others with life long injuries). Just, be respectful life is a gift. I really don't mean to argue at all in this thread and if this comes off as too hostile I apologize, but it was definitely a bit terrifying waking up to that news so close to where I live.
Also, its like Nevuk said, its not really on par with other terrorist acts since this guy acted alone/without organization.
(Edit: Picture here: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/police_hope_to_enter_shooting_suspect_FzCV19gIZTV52TEWLoiGsJ and told officers that he was the joker, and he had some pretty crazy explosives and stuff in his apartment. Its a miracle no life has been lost from that.) I'm impressed with how much people here have banded together to sort through this tragedy.
|
On July 22 2012 16:20 ZaplinG wrote:
I understand this is a terrible event... but how is it any different than any other terrorist act that occur daily throughout the world? Because it has had a ton of media coverage?
It's way different on the mind because you can relate to it. Blowing up a bus in Bulgaria? Yeah, that's scary, but it's not like I'm going any far away place. Killings down in Mexico? I don't live there either so it's not too scary. Flights are kind of scary? Well it's not like you fly everyday. Plus there is a ton of security now.
Guy shoots a shit ton of people at a movie premiere in the US? SHIT! I WENT TO ONE! What if it was my theater? Could it have been? It definitely could have been since how many security guards do you see at a movie theater and how many fake weapons did you see at the batman premiere?
That's the big difference.
|
On July 22 2012 16:45 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 16:20 ZaplinG wrote:
I understand this is a terrible event... but how is it any different than any other terrorist act that occur daily throughout the world? Because it has had a ton of media coverage? It's way different on the mind because you can relate to it. Blowing up a bus in Bulgaria? Yeah, that's scary, but it's not like I'm going any far away place. Killings down in Mexico? I don't live there either so it's not too scary. Flights are kind of scary? Well it's not like you fly everyday. Plus there is a ton of security now. Guy shoots a shit ton of people at a movie premiere in the US? SHIT! I WENT TO ONE! What if it was my theater? Could it have been? It definitely could have been since how many security guards do you see at a movie theater and how many fake weapons did you see at the batman premiere? That's the big difference.
Hardly rational but fine, think that way if it makes you happy.
|
It is different because the bus blown up was a "normal" terrorist attack somewhere far away.
This happened in a cinema where some of us go very often and perhaps you plan to watch the movie or have watched it so you can better relate to this. And the terrorists ? They are old news some Islam dude who believes he is fucking his Genie virgins (because islam explains the are not actual human virgins) when he dies gloriously for the cause.
But here ? We have no real motive ? It just seems so random ? Dressed up like the joker ?
Its a new puzzle and thats why it is more interresting to us.
And terrorists are terrorists they got their weapons and explosives and stuff because the are terrorists and have their networks, but how did a 24 year old got this many guns, amunition, bulletproove vest, gasmask, and the other stuff ?
I heard he was a student and even had difficulties finding a job ?? How could he even afford this ? ...
|
On July 22 2012 15:28 Okiesmokie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:45 dp wrote:On July 22 2012 10:25 Okiesmokie wrote:
That isn't what I said at all. I said the theater should have employed more security officers during a midnight screening of a big movie. It's just common sense to me that they would attempt to enforce the safety of the movie-goers when they know for a fact there will be a large amount of people there, that late at night. They do this where I live, it just baffles me that they didn't do it in Colorado. Do you actually have any facts as to how many security officers were there? You seem to be talking out of your ass otherwise. From what I understand police were at the scene from the moment it started, ie they were on duty there to handle situations that could arise (fights and distubances, definitely not this). Seen this regularly at large openings around here and would imagine the same situation there as well. As well, what would security officers be able to do in this situation, besides direct people to run for the exits? The suspect drove up to the back door and walked in unhindered. That is fact.
"he bought a ticket for the midnight screening of Dark Knight Rises, the new Batman film, went into the auditorium with other excited cinema-goers, but slipped straight out the back into the car park though the emergency exit, leaving the door lodged slightly ajar."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9417789/Batman-shooting-suspect-James-Holmes-the-making-of-a-sick-Joker.html
|
On July 22 2012 16:59 Holy_AT wrote:
It is different because the bus blown up was a "normal" terrorist attack somewhere far away.
