|
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 24 2012 06:34 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 05:58 fishjie wrote:
oh let's be clear here, i'm 100% in support of due process, fair trails, and everything. this is because not having these things in place would result in giant government abuse, and infringement on the personal liberties of american citizens. as much as its awful that this guy is not going to get brutally tortured to death as punishment for his actions, it would be far worse to have a system where the government could willy nilly torture people, kinda like what the patriot act enabled.
therefore all my posts are just wishful thinking that this guy will get his punishment. he is obviously a giant troll, calling himself the joker, so the media attention is probably delighting him. delight should be the last emotion this monster should be feeling. they should leave him in a room with the family's victims for a few minutes. if they choose to forgive him great, if they choose to kill him, well then justice served. It's a good thing hes not actually, it means as a society we are above such methods. If this entire nation thought with their heart and not their brain in regards to punishments we'd have a much more fucked up system. Again, you failed to explain why you want this guy tortured exactly? What benefits does it have other than to fulfill your disgusting thirst for vengeance?
mainly because he is probably really happy that all this transpired, and considering what he did, happiness should be the last emotion he feels. don't see how vengeance is disgusting. if somebody intentionally and maliciously causes mass suffering, its perfectly rational to want them to suffer as well.
|
On July 24 2012 06:47 ishyishy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:22 Okiesmokie wrote:On July 24 2012 06:13 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 06:04 Okiesmokie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:27 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:12 PanN wrote:On July 24 2012 04:02 fishjie wrote:
I don't see how the insanity thing is going to fly. Insane people don't go to school to get PHDs in neuroscience. He's most likely a sociopath who has no empathy whatsoever. That's not being insane, that's just being a douche. Death penalty is too good for this guy. Life in prison, with plenty of prison loving in the shower should do the trick. And if he likes getting fucked in prison... . . . . .. .? Your logic is horrible, and I completely disagree with your morals and other peoples in the thread. Get rid of the dude sure, kill him. But have him tortured too? Wat. You're a bad human being. why am i bad? that's like saying the guy who carries out the death penalty is as bad as the person who committed the crime. um no.... murdering bad guys = good bad guys murdering innocent people = bad the guy is a worthless piece of trash who inflicted tons of suffering. he meticulously planned it. why does he deserve any rights at this point? he's not a human, he's a monster. anyone whose played diablo knows what you do to monsters, you beat them to a bloody pulp. Who are you to make the definition of who is a "bad guy" and who is "innocent"? You are following the same logic that a lot of murderers do. They think that someone wronged them, therefore they are "bad" and murder them. a fair question. here's my system of ethics in a nutshell. humans are social animals, therefore any system of ethics must take into consideration interhuman relationships and promote cooperation and teamwork. "bad" is simply that which causes suffering and pain in others. "good" is that which creates happiness and friendships. under such a system, there is a lot of gray area where its not entirely clear what's good or bad. in situations such as these, its important to debate and consider both sides of the argument. however in this case, its a pretty open and shut scenario. guy is "bad" because he killed lots of people who were not a threat to him, were doing no harm to him, and who were just trying to live their lives. that's a pretty slam dunk case for him being a "bad" guy. The thing about ethics is that they are all a matter of opinion. There is no scientific test to determine whether someone is "good" or "bad." Why is this even an arguement? It doesnt matter what people think of him. He violated laws, and those laws have set guidelines for a punishment or consequence. The punishment for murder, in a case where the one who commited the act was not diagnosed as mentally ill, will receive life in prison or death. It's that simple. "In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim." - What Holmes did. "As you probably already know, crimes are either charged as felonies or misdemeanors. What you may not realize is that both felonies and misdemeanors are divided into classes. For example, a class one felony is the most serious (example: first-degree murder)." Quoted from http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/sentencing/#Scroll further down that page and you will see a generalization of the classes in the form of a chart. 1st degree murder is a class 1 sentence. It says minimum of life in prison, maximum of death. I am no law student, but I think this is obvious: Holmes has at least 12 accounts (since he directly caused the death of 12 individuals) of first degree murder, on top of the multiple assault charges (attempted murder charges?) of the other 58 that he caused moderate to severe injury to, plus all of the minor charges (like destruction of property), and the bomb-rigged apartment. Is there any question of the resulting sentence?
