|
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. |
On July 22 2012 20:45 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: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.
This isn't the nineteenth century. If execution was the result it surely would not be with a bullet. Modern executions are expensive affairs.
|
On July 22 2012 20:52 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 20:45 Holy_AT wrote:On July 22 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: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. This isn't the nineteenth century. If execution was the result it surely would not be with a bullet. Modern executions are expensive affairs.
Vote me for your president and I will make them cheap again ...
|
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?
I agree, there are many other random acts of violence that are much worse than this and that don't receive nearly the attention this event has. Though in some sense a movie release like this is a pretty global event, so I think many people can relate with the "That could have been my Theater" realization.
On July 22 2012 16:56 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 16:45 rackdude wrote:
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.
Nope, not rational at all. It is just that our media fluffs down any story that is not local and then will play live feeds and cover something like this all day long. Still, as someone who literally almost went to this event (a friend invited me to go with his family, which I declined as I work really early. They just barely avoided being in the theater this guy shot up and went to the one next door with a slightly later start. Thankfully they all made it out ok and were not subject to any of the shooting, just the aftermath) it hits a little close to home.
Part of the terror also come from the surreal effect of doing this during the movie. Not only is going to see a movie a pretty global event, but it is one of those times when you are supposed to let go of reality a little. Suddenly having reality crashing back in with tear gas and automatic weapon fire is especially jarring and traumatic. While the authorities were quite quick on the scene (just 2 min or less from getting the call), from my friends experience people were slow to react due to the fact that this happened during a shooting scene.
|
On July 22 2012 20:54 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 20:52 Angry_Fetus wrote:On July 22 2012 20:45 Holy_AT wrote:On July 22 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: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. This isn't the nineteenth century. If execution was the result it surely would not be with a bullet. Modern executions are expensive affairs. Vote me for your president and I will make them cheap again ...
Well considering I'm from a country that prohibits the death penalty, that doesn't make much sense.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
The 6 year old died? Damn.
|
On July 22 2012 20:54 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 20:52 Angry_Fetus wrote:On July 22 2012 20:45 Holy_AT wrote:On July 22 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: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. This isn't the nineteenth century. If execution was the result it surely would not be with a bullet. Modern executions are expensive affairs. Vote me for your president and I will make them cheap again ...
For what purpose do you want to execute him? Seems like a strictly negative outcome to me. Why not just have him be a slave/prisoner for the rest of his life? You can at least put him to work.
|
When I read about his character he seems like the regular guy from university. Hm, I would like to talk to him and understand his mind. When you read about Columbine Massacre or others you always get the impression that the premise for the "ill mind" is social discrimination.
|
On July 22 2012 20:54 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 20:52 Angry_Fetus wrote:On July 22 2012 20:45 Holy_AT wrote:On July 22 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: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. This isn't the nineteenth century. If execution was the result it surely would not be with a bullet. Modern executions are expensive affairs. Vote me for your president and I will make them cheap again ...
As much as we project all guilt on him we can ask ourselves. Its a sad day for all of us.
|
On July 22 2012 21:15 Telcontar wrote:
The 6 year old died? Damn.
This is bothering, parents are taking their 6 year old children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie.
|
On July 23 2012 03:11 Alvin853 wrote:This is bothering, parents are taking their 6 year old children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie.
Really? This is what bothers you? Really?
|
On July 23 2012 03:18 Creationism wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:11 Alvin853 wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 Telcontar wrote:
The 6 year old died? Damn. This is bothering, parents are taking their 6 year old children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie. Really? This is what bothers you? Really?
So you can't be bothered with 2 things, as in both the tragedy that is this massacre and the fact that people are taking their young children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie?
|
On July 23 2012 03:33 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:18 Creationism wrote:On July 23 2012 03:11 Alvin853 wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 Telcontar wrote:
The 6 year old died? Damn. This is bothering, parents are taking their 6 year old children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie. Really? This is what bothers you? Really? So you can't be bothered with 2 things, as in both the tragedy that is this massacre and the fact that people are taking their young children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie?