This happened in a cinema where some of us go very often and perhaps you plan to watch the movie or have watched it so you can better relate to this. And the terrorists ? They are old news some Islam dude who believes he is fucking his Genie virgins (because islam explains the are not actual human virgins) when he dies gloriously for the cause.
But here ? We have no real motive ? It just seems so random ? Dressed up like the joker ?
Its a new puzzle and thats why it is more interresting to us.
And terrorists are terrorists they got their weapons and explosives and stuff because the are terrorists and have their networks, but how did a 24 year old got this many guns, amunition, bulletproove vest, gasmask, and the other stuff ?
I heard he was a student and even had difficulties finding a job ?? How could he even afford this ? ...
Guns and credit cards are the two easiest things to get in america
edit :
I don't mean this as a political statement. I'm a 23 year old in america and in college they were literally throwing credit cards in my face and giving us pizzas for taking them up on their offer.
|
On July 22 2012 07:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 06:02 xM(Z wrote:On July 22 2012 04:46 Goozen wrote:On July 22 2012 04:34 xM(Z wrote:
if he suicides himself or if death penalty would allow death by suicide, no one would be to blame, no 'new' crimminals will be born.
...but i guess that wont be good either 'cause: what about the revenge? Why call it "revenge" and not "justice"? because 'justice' is subjective. revenge (or pity) is the one that satisfies peoples ego, that gives them closure. justice, in this case, is just something to hide behind. It is about neither justice nor revenge, it's about harm reduction. And harm reduction would entail never allowing this individual to EVER threaten any innocent civilian again. Which should exclude the possibility for a perceived rehabilitation. You should rehabilitate thieves, maybe the occasional murderer, but not a mass murdering psychopath like this. And even if you could, I don't know why anyone would want to. Will this person ever redeem himself for the lives he has taken? Of course not. It would be best for victims, government, and if we had a sane system, taxpayers, for his existence to cease. And I know the counter argument that always follow... But there is little point in even bringing up the issue of doubt about guilt. Is anyone, including the killer, disputing his guilt in this case?
well, not really. i was arguing under the assumption that he is guilty.
the thing here is that you went with revenge but just sugarcoat it, so i don't need a counter argment.
-every scenario that ends up with him losing his life = (righteous) revenge
-every scenario that ends up with him living = forgiveness (pity)
the only question here is: what satisfies (you)?.
|
On July 22 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 07:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 22 2012 06:02 xM(Z wrote:On July 22 2012 04:46 Goozen wrote:On July 22 2012 04:34 xM(Z wrote:
if he suicides himself or if death penalty would allow death by suicide, no one would be to blame, no 'new' crimminals will be born.
...but i guess that wont be good either 'cause: what about the revenge? Why call it "revenge" and not "justice"? because 'justice' is subjective. revenge (or pity) is the one that satisfies peoples ego, that gives them closure. justice, in this case, is just something to hide behind. It is about neither justice nor revenge, it's about harm reduction. And harm reduction would entail never allowing this individual to EVER threaten any innocent civilian again. Which should exclude the possibility for a perceived rehabilitation. You should rehabilitate thieves, maybe the occasional murderer, but not a mass murdering psychopath like this. And even if you could, I don't know why anyone would want to. Will this person ever redeem himself for the lives he has taken? Of course not. It would be best for victims, government, and if we had a sane system, taxpayers, for his existence to cease. And I know the counter argument that always follow... But there is little point in even bringing up the issue of doubt about guilt. Is anyone, including the killer, disputing his guilt in this case? well, not really. i was arguing under the assumption that he is guilty. the thing here is that you went with revenge but just sugarcoat it, so i don't need a counter argment. -every scenario that ends up with him losing his life = (righteous) revenge -every scenario that ends up with him living = forgiveness (pity) the only question here is: what satisfies (you)?.
Its not that easy, if he is found guilty and he would be executed after the trial imediatly lets say by shooting him in the head it would only cost the bullet + the wage of lets say one hour for shooting him by an executioner or who ever.
If you lock him up for the rest of his life it would cost thousands and thousands of dollars for the american tax payer.
The only alternative is somesort of worker camp where he produces enough to pay for the guards and the other stuff he requires for beeing locked up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
