Mass shooting in Aurora, CO (At Batman Film Premiere)

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
reply to post by kosmicjack

 

I wonder if he was on any anti-anxiety meds? And if he stopped taking them recently?

Is there anyone left who isn't on these meds? I mean other than fruitloops like me and Scientologists?

Of course he was on anti-anxiety meds. He was 24, his mother thought he was unstable, and he apparently just dropped out of Med school. I don't think there is a college student in the nation that isn't abusing Adderall and Red Bull, and probably Xanax, and alcohol.

I've just gone about 5 days off mirtazapine.. and I can honestly say I feel like I'm tripping.

I have to go back on, a little bit off topic... but christ these things should be illegal. gotta taper off.

I would not doubt at all that this guy was on meds that either did not work, or at the wrong dose.

God damn sinister things these...

Is there a pic of this guy yet? I mean they have him in custody. I find that weird.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
(On a sidenote - who the hell brings a 3month old to a midnite screening of a loud violent movie?)

A person who lives in a country that allows the freedom to go to a movie when ever you want to, we do not know the 3 month olds sleep cycle and what difference does it make when a family goes to a movie?

The guilt is upon the guilty not a family for choosing a movie time YOU find illogical. It is not the parents fault a shooter tear gased their child, it is the shooters fault.

God Bless,

a goddam 3 year old infant into a movie theatre with flashing lights and noise loud enough to make ur ears bleed.

you perfectly show how stupid american society has become with an illogical defense of having a newborn baby only 90days in an environment like this.

united states of idiots

This is messed up, no lie. If you have had kids this age you know how terrifying that environment could be for them. WTF.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by SpittinTruth

o it's the ignorance of guns that is the most disturbing. And the fact that people fear them. A gun can only kill you if the other person is aiming it at you, then pulls the trigger.

Uuuuuuuh, why do we need guns??????? It's apparent that a 9mm is not for hunting. So, what is the use for guns? Where and what are we hunting????

Also, explain why we need bombs and bullets????

Because there are crazy people like this guy. There are Hitler's in the world, there are very bad people with very bad intentions. Long before guns and bombs, people were already killing each other in mass.

We live on a small rock with limited resources, and ever-increasing competition for those resources. Humans are imperfect, and some humans will try to take advantage of other ones, and if those bad guys get better weapons than us good guys, then we will either be killed or enslaved, so we have to make sure that doesn't happen.

From rocks, to sticks, to sharpened sticks, to bows, to slingshots, to swords, to blackpowder, and so on.

Yeah.........noooooooooooow.....we need guns. But, before guns were readily available???? What caused man to invent things so DESTRUCTIVE?

In other words: WHAT IS MANKIND'S PROBLEM?

When do we start using our creative capabilities to actually do something POSITIVE? All this KNOWLEDGE that we have...and all we can do....is find ways to destroy each other????

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Standard America. No debate on gun control though, god forbid that. There are only thousands of mentalists carrying around loaded killing machines, it's fine.

Must admit, we have our fair share of idiots going on killing spree, they either get them illegally anyway or already are registered like that guy who shot that policeman the other week.

CX.

The guy was at one point a leader of some occupy movement, though they could substitute anyone in a false flag for the gunman, he was overdressed so to speak. Hillary is signing a UN gun treaty and this occurs. Sure there will be people blaming guns. I'm Canadian and dont really want one, but at this point, not sure anymore. And I do think that all who have should go through 3 month training sessions, acting out all imagineable scenarios, and take refreshers every few years, so that young man who answered the door in the night, when the police were at the wrong house, wouldn't have died.

BUT, if half the people there been OC, 50 would have shot him, once he started his rampage.

Self defense is a right, but I believe that with such technology, there is great responsibility and lots and lots training should be mandatory.

But this wouldn't have got far if ppl had their own masks and weapons, instantly they would have put them on and taken him down. Carrying a small mask against tear gas, may be not possible, but I could see people doing such. I've thought of lots of scenarios where you need a mask. Even a protest.

They were unarmed. This doesnt help the gun control crowd, this shows what its like when people are unarmed, untrained and some thug with a gun, possibly a black op even, for the UN's gun control stuff on my mind, starts shooting.

Here in Canada, its the bad guys and gangs that have them, eh. I would like to have training courses and learn to responsibly have one myself.

edit on 20-7-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

So true! Furthermore, gun control aren't what kept brutal mass murders from happening in Canada as well, like a few years ago in Montreal, in the province with the toughest gun laws.

But still they'll use it as an excuse for gun control. Obliterating the fact that those movie goers were all unarmed.

Such a shooting would have been IMPOSSIBLE if at least half of the crowd was openly carrying guns.

America's forefathers were right, America is a dangerous place, full of insane murderous maniacs, at all levels, and if the government really wants to protect people, it must first allow people to protect themselves!

