Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Question is did he take specific aim at them or were they just in his "sight" picture or did he just "pray and spray".

Yes a three year old was kill and yes a 7 year old was shot in the back. Yes he committed the killing. Question was how did he percieve them. He take specific aim (throws out the insanity plea), sight picture (vision focus. throws out the insanity plea because he specificaly drew down on a body) pray and spray (possible insanity bit but the weapon jam from a failure to feed and he went to secondary which literally point and shoot). Sorry you all feel that way towards me on how I view killings but Rimmy if you were prior service you would know what I'm refering to when firing a weapon. One "Center mass" and where is a baby typically carried or held.

What this tells me is that being a soldier is bad for you and makes you a bad person.

Nope it means you seen to much and you become "hardened" towards it and accept it as a everyday thing. Did anyone else think about how he went about it? Because thats what going to be one of the things thats going to convict him. How he precieved the victims and how he went about shooting them

None of that matters in relation to an insanity plea actually. You're thinking like a shooter and not on the definition of insanity likely used and the evidence to represent it.

Did the shooter understand his actions (there will be some multipronged test to that) and have the intent to commit those actions? Thats more of what your're looking at.

Jihadin wrote:Nope it means you seen to much and you become "hardened" towards it and accept it as a everyday thing.

Yeah, that is one way to become a bad person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Did the shooter understand his actions (there will be some multipronged test to that) and have the intent to commit those actions?

It's pretty simple: can he prove that he didn't know that murdering the victims was wrong while he was murdering them?

clarify "bad person" Manchu

Frazz did he go in shooting like he was acting out a typical bad guy from a batman movie or did he go in calm, collective, and in control of his mentality. Witnesses account on how he went about it going to tell one side and his lawyer going to try to debunk it with either of those three choices stated above.

Manchu wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Nope it means you seen to much and you become "hardened" towards it and accept it as a everyday thing.

Yeah, that is one way to become a bad person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Did the shooter understand his actions (there will be some multipronged test to that) and have the intent to commit those actions?

It's pretty simple: can he prove that he didn't know that murdering the victims was wrong while he was murdering them?

I am not an expert at all, and this standard changes between states but something in that line. It should be googleable.

Manchu wrote:I don't .. or rather won't insomuch as understanding implies acceptance. If your business has the side effect of desensitizing you to the murder of anyone, including and perhaps especially children, then you need to find a new line of work pronto.

I respectfully disagree. understanding is not acceptance.

Death is a very hard subject to deal with. Military, Police, Firefighters, Paramedics, physicians etc etc, they deal with death day in and day out. desensitizing to it is really the only way of coping with the harsh reality. it doesn't make it acceptable, but I understand it.

Only way I can come close to this as in experience was one of mine almost faced a illegal kill charged. The situation we were in and his perception of the target were a factor into deciding charges were dropped

Jihadin wrote:clarify "bad person" Manchu

Isn't it already clear? A person not troubled by murder is a bad person.

I'm not troubled by bodies, killing, nor murder. Goes with profession I'm in and I know what I was getting into when I signed on the dotted line when I joined the US Military. Rimmy posted a good reason why. I also know I'm not a "bad person" because of it because I know the difference between "RIGHT AND WRONG" I do know though if here in the states if I was involve in a similiar situation on what happen in that theater and I'm not dead I will grab my medic bag and render assistant and not let the "incident" slow me down nor impede my judgement on who to work on first to save lives. Because I'm USE TO IT. Don't judge me for what I have seen and gotten use to. Judge me on what I do and have done. It doesn't bother me Manchu you consider me a "bad person" because you don't know my world.

Huh. I wonder why he did it. I mean, he had to have some motivation. It sounds like he put a lot of effort into it for it to have been done flippantly.

So:

Jihadin wrote:I'm not troubled by bodies, killing, nor murder.

And then:

Jihadin wrote:I also know I'm not a "bad person" because of it because I know the difference between "RIGHT AND WRONG"

So you know the difference but it doesn't concern you one way or the other?

Jihadin wrote:not let the "incident" slow me down nor impede my judgement

Not what we're talking about. You said you weren't bothered by a three-month-old baby being shot in the face and a seven-year-old girl getting shot in the back because they are "just casualties." Now either this is classic Big Man Talk or you are a bad person.