The PG stands for Parental Guidance. If they've already seen the earlier Dark Knight movies at home then the parents could have decided quite reasonably that they were ok for this one, and if the kids found out at some point about midnight premiers some of them would have been as excited to stay up late for that as if they were in Disneyworld for the New Year's fireworks display.
Did you see the number of 6 and under kids in Ironman costumes in the Comicon videos? Kids like superhero movies and are much less bothered by violence than adults wish they were.
|
On July 23 2012 03:46 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:33 sereniity wrote:On July 23 2012 03:18 Creationism wrote:On July 23 2012 03:11 Alvin853 wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 Telcontar wrote:
The 6 year old died? Damn. This is bothering, parents are taking their 6 year old children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie. Really? This is what bothers you? Really? So you can't be bothered with 2 things, as in both the tragedy that is this massacre and the fact that people are taking their young children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie? Did you see the number of 6 and under kids in Ironman costumes in the Comicon videos? Kids like superhero movies and are much less bothered by violence than adults wish they were.
You'd be lying if you told me you thought that The Dark Knight series and Ironman are at the same level in terms of questionable material.
Why even use this as an example? Dreadfully bad comparison.
|
On July 23 2012 03:54 Rakanishu2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:46 -_-Quails wrote:On July 23 2012 03:33 sereniity wrote:On July 23 2012 03:18 Creationism wrote:On July 23 2012 03:11 Alvin853 wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 Telcontar wrote:
The 6 year old died? Damn. This is bothering, parents are taking their 6 year old children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie. Really? This is what bothers you? Really? So you can't be bothered with 2 things, as in both the tragedy that is this massacre and the fact that people are taking their young children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie? Did you see the number of 6 and under kids in Ironman costumes in the Comicon videos? Kids like superhero movies and are much less bothered by violence than adults wish they were. You'd be lying if you told me you thought that The Dark Knight series and Ironman are at the same level in terms of questionable material. Why even use this as an example? Dreadfully bad comparison.
Iron Man is a playboy who drinks heavily, is kidnapped in Afghanistan and tortured in a cave in an attempt to force him to arm terrorists. Major themes include the proliferation of arms and the terrible effects that has on civilians who have bad luck. The costume is more colorful, the villains less spectacularly mad and more quietly and realistically evil, the movie is not exactly Disney-like.
|
On July 23 2012 03:33 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:18 Creationism wrote:On July 23 2012 03:11 Alvin853 wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 Telcontar wrote:
The 6 year old died? Damn. This is bothering, parents are taking their 6 year old children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie. Really? This is what bothers you? Really? So you can't be bothered with 2 things, as in both the tragedy that is this massacre and the fact that people are taking their young children to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie?
If you can't perceive why a parent would take their child to see a BATMAN movie, with rating of PG-13 meaning parental guidance for children under 13 (which leaves to parents to decided whether their child is ready for the film), then you contribute nothing to this discussion or any discussion. To be "bothered" by the fact the parent took his/her child to see this movie, and for the child to die subsequently from a massacre committed by a maniac implies that somehow, in some low atmospheric world where oxygen does not reach your brain, you believe that the parent is somewhat at fault.
|
On July 22 2012 17:06 Ren91 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 15:28 Okiesmokie wrote: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
"Holmes changed into his body-armour and moved back into the cinema to launch his real-life rampage just as a cacophonous shooting scene erupted on the screen."
So he sat there behind the theater changing into his body armor, putting on his gas mask and readying his weapons. That's even worse if no one saw him doing that. That's even more preventable than him driving up already in his body armor.
|
|
|
On July 23 2012 04:57 Monoxide wrote:This may or may not be real; nut an interesting read nonetheless. Was the Shooting Staged?
your kidding right?
|
On July 23 2012 04:57 Kojak21 wrote:your kidding right?
Hey I didn't write it, I'm just posting it
|
On July 23 2012 04:57 Kojak21 wrote:your kidding right?
Whoever wrote that was probaly one of the morons that belive'd in the 9/11 conspiracy's too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