It is apparently an argument because of a sick fuck who thinks that its ok to torture people who kill people.
On topic, copied from Wikipedia: + Show Spoiler +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Colorado
"Colorado was the last state to perform an execution in the pre-Furman period (1967)[1], but since 1977 executed only one prisoner, and may thus be considered as de facto abolitionist since 11 October 2007."
So no, I wouldn't assume that he gets the death penalty.
|
On July 24 2012 06:38 cz wrote:
My prediction, which I'm reasonably confident in:
1) It's revealed he's suffering from a mental illness, almost certainly schizophrenia. He was convinced he was the joker and was playing the role as a result of his mental illness. Or at least that's what medical professionals conclude. His withdrawal from school followed a trend of the disease manifesting itself for the first time or growing in strength.
2) He is revealed to be confused and horrified at his actions.
3) He is medicated for court hearings with anti-psychotics.
4) Court now has decision. This one I'm not absolutely sure about, but I'm going to say that they accept testimony of his psychiatric team and send him to some sort of psychiatric center for 5+ years until he is rehabilited. Option 2 is that his schizophrenic appeal is ignored and he goes to prison for rest of his life / death sentence, but I doubt it's going that route.
5) Him being sent to psychiatric center for rehabilitation causes widespread public anger and debate over mental illness and the judicial system. Public is assured he'll be confined but the eventual goal is to re-integrate him into society.
6) We all eventually forget about him until 3 years from now when he is beginning to be re-integrated into society.
7) 10 years from now he's living in the community again with partial supervision/check-ups from mental health people.
Almost certain this will all happen.
Living in Colorado myself, I can guarentee that the option 1 won't happen (as far as I know they don't let people who kill 12 other people off with a slap on the wrist), but if it does happen he will never be released outside again for his own safety. There would be far too many people who would want him dead.
|
I think we need a new legal concept. Let's call it "superguilty." As in, some guy with orange hair calling himself the joker in full swat gear carrying weapons at the scene of a mass murder with dozens of witnesses telling police about the bombs that actually are planted in an apartment building who's own mother doesn't even doubt his guilt. Yeah that should qualify. And this new legal concept of "superguilty" should allow a court to dispense with some of the customary nonsense in our legal system, take your pick.
On July 24 2012 04:45 ticklishmusic wrote:
The purpose of the criminal justice system, as far as I understand, is to rehabilitate the criminal, not for society to "get even". If we torture someone for committing a crime, we're no better than him/her. "But he/she did it first!" is a terrible argument and leads only to more escalation and so forth. Pretty sure that's taught in kindergarten.
The purpose of the justice system should be to try and protect innocent people from dangerous or harmful individuals. Rehabilitation can never serve that goal as well as either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
Yeah bro the CIA is brainwashing college students to go shoot up theaters. You have no idea how many puppets we have out there waiting to get their brain switch turned on to psychopath mode. I've personally been brainwashed to respond dismissively to suggestions such as yours on the internet. And don't think that aluminum foil wrapped around your room protects you from the theta waves, we have learned how to penetrate even steel.
On July 23 2012 18:56 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:23 Reaps wrote:On July 23 2012 05:13 Reaps wrote:On July 23 2012 04:57 Kojak21 wrote: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? Whoever wrote that was probaly one of the morons that belive'd in the 9/11 conspiracy's too. I regret posting this, now i have some idiot pming me trying to convince me the goverment was behind 9/11. Oh god. Planes did hit the twin towers, but there is 0 evidence of a plane ever hitting the Pentagon. Just sayin. Computers where all the information held where 4 trillion dollars was "lost" also were destroyed in the attack.
How does someone like you reach 2000+ posts? And people think MY posting is bad lmao...