Jihadin wrote:Don't judge me for what I have seen and gotten use to.

It's nothing personal. If you are "used" to murder such that you're not bothered by the murder of civilian children then something is wrong with you and honestly the last place for you is in the military where that particular insensitivity might cause some major problems.

Jihadin wrote:It doesn't bother me Manchu you consider me a "bad person" because you don't know my world.

"Your world," huh? You living in your own world is exactly what concerns me.

They pulled a computer console out of his apartment, batman poster, and batman mask of some sort. No metion of XBOX360/PS3. Chain of thought be Batman Arkunum Asylum (sp) if he was going fully indepth with it (never played the game. I'm back to everquest) I'm thinking the appeal of being a badguy in a Batman setting actually got to his head (Joker) and wanting to be him. On another thread someone posted a link to third wave. Granted it was a grp of students but a video game can fit right into a influencing mode.

edit

So you know the difference but it doesn't concern you one way or the other?

When an individual kills a human in combat that person is changed. No way around it. When you have to search bodies for intell you don't think of the person on the ground just that someone might have slipped a grenade under the body. And its just a body. When your applying a tramatic wound bandage to a heavy bleeder you don't mind the blood because its your buddy or a another soldier and he/she is depending on you. When you handling the remains of one of your own you think of the good times with the soldier and not dwell on the fact he is dead. 12-15 months tours you get use to it.

It's nothing personal. If you are "used" to murder such that you're not bothered by the murder of civilian children then something is wrong with you and honestly the last place for you is in the military where that particular insensitivity might cause some major problems.

Chalked that one up to landmines, insurgents indiscrimintory fire, or executions. Throw in a child wearing a bombvest to Lets not forget the Taliban or Insurgents use teens as well as shooter.. War is not romantic, chivalries, nor clean

Your world," huh? You living in your own world is exactly what concerns me.

You assume or is that sarcasm?

daedalus wrote:It sounds like he put a lot of effort into it for it to have been done flippantly.

My conclusion: he wanted to hurt people and it being "wrong" didn't matter to him. It doesn't need to be complicated, I guess.

Manchu wrote:

Jihadin wrote:clarify "bad person" Manchu

Isn't it already clear? A person not troubled by murder is a bad person.

I would say your definition of "bad person" is extremely narrow.

what about an ER nurse who see's murdered people all the time, or the physician attempting to save them, or the mortician having to prepare them for funeral. clearly, they are equally as desensitized.

would you also consider them bad people?

- or -

is your definition limited to those individuals who take a persons life. to which I say, in Jihadin's line of work, if someone threatens to kill him, is he not justified to defend himself?

Are police officers or soldiers placed in unwanted situations where forced to choose between their lives or the lives of innocent people, and opting to kill a perpotrator, bad people?

think outside your little box dude. the world is a much MUCH larger place, and like it or not, you live in it.

What kind of ER nurse sees people murdered all the time?

Please consider what murder actually means. Murder is the act of taking someone's life with malice aforethought. If someone is not phased by witnessing or hearing about this evil act then there is something wrong with them in the morality department.

Manchu wrote:What kind of ER nurse sees people murdered all the time?

Please consider what murder actually means. Murder is the act of taking someone's life with malice aforethought. If someone is not phased by witnessing or hearing about this evil act then there is something wrong with them in the morality department.

a sad reality. in my local area San Jose Regional Center is the area's current trauma center. any gang related death, shooting, homicide etc, gets processed through those doors. Trauma centers get to be "colorful" places after dark.

when you deal with death CONSTANTLY, the mainds only way to stay sane, is to detach from the situation. its not a matter of morality, its just a matter of keeping sane.

I can't exactly explain it to you bro, its REALLY difficult to describe.

I genuinely hope you don't ever have to be put in that situation.

Again I am definitely not talking about combat effectiveness or anything like it. I'm talking about the situation of a dude posting on the internet nearly a week after the fact that he's not bothered by children getting murdered.

Also occur to anyone that he might have picked the midnight showing to avoid killing kids being kids are in bed at that time usually

Again I am definitely not talking about combat effectiveness or anything like it. I'm talking about the situation of a dude posting on the internet nearly a week after the fact that he's not bothered by children getting murdered.