I just read about this on the news and the accounts from some of the people who were there sound like terrifying experiences. I can only imagine the dissonance that people went through, having to mentally switch gears from the expectation of a night of entertainment to surviving a shooting spree in such close quarters. Sounds like everyone was terrified and confused (understandable) but like others have said here, it just seems strange that not one person in the theater thought to attempt to take the guy down.

I suppose we will see quite the uptick in Politicking surrounding the issue of gun-safety again, though CO does tend to protect gun-rights, I wonder how the city of Aurora will approach this issue in the coming weeks?

As for this:

America's forefathers were right, America is a dangerous place, full of insane murderous maniacs, at all levels, and if the government really wants to protect people, it must first allow people to protect themselves!

That can be said of the World and IMHO, it's not the Govt's place to tell me that I am able to protect myself or not and how I do it or not. The Govt's place is to worry about the country (big picture) leave the people alone.

reply to post by mainidh


Since you've already done your 5 days, go back on a half-dose. It will be effective now that you've already been off of them, and it will help you speed up your tapering off.

Yes you HAVE to taper off, and it won't be easy.

They are sinister, evil things. And docs hand them out like candy.

God only knows what makes someone do something as terrible as this

Originally posted by j.r.c.b.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Well let's hope he wasn't an ATS member ,Jared Lee Loughner was.
Just crossed my mind.

edit on 103131p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

Has anyone checked?

I don't know how you could check until we get more info.

I wonder if the theatre's ban on concealed carry had any influence on his pick of targets? Surely there is more than one in the area. I wonder if someone can find out if any of the others "allow" concealed carry???

Originally posted by YodleAjax
If a movie can make someone commit atrocity, do you think movies coming out be checked, censored at this delicate times until such time e.g

How can a movie you haven't seen make you do something like this?

reply to post by LadySkadi


Well, they are saying that it occurred during a shoot out scene from the film so I can only imagine the confusion and shock to discover that - no, the gun fire is real.

Originally posted by 08051962
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Man, you'd have to be mental in some way to threaten to murder and RAPE people over a movie?!

Even if the shooter's reasoning doesn't have anything to do with the Batman movie... the people making those threat-posts need to be institutionalized and kept away from society.

I think a lot of the threats were over the bad reviews. Some so bad, that reviewers were ordered, you heard right, ordered not to post their review until the movie was in theaters so as to not affect ticket sales. I seriously don't think anyone saw this coming.

I think this surprise everyone. Hollywood's on alert, NYPD's on alert, France has cancelled their premiere and the stars are in hiding. (I don't blame them. I think this was an isolated incident, but you never know, so for the moment, it's good to be cautious.)

reply to post by SpittinTruth

In other words: WHAT IS MANKIND'S PROBLEM?

Limited resources, the same as any other animal. We are not as special as we think we are. We are just very smart animals. Competition ensures survival of the fittest, and mankind takes it to a whole new level!

We will never evolve enough to completely escape it, because if 1 person out of 7 billion decides to be corrupt and take advantage of the rest, then others will have to be prepared to defend against that 1, and the whole snowball starts to roll again.

If we all evolved spiritually, and learned to share, and learned to co-exist, and learned to be completely free of violence, it would just take a single person to screw it all up.

reply to post by SUICIDEHK45


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just a reminder to everyone (and i need to be aware of this before spouting remarks from Sky), be carefull what you state as fact about this guy James Holmes.

I've had a quick flick round the net for more info, and there are comments that are so varied, you could end up tarring a whole group with one brush. He's been accused of being an Occupy leader at one point, member of the Black Bloc, tea partier, and it won't be long before the conspiracy forums get it full force.

These could be fact, they could also be a load of rubbish fed into the system by people wanting to take down whole groups.

The actions of one do not equal all. Don't tar me with the same brush as a fruit loop who shoots babies.

CX.

Originally posted by Echtelion

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Standard America. No debate on gun control though, god forbid that. There are only thousands of mentalists carrying around loaded killing machines, it's fine.

Must admit, we have our fair share of idiots going on killing spree, they either get them illegally anyway or already are registered like that guy who shot that policeman the other week.

CX.

The guy was at one point a leader of some occupy movement, though they could substitute anyone in a false flag for the gunman, he was overdressed so to speak. Hillary is signing a UN gun treaty and this occurs. Sure there will be people blaming guns. I'm Canadian and dont really want one, but at this point, not sure anymore. And I do think that all who have should go through 3 month training sessions, acting out all imagineable scenarios, and take refreshers every few years, so that young man who answered the door in the night, when the police were at the wrong house, wouldn't have died.

BUT, if half the people there been OC, 50 would have shot him, once he started his rampage.

Self defense is a right, but I believe that with such technology, there is great responsibility and lots and lots training should be mandatory.

But this wouldn't have got far if ppl had their own masks and weapons, instantly they would have put them on and taken him down. Carrying a small mask against tear gas, may be not possible, but I could see people doing such. I've thought of lots of scenarios where you need a mask. Even a protest.