On July 24 2012 06:22 Okiesmokie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:13 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 06:04 Okiesmokie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:27 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:12 PanN wrote:On July 24 2012 04:02 fishjie wrote:
I don't see how the insanity thing is going to fly. Insane people don't go to school to get PHDs in neuroscience. He's most likely a sociopath who has no empathy whatsoever. That's not being insane, that's just being a douche. Death penalty is too good for this guy. Life in prison, with plenty of prison loving in the shower should do the trick. And if he likes getting fucked in prison... . . . . .. .? Your logic is horrible, and I completely disagree with your morals and other peoples in the thread. Get rid of the dude sure, kill him. But have him tortured too? Wat. You're a bad human being. why am i bad? that's like saying the guy who carries out the death penalty is as bad as the person who committed the crime. um no.... murdering bad guys = good bad guys murdering innocent people = bad the guy is a worthless piece of trash who inflicted tons of suffering. he meticulously planned it. why does he deserve any rights at this point? he's not a human, he's a monster. anyone whose played diablo knows what you do to monsters, you beat them to a bloody pulp. Who are you to make the definition of who is a "bad guy" and who is "innocent"? You are following the same logic that a lot of murderers do. They think that someone wronged them, therefore they are "bad" and murder them. a fair question. here's my system of ethics in a nutshell. humans are social animals, therefore any system of ethics must take into consideration interhuman relationships and promote cooperation and teamwork. "bad" is simply that which causes suffering and pain in others. "good" is that which creates happiness and friendships. under such a system, there is a lot of gray area where its not entirely clear what's good or bad. in situations such as these, its important to debate and consider both sides of the argument. however in this case, its a pretty open and shut scenario. guy is "bad" because he killed lots of people who were not a threat to him, were doing no harm to him, and who were just trying to live their lives. that's a pretty slam dunk case for him being a "bad" guy. The thing about ethics is that they are all a matter of opinion. There is no scientific test to determine whether someone is "good" or "bad."
Yes, ethics is all just a matter of opinion. Which applies equally well to the people who are saying that life should never be devalued and that capital punishment is wrongful murder, despite the sort of moral finality they seem to ascribe to it. There are some awfully strong judgements being hurled at people over their perceived inferior ethics. But if it's all opinion, as you say, then there are no inferior ethics, not even James Holmes... right? This is where many start changing their tune.
|
On July 24 2012 06:47 ishyishy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:22 Okiesmokie wrote:On July 24 2012 06:13 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 06:04 Okiesmokie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:27 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:12 PanN wrote:On July 24 2012 04:02 fishjie wrote:
I don't see how the insanity thing is going to fly. Insane people don't go to school to get PHDs in neuroscience. He's most likely a sociopath who has no empathy whatsoever. That's not being insane, that's just being a douche. Death penalty is too good for this guy. Life in prison, with plenty of prison loving in the shower should do the trick. And if he likes getting fucked in prison... . . . . .. .? Your logic is horrible, and I completely disagree with your morals and other peoples in the thread. Get rid of the dude sure, kill him. But have him tortured too? Wat. You're a bad human being. why am i bad? that's like saying the guy who carries out the death penalty is as bad as the person who committed the crime. um no.... murdering bad guys = good bad guys murdering innocent people = bad the guy is a worthless piece of trash who inflicted tons of suffering. he meticulously planned it. why does he deserve any rights at this point? he's not a human, he's a monster. anyone whose played diablo knows what you do to monsters, you beat them to a bloody pulp. Who are you to make the definition of who is a "bad guy" and who is "innocent"? You are following the same logic that a lot of murderers do. They think that someone wronged them, therefore they are "bad" and murder them. a fair question. here's my system of ethics in a nutshell. humans are social animals, therefore any system of ethics must take into consideration interhuman relationships and promote cooperation and teamwork. "bad" is simply that which causes suffering and pain in others. "good" is that which creates happiness and friendships. under such a system, there is a lot of gray area where its not entirely clear what's good or bad. in situations such as these, its important to debate and consider both sides of the argument. however in this case, its a pretty open and shut scenario. guy is "bad" because he killed lots of people who were not a threat to him, were doing no harm to him, and who were just trying to live their lives. that's a pretty slam dunk case for him being a "bad" guy. The thing about ethics is that they are all a matter of opinion. There is no scientific test to determine whether someone is "good" or "bad." Why is this even an arguement? It doesnt matter what people think of him. He violated laws, and those laws have set guidelines for a punishment or consequence. The punishment for murder, in a case where the one who commited the act was not diagnosed as mentally ill, will receive life in prison or death. It's that simple. "In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim." - What Holmes did. "As you probably already know, crimes are either charged as felonies or misdemeanors. What you may not realize is that both felonies and misdemeanors are divided into classes. For example, a class one felony is the most serious (example: first-degree murder)." Quoted from http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/sentencing/#Scroll further down that page and you will see a generalization of the classes in the form of a chart. 1st degree murder is a class 1 sentence. It says minimum of life in prison, maximum of death. I am no law student, but I think this is obvious: Holmes has at least 12 accounts (since he directly caused the death of 12 individuals) of first degree murder, on top of the multiple assault charges (attempted murder charges?) of the other 58 that he caused moderate to severe injury to, plus all of the minor charges (like destruction of property), and the bomb-rigged apartment. Is there any question of the resulting sentence?