When you witness a kid being a suicide bomber you come talk to me Manchu. Because I will know whats going through your mind

Jihadin wrote:When you witness a kid being a suicide bomber you come talk to me Manchu. Because I will know whats going through your mind

Given what you posted here, I very much doubt it.

Now that I might be considered a bad person or a murderer to some lets either get on a new thread about that or leave it alone

Back on topic

First lawsuit being filed

The first lawsuit in connection with the Aurora, Colorado theater shootings in Friday morning will be filed soon. A lawyer for Torrence Brown, Jr., whose friend was killed, reportedly plans to file a lawsuit against the theater, suspect James Holmes’ doctors and Warner Bros., the studio behind The Dark Knight Rises.

TMZ reports that Brown was not physically injured during the rampage. However, he was close friends with Alexander J. Boik, an 18-year-old who was among the 12 people who died. Brown says that because of Boik’s death, he is now suffering from extreme trauma.

He has hired attorney Donald Karpel, who explained the three defendants he named in the lawsuit.

First, Karpel is going after the Century 16 Theater, noting that it was responsible for having an alarm go off when the emergency door is opened. It has been reported that Holmes entered the theater with a ticket to prop the emergency door open and no alarm went off.

Karpel next blames Holmes' doctors because he thinks that they failed to properly keep an eye on Holmes, who may have been on prescription drugs at the time of the shooting.

Finally, Karpel is blaming Warner Bros. for producing such a violent movie that Holmes was inspired to mimic. "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today,” Karpel says.

Holmes made his first appearance in court yesterday. The prosecution said that it will consider pursuing the death penalty after talking with the victims’ families.

I can see the theater losing for the door

He wasn't under medical care was he before the shooting. I didn't read anywhere of him already being under medical care.

Finally, Karpel is blaming Warner Bros. for producing such a violent movie that Holmes was inspired to mimic. "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today,” Karpel says.

He didn't seem concern about going to see a violent movie and already had an idea how "dark" it wqas

What kind of scumbag starts rolling out the lawyers less than a week after the 'trauma' inducing experience of his friends death?

Would the alarm on the door really have made all the difference to the people trapped inside the theatre?

This guy is definitely giving off a money grabbing arse piece vibe.

Medium of Death wrote:What kind of scumbag starts rolling out the lawyers less than a week after the 'trauma' inducing experience of his friends death?

Would the alarm on the door really have made all the difference to the people trapped inside the theatre?

This guy is definitely giving off a money grabbing arse piece vibe.

You don't know how predatory lawyers can be man. I can damn well imagine a lawyer calling up every person in that theater, and asking them if they are interested in making some money. They take the case for free, and agree to work for like 40-50%.

In the kids confused state, he could easily be talked into this, as could his parents. Why not? its free money.

Utterly disgusting. This is in no way whatsoever Holmes' doctors' fault, or Warner Brothers, and the claim that its the theater bears responsibility is pretty fething weak.

fething scumbag lawyers. The friend might also be a scumbag if it was his idea, but it seems very likely that a predatory lawyer is preying on a vulnerable person.

Either way, the lawyer is gakky human being.

I especially take offense at blaming the movie, as it's the same bs slippery slope argument uptight soccer moms and old conservative white men/bloodiest of bleeding heart liberals have been trotting out since time immemorial ("Comic books are corrupting our youth!" "Video games are corrupting our youth!" etc, etc, etc) and it's bs.

feth that guy.

Manchu wrote:

Rimmy wrote: there are no "casualties" in this instance. they are all victims. there was no war in the streets of Aurora.

That's well said. A very good reminder of the insanity that plagues the whole culture, perceiving these murder victims like casualties in some war.

They died the same way that many died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Innocently and while minding their own business. It's not particularly different except now it's not so far removed from the American audience. They were technically casualties in several definitions of the word.

Rimmy wrote:forget the mail room incident.

that notebook shows he was in his right mond when he wrote that all down. it was premeditated and he should be convicted of 12 counts of murder in the 1st degree and potentially the maximum number of occupants in his building and the theatre (could be thousands) for attempted murder in the first degree.

his insanity plea just went out the window.

there is no amount of pain we could inflict enough to give this savage or anyone else like him on earth that they deserve.

this jerkwad shot a 3 month old baby in the face and shot a 7 year old little girl IN THE BACK.

coward.