They were unarmed. This doesnt help the gun control crowd, this shows what its like when people are unarmed, untrained and some thug with a gun, possibly a black op even, for the UN's gun control stuff on my mind, starts shooting.

Here in Canada, its the bad guys and gangs that have them, eh. I would like to have training courses and learn to responsibly have one myself.

edit on 20-7-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

So true! Furthermore, gun control aren't what kept brutal mass murders from happening in Canada as well, like a few years ago in Montreal, in the province with the toughest gun laws.

But still they'll use it as an excuse for gun control. Obliterating the fact that those movie goers were all unarmed.

Such a shooting would have been IMPOSSIBLE if at least half of the crowd was openly carrying guns.

America's forefathers were right, America is a dangerous place, full of insane murderous maniacs, at all levels, and if the government really wants to protect people, it must first allow people to protect themselves!

You fail to realize that those people open carrying would never have been allowed in the theater in the first place, so OC would have made no difference here.

I was watching the BBC news and eating my lunch when I saw the report on this matter. Obviously in any case of apparantly random violence, there are things about the act that we cannot understand. Why would you want to take innocent lives, why would you start a violent incident against unarmed people, while head to toe in body armor and packing firearms? Why would you shoot people who have no possible protection from your attack? What is that proving? What does it achieve?

However, one thing I just do not understand at all about this incident is that the perpetrator of this act, did not resist arrest at all, and was the one who informed police officers about the possibility of the presence of significant explosives in his car, and his appartment, which has become the centre of a very intense, careful, and deliberate investigation by various elements of local and state law enforcement. According to all reports, the explosive booby trap in the appartment in question, is very sophisticated. One assumes therefore that it comprises a significantly powerful explosive, placed for maximum destruction of the immediate area, and that the booby trap itself is of an elegant construction. We are probably talking passive infra red movement triggers, mercury switches, anti tamper detonators, and so on and so forth. There may even be military grade explosive involved, if indeed the word sophisticated can be truely applied.

With all that in mind, here is the question that bugs me (aside from my obvious dismay at the ending of so many lives, and the psychological trauma suffered by the families of the dead, the injured, and of course those who were merely terrorised by the event). Why, when you have already committed a mass murder, would you ...

a) Allow yourself to be arrested, rather than using the body armor and weapons to prevent such an outcome and then...

b) Alert the authorities to the presence of your highly sophisticated explosive booby trap, which by definition has taken time, planning, and logistical efficiency to put together, rather than allowing the police to stumble into your combustive web unawares? Why build the bomb if you do not intend to allow it to explode?

When the authorities describe an explosive as sophisticated, they mean that its construction is such, that it has taken a significant investment of time and expertise to plan, to assemble the parts in one place, and to connect them all together to produce an effective and dangerous device. They are not talking about trip wires and hand grenades here, or an old anti personel mine dug up and repurposed. They are talking about a from scratch explosive device, which has more than one possible trigger point, is perhaps specifically designed to cause the most damage that can be done with the weight of explosive used, and has the potential to kill scores of people, and destroy a great portion of the building in which it is contained.

Couple that with the planning needed to commit a mass murder of such stunning barbarity as the one that the people of Denver are currently dealing with, and you could be talking about months and months, just for the working out of the details, getting the supply of firearms, body armor, getting hold of the gas grenade he lobbed into the crowd before the gunfire started, figuring out the parts list for the bomb, comming up with a plan for its construction, and carrying that plan out without blowing ones self off the face of the Earth... this is a significant achievement from a logistical point of veiw, and to carry it out, without allowing it to detonate seems almost as bizzare as wanting to commit mass murder, at least in the context of what has already transpired.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am very glad that more people have not been hurt, that the offender did not open fire on police and suicide by cop, or indeed shoot his way out and escape. I am of course very happy that the dangerous device the offender created to booby trap his appartment has not detonated, and I am glad that the authorities have a chance to deal with that threat, and got the people out of the building.

I was also impressed by the honesty of President Obamas speech on the subject. Politics SHOULD take a back seat, or get out of the vehicle all together at times like these, and the USA ought to be very proud to have a leader that can appreciate that.

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
I wonder if the theatre's ban on concealed carry had any influence on his pick of targets? Surely there is more than one in the area. I wonder if someone can find out if any of the others "allow" concealed carry???

There are a few.

The Century where this happened with a no-weapons allowed policy.

A Theater/Tavern that is privately owned.

A Cinema Latino.

A Theater/Grill that is privately owned.

And a Harkins theater that is privately owned.

The privately owned theaters may or may not have weapons policies.

The only one I know for sure is the Century having a corporate no-weapons allowed policy.

ETA: Apparently the Harkins theaters also have a no-weapons policy as derived from various gun forum postings complaining about being kicked out of Harkins theaters.