Yes. I am not going to debate you as to why. But in response to your query: yes, there is.
|
On July 24 2012 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Yes, ethics is all just a matter of opinion. Which applies equally well to the people who are saying that life should never be devalued and that capital punishment is wrongful murder, despite the sort of moral finality they seem to ascribe to it. There are some awfully strong judgements being hurled at people over their perceived inferior ethics. But if it's all opinion, as you say, then there are no inferior ethics, not even James Holmes... right? This is where many start changing their tune.
yeah so you obviously didn't read the rest of the post. because ethics are not black and white the only way to come up with a good system is by examining all sides and coming up with a good argument based on logic and rational thought. i already explained my system and the reasoning behind them. so no i'm not changing my tune, as you would know if you had bothered to read. we don't know what james holmes system of ethics is, because he has not explained it. if by some miracle he comes up with some convincing argument why he killed everyone (maybe all the people in there were serial killers), then i would re-evaluate my statements. otherwise, nope.
|
On July 24 2012 07:10 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Yes, ethics is all just a matter of opinion. Which applies equally well to the people who are saying that life should never be devalued and that capital punishment is wrongful murder, despite the sort of moral finality they seem to ascribe to it. There are some awfully strong judgements being hurled at people over their perceived inferior ethics. But if it's all opinion, as you say, then there are no inferior ethics, not even James Holmes... right? This is where many start changing their tune. yeah so you obviously didn't read the rest of the post. because ethics are not black and white the only way to come up with a good system is by examining all sides and coming up with a good argument based on logic and rational thought. i already explained my system and the reasoning behind them. so no i'm not changing my tune, as you would know if you had bothered to read. we don't know what james holmes system of ethics is, because he has not explained it. if by some miracle he comes up with some convincing argument why he killed everyone (maybe all the people in there were serial killers), then i would re-evaluate my statements. otherwise, nope.
I never actually responded to you so I'm not sure why you are being defensive lol. Anyway, the "system" you have regarding ethics is not based on argument or rational thought, it is based 100% on emotional inclinations with logical rationalizations behind them. Saying it's not black and white I interpret to mean that there is no truth or falsity, which is an accurate description.
It's just funny to me that people who embrace moral ambiguity in 90% of cases are the same one's who evoke such conviction and moral judgement when issues like capital punishment arise.
|
On July 24 2012 07:04 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:47 ishyishy wrote:On July 24 2012 06:22 Okiesmokie wrote:On July 24 2012 06:13 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 06:04 Okiesmokie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:27 fishjie wrote:On July 24 2012 04:12 PanN wrote:On July 24 2012 04:02 fishjie wrote:
I don't see how the insanity thing is going to fly. Insane people don't go to school to get PHDs in neuroscience. He's most likely a sociopath who has no empathy whatsoever. That's not being insane, that's just being a douche. Death penalty is too good for this guy. Life in prison, with plenty of prison loving in the shower should do the trick. And if he likes getting fucked in prison... . . . . .. .? Your logic is horrible, and I completely disagree with your morals and other peoples in the thread. Get rid of the dude sure, kill him. But have him tortured too? Wat. You're a bad human being. why am i bad? that's like saying the guy who carries out the death penalty is as bad as the person who committed the crime. um no.... murdering bad guys = good bad guys murdering innocent people = bad the guy is a worthless piece of trash who inflicted tons of suffering. he meticulously planned it. why does he deserve any rights at this point? he's not a human, he's a monster. anyone whose played diablo knows what you do to monsters, you beat them to a bloody pulp. Who are you to make the definition of who is a "bad guy" and who is "innocent"? You are following the same logic that a lot of murderers do. They think that someone wronged them, therefore they are "bad" and murder them. a fair question. here's my system of ethics in a nutshell. humans are social animals, therefore any system of ethics must take into consideration interhuman relationships and promote cooperation and teamwork. "bad" is simply that which causes suffering and pain in others. "good" is that which creates happiness and friendships. under such a system, there is a lot of gray area where its not entirely clear what's good or bad. in situations such as these, its important to debate and consider both sides of the