Actually it might indicate he is saying: 'I am mad, stop me before I do something rash.'
The defense lawyers will want to see these documents in their entirity, they will help with an insanity plea.

You might not like insanity please but I think this one may well be justified. A better way of looking at the issue is reviewing if insanity is of itself as concrete defence, or should some level of culpability be assumed even under diminshed responsibility. Its a tough call with far reaching consequences.

So there's already been all kinds of arguments about gun control (some friends of mine had an epic facebook argument about gun control after this incident) and some really poorly thought out initiatives to put metal detectors in movie complexes, and I doubt anyone anywhere honestly believes any of that nonsense is going to stop a single shooting spree.

But here we see that like so many of these cases the attacker was identified as disturbed, but the real threat wasn't identified until it was too late. It really is amazing how many of these mass shootings are inflicted by a person who had been recieving some but not enough psychiatric care.

If there was to be a real, honest conversation about how to stop these attacks in future I suspect greatly increased mental health funding would come out as key solution.

But that conversation never seems to happen.



EDIT
Actually, you know what, in addition to all the people on the left wing coming out with the oh-so predictable 'ban guns and this won't happen again' stuff, here's a list of some truly, truly insane right wing reactions to what caused the

Representative Louie Gohmert blames 'on-going attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs'.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/20/12856827-how-not-to-respond-to-a-tragedy

Mike Huckabee blames 'sin'. Well, other people's sin. Not his own. Because he's a feth. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/07/mike-huckabee-and-americas-sin-problem.html

Matt Barber of the Liberty Council blames Planned Parenthood. Because he's so into his pet cause he doesn't even care when its got absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
In the same there's Fred Jackson of the American Family Association blaming churches for liberalising.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/21/more-christian-wisdom-on-why-the-aurora-shooting-occured/

Flip Blenham from Operation Save America is admirably blunt in her partisan hackery, directly blaming 'the ideology of the Democratic Party'.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/flip-benham-declares-co-shooter-be-spawn-ideology-democratic-party


I'm fething sick of this, really and truly. This is a real problem, and its one that can't be solved entirely, but it can be significantly reduced, if only people would look at finding a solution, instead of just contorting the issue back to their stupid, stupid pet issues. But we don't get that. Not even a little.

So that's where my notebook went...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Rimmy wrote: there are no "casualties" in this instance. they are all victims. there was no war in the streets of Aurora.

That's well said. A very good reminder of the insanity that plagues the whole culture, perceiving these murder victims like casualties in some war.

They died the same way that many died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Innocently and while minding their own business. It's not particularly different except now it's not so far removed from the American audience. They were technically casualties in several definitions of the word.

That's a scummy kind of equivocation.

sebster wrote:So there's already been all kinds of arguments about gun control (some friends of mine had an epic facebook argument about gun control after this incident) and some really poorly thought out initiatives to put metal detectors in movie complexes, and I doubt anyone anywhere honestly believes any of that nonsense is going to stop a single shooting spree.

But here we see that like so many of these cases the attacker was identified as disturbed, but the real threat wasn't identified until it was too late. It really is amazing how many of these mass shootings are inflicted by a person who had been recieving some but not enough psychiatric care.

If there was to be a real, honest conversation about how to stop these attacks in future I suspect greatly increased mental health funding would come out as key solution.

But that conversation never seems to happen.

Totally agree Sebs. People are arguing about the symptoms of the true issue... (Editing for Clarity) Gunsa ar ethe symptom, and lack of decent mental health resources is the true cause.

The real problem is that most people don;t have access to any sor tof Pyshiatric help as existing low cost resources are flooded, and the other alternatives are far too expensive.

Then, there is the whole issue of identifying mental illness in the first place.

If they think a few stick figures blowing people away counts as disturbing drawings, they should check out some of the gak I draw!

I don't see how this is important, gak happens. Its alright to blame people with the benefits of hindsight, indeed it seems to press are always desperate for blame. 9/11 and 7/7 were the governments fault as well apparently, because they "missed things"

Fact is, if you want to blame someone, blame the mad fether that did all the killing.

Its hardly the posties fault is it?