argument. however in this case, its a pretty open and shut scenario. guy is "bad" because he killed lots of people who were not a threat to him, were doing no harm to him, and who were just trying to live their lives. that's a pretty slam dunk case for him being a "bad" guy. The thing about ethics is that they are all a matter of opinion. There is no scientific test to determine whether someone is "good" or "bad." Why is this even an arguement? It doesnt matter what people think of him. He violated laws, and those laws have set guidelines for a punishment or consequence. The punishment for murder, in a case where the one who commited the act was not diagnosed as mentally ill, will receive life in prison or death. It's that simple. "In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim." - What Holmes did. "As you probably already know, crimes are either charged as felonies or misdemeanors. What you may not realize is that both felonies and misdemeanors are divided into classes. For example, a class one felony is the most serious (example: first-degree murder)." Quoted from http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/sentencing/#Scroll further down that page and you will see a generalization of the classes in the form of a chart. 1st degree murder is a class 1 sentence. It says minimum of life in prison, maximum of death. I am no law student, but I think this is obvious: Holmes has at least 12 accounts (since he directly caused the death of 12 individuals) of first degree murder, on top of the multiple assault charges (attempted murder charges?) of the other 58 that he caused moderate to severe injury to, plus all of the minor charges (like destruction of property), and the bomb-rigged apartment. Is there any question of the resulting sentence? It is apparently an argument because of a sick fuck who thinks that its ok to torture people who kill people. On topic, copied from Wikipedia: + Show Spoiler +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Colorado So no, I wouldn't assume that he gets the death penalty.
I'm not trying to say you are wrong, but what I cited was a colorado-specific website for sentencing. I'm only 25, and I've only lived in colorado for 14 of those years, but the only other event like this that comes to my mind was the school shooting in 1999. Those individuals ended their own life, there was no sentencing. This mass murder didnt happen in another place, it happened in Colorado, and thus will follow the US and *Colorado* sentencing laws.
If your example is true, then I can imagine the sentence for the murder of 1 person to be a non-death penalty by way of a thousand technicalities and arguements lol, but this was 12, and the attempted of, technically, however many people were inside the theater building (hundreds), and the occupants of the apartment building and the surrounding buildings (and im sure that can go down to level 10 inception or whatever lol). The list just goes on and on. This guy is done for, plain and simple.
|
On July 24 2012 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The purpose of the justice system should be to try and protect innocent people from dangerous or harmful individuals. Rehabilitation can never serve that goal as well as either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
What?
What??
Really? What? Really? What? I'm sorry. I'm just so flabbergasted that someone could possibly think an appropriate "justice" system is a choice between life in prison and the death penalty. It would seem you have about as much respect for human life as Lrrr from the planet Omicron Persei 8. Or maybe HAL from 2001: ASO. What? WHAT!>?!?!!?>!
|
On July 24 2012 07:23 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The purpose of the justice system should be to try and protect innocent people from dangerous or harmful individuals. Rehabilitation can never serve that goal as well as either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
What? What?? Really? What? Really? What? I'm sorry. I'm just so flabbergasted that someone could possibly think an appropriate "justice" system is a choice between life in prison and the death penalty. It would seem you have about as much respect for human life as Lrrr from the planet Omicron Persei 8. Or maybe HAL from 2001: ASO. What? WHAT!>?!?!!?>!
If you think I am advocating the death penalty for a petty thief then I suppose I understand why you are so flabbergasted. My statement is simply that protecting victims should be the priority, a priority over protecting the supposed rights of a criminal who has violated the rights of others.
|
On July 24 2012 07:23 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The purpose of the justice system should be to try and protect innocent people from dangerous or harmful individuals. Rehabilitation can never serve that goal as well as either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
What? What?? Really? What? Really? What? I'm sorry. I'm just so flabbergasted that someone could possibly think an appropriate "justice" system is a choice between life in prison and the death penalty. It would seem you have about as much respect for human life as Lrrr from the planet Omicron Persei 8. Or maybe HAL from 2001: ASO. What? WHAT!>?!?!!?>!
Meh...a lot of people have the opposite of anything similar to sympathy for murderers, and mass murderers, and drug dealers, and terrorists, and vandals, and thieves, and drunk drivers, etc. Accidental crimes are one thing, but intended ones are completely another thing. I am a fan of the old 'you steal an apple, and you get a finger cut off' kind of laws. I have no sympathy for someone like Holmes, either. A swift, clean, quick, and painless death is much too good for this individual, but it will have to do I guess.
I'm not talking about the justice system or whatever, just commenting on your "...respect for human life" comment.
I dunno why, but for some reason this event has affected me more than I thought it would. Usually, when I hear about something bad happening somewhere far away in a distant land, I'm not bothered by it. I hardly even care. But, I've actually been to that movie theater, I live 20 minutes from it. I saw a UFC PPV there. I can picture sitting in that theater, and I can visualize what it might have looked like when Holmes walked in and did this. It felt like someone punched me in the heart; I actually couldnt breath for a second. Maybe that is where some of my anger comes from, and where others' anger comes from if they felt the same way. I am actually scared to go to a movie theater now. I probably wont go to one for a very very long time. All of my feelings aside, though, I still can only imagine. I really hope nothing like this ever happens again.
|
At the end of the day, nothing will change as usual. It's really sad and unfortunate that the only time we question the "laws" & "rights" of mankind/humans is AFTER something terrible like this happens. It's disgusting, and we all know nothing will change because restricting the constitutional right of an American to own a high powered rifle for "protection" or "sport" is absurd.
RIP to all those lost.
If there's one positive I can take out of this whole situation its that this will be taken care of by the American judicial system. I would hate to see something like this happen in Canada where the guilty party would likely walk only a few years after a lengthy trial.
|
This is a tragedy. Made me sick when I first heard about it.
I searched online but was unable to find any information on this. Has anyone heard or read anything about the shooter's motives? The closest I could find was some speculation based on the available info... This was a smart but not brilliant kid living a basically empty existence except for academia, and when he began to fail at that, he snapped.
It just confounds me what could possibly have driven a human being to commit such an act
|
On July 24 2012 08:21 Zahir wrote:
This is a tragedy. Made me sick when I first heard about it.
I searched online but was unable to find any information on this. Has anyone heard or read anything about the shooter's motives? The closest I could find was some speculation based on the available info... This was a smart but not brilliant kid living a basically empty existence except for academia, and when he began to fail at that, he snapped.
It just confounds me what could possibly have driven a human being to commit such an act
I used to think it was the same thing that drives a human being to suicide, and that maybe the shooters expect to get shot in return and want to end their existence in a tragic way.
But the fact that he was wearing a bullet proof vest completely negates that theory.
One thing is certain. This and similar recent events have completely changed my mind about gun control. I used to be pro limited gun control but now I'm certainly pro training and arming civilians. This kind of thing needs to stop.
|
On July 24 2012 07:33 ishyishy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 07:23 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 24 2012 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The purpose of the justice system should be to try and protect innocent people from dangerous or harmful individuals. Rehabilitation can never serve that goal as well as either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
What? What?? Really? What? Really? What? I'm sorry. I'm just so flabbergasted that someone could possibly think an appropriate "justice" system is a choice between life in prison and the death penalty. It would seem you have about as much respect for human life as Lrrr from the planet Omicron Persei 8. Or maybe HAL from 2001: ASO. What? WHAT!>?!?!!?>! Meh...a lot of people have the opposite of anything similar to sympathy for murderers, and mass murderers, and drug dealers, and terrorists, and vandals, and thieves, and drunk drivers, etc. Accidental crimes are one thing, but intended ones are completely another thing. I am a fan of the old 'you steal an apple, and you get a finger cut off' kind of laws. I have no sympathy for someone like Holmes, either. A swift, clean, quick, and painless death is much too good for this individual, but it will have to do I guess. I'm not talking about the justice system or whatever, just commenting on your "...respect for human life" comment. I dunno why, but for some reason this event has affected me more than I thought it would. Usually, when I hear about something bad happening somewhere far away in a distant land, I'm not bothered by it. I hardly even care. But, I've actually been to that movie theater, I live 20 minutes from it. I saw a UFC PPV there. I can picture sitting in that theater, and I can visualize what it might have looked like when Holmes walked in and did this. It felt like someone punched me in the heart; I actually couldnt breath for a second. Maybe that is where some of my anger comes from, and where others' anger comes from if they felt the same way. I am actually scared to go to a movie theater now. I probably wont go to one for a very very long time. All of my feelings aside, though, I still can only imagine. I really hope nothing like this ever happens again.
This is exactly my point actually. It may be incredibly cliche - but I've done it before and I'll do it again; to quote Yoda "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." I feel like this DOES really strike home because of the movie theatre aspect. Who in the US hasn't ever been to a movie theatre? This could happen to anyone - so it's particularly scary. That fear - whether we realize it or not - is a great part of what fuels our drive to get this man put down.
The Dalai Lama was once asked whether he hates the Chinese - for exiling him from his country and killing his people. His reply was "they have taken so much from me, would you have them take my mind as well?" There is almost nothing to be gained - in terms of mental wellness - from a fervent hatred of anything. This man may not deserve your pity - but that is all you should give him because he is quite obviously very, very sick.
There is a HUGE difference between something being morally reprehensible and something being against the law - and it works both ways. Most people - in my opinion - rarely stop to question the black and white system we have in place for legal judgement.
For example - someone uses a deadly poison to kill an unarmed and restrained man. Most people would call this murder in cold blood - but that's actually the execution process for death-row inmates. Most would agree that the aspect of murder which is so reprehensible in the eyes of human society is the taking of another humans life - the removal of fellow Homo Sapiens from the physical plane of existence before their time. In fact - if it weren't for very specific clauses in the law books - state execution could be a crime punishable by death in the same state.
I take extra care to base my personal moral code on what I think is right not what the law says. There are no laws against many things I would NEVER consider doing and there are laws against things I WOULD consider doing - in specific situations. I didn't turn 21 until a couple months ago - for example - but I had certainly quaffed multiple alcoholic beverages on multiple occasions before that point. I don't think Hammurabi's Code is a viable 21st Century justice system. I for one wouldn't have any arms left. Or a liver or something.
Don't get me wrong - what this guy did is absolutely terrible and awful and disgusting. And certainly society should join together to display their distaste and indeed - intolerance - of such behaviours. But also remember - moral code is something that is frequently similar between societies. If we can all agree that storming into a movie theatre with an assault rifle and killing innocents is a deplorable act - why would Mr. Holmes NOT see that. You could argue that he's a soulless murderer, that such people spring up in society occasionally and that the only cure is to prune them off like unsightly plant growth but I don't think that gets to the heart of the problem. The problem - in my opinion - is that this guy was incredibly mentally ill and unstable. His symptoms weren't recognized - or he lacked the proper resources - and he never received help for his condition.
In defense of the death penalty - there is a TERRIBLE overpopulation problem on Earth (which no doubt is the cause of a lot of violent crime) - but I really don't see this as a viable long-term solution.
|
So apparently the sad excuse for a church (Westboro Baptist Church) is planning to protest the prayer vigil being held for the victims of the shooting. They'll do anything for attention it seems. Makes me sick.
|
Regarding the retribution thing ("torturing him to death")
While I don't believe that we should start including punishments like this in the justice system, I won't lie - given a chance, I'd kick this guy's ass. Does that make a bad person? I don't believe it's morally wrong to harbor a desire for retribution (depending on the degree, if you're out screaming for blood because someone looked at you funny that's over the line), I just don't think it's really practical to include it in our justice system.
On July 24 2012 09:31 Arghmyliver wrote:
Don't get me wrong - what this guy did is absolutely terrible and awful and disgusting. And certainly society should join together to display their distaste and indeed - intolerance - of such behaviours. But also remember - moral code is something that is frequently similar between societies. If we can all agree that storming into a movie theatre with an assault rifle and killing innocents is a deplorable act - why would Mr. Holmes NOT see that. You could argue that he's a soulless murderer, that such people spring up in society occasionally and that the only cure is to prune them off like unsightly plant growth but I don't think that gets to the heart of the problem. The problem - in my opinion - is that this guy was incredibly mentally ill and unstable. His symptoms weren't recognized - or he lacked the proper resources - and he never received help for his condition.
In defense of the death penalty - there is a TERRIBLE overpopulation problem on Earth (which no doubt is the cause of a lot of violent crime) - but I really don't see this as a viable long-term solution.
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
re:capital punishment
I'd argue that spending resources to incarcerate and rehabilitate someone like Holmes is not worth it. The recidivism rate for homicide is 1.2% in 3 years after their release. That's far higher than the national homicide rate. So you're spending significant amounts of money to produce a person who is, by all accounts, still much more dangerous than most. It might sound cold, but I'd argue it's a better allocation of resources to kill the offender and spend the money helping people who would die without it (for example, in third world countries). The only reason I don't advocate this is because of the possibility of executing innocents.
On July 24 2012 09:53 NEOtheONE wrote:
So apparently the sad excuse for a church (Westboro Baptist Church) is planning to protest the prayer vigil being held for the victims of the shooting. They'll do anything for attention it seems. Makes me sick.
Not even worth thinking about, we already know they're certified douchebags.
|
On July 24 2012 10:36 starfries wrote:
This is a pretty interesting point, but it sounds like you're classifying everyone who has a moral code significantly different from our society's as being "mentally ill". I think it's possible for people to be in perfect mental health and have a moral code that differs quite a bit from ours - for example, in societies that allow for human sacrifice. I'm not saying Holmes is in great mental condition, but I don't think we should rush straight to some kind of insanity defense when it's perfectly possible that he KNEW it was a deplorable act and just didn't give a shit.
Also, I'm hesitant to pin the blame society for negligence in treating the root causes of crimes such as these. It'd be great if we had perfect psychiatric care/brainwashing that prevented crime. But at some point we have to admit it's just not feasible to stop every crime at its source, and treat the symptoms instead.
I don't consider execution a viable medical treatment in any situation. In fact I would consider it the opposite of a viable medical treatment.
Holmes WASN'T raised in a cannibalistic or sacrificial society is the point. Those people aren't necessarily mentally ill - but at the same time, they rarely come into contact with the rest of the world. You'll notice that most philosophically advanced societies don't allow human sacrifice. He was raised in the US (I believe) where it is commonly taught that murder is wrong and human sacrifice has about as much chance of predicting the weather as your local meteorologist (verdict still out on sacrificing the meteorologist). If he considered his own act deplorable and didn't give a shit - that just SCREAMS mental instability. It's going to be REALLY hard to argue that the guy who thought he was the Joker and shot up a movie theater is NOT insane.
|
22 Posts
Before I state this. The ppl who bash down conspiracy theories for no reason please ease off because it does nothing but ad a negative light to the situation , it can only hurt the cause . Now a lot of people saying this is mind controll that sounds weird because its " mind controll". But the fact that it's so close to political agenda. The fact that its spurring debates all across the news channels and that obama met them personally all come out as saying somethings up.
If you agree with that then you say did they just jump on coincidence? Are they fast acting? Or is this some how set up? Some how. Common theory is mind controll , for a lot of past cases too. Now it turns out the suspected shooter James Holmes was working on changing past through parts of the brain and experimenting a lot of neuro science.
Now did he do something to him self or was he in the field for some thing to happen to him? Or was he nuts?
Im going on to long Im not trying to post the entire theory in detail but just asking people. If you think some one is dumb or crazy dont come out and say it. Just ignore and move on with your day because it really can only make things worse when you do that. To each his own and truley . I think ppl just want the truth explored in every direction and possibilty . Many great detectives state that all they are, are conspiracy theorists.
Any way . Please be nice to all and others. And for the big question of mind controll or to dumb down a person; you can look to one option, a drug called scopolmine.alot of great info about it and documentrys . Im right now trying to find some one on the drug to see if they act the same way as james did in court, but the stuff looks to highly illeagal. Or maybe James is out of it cause he's crazy or faking but you have to explore and prove every option that comes to mind or light or even if you create it and untill you prove it right or wrong I dont think justive will be served!
|
22 Posts
And I hope love and comfort and maybe even some joy can some how come to families through support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
