Shooting inside Colorado movie theater during Batman premier

[arora]

I see. I'm not against investigating then, I don't like the idea of prosecuting though. It sets a slippery slope imo.

 

[dylansan]

It's possible that they contributed directly to this through some sort of terrible decisions they made parenting. That's their responsibility and I think it's worth investigating.

But maybe their parents raised them to be bad parents.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Westboro Baptist Church never misses an opportunity to be completely
arrogant, tasteless, and (insert something really AUP-unfriendly here).

I can only hope that when they're done performing God's Work, that
they're sent back to purgatory for an eternity of unpaid overtime.

They truly have no souls. Jesus is probably face-palming right now.

 

[Tornado]

If he knew exactly what he was doing he wouldn't have done it.

You can't hold up the fact that he did it as evidence in and of itself that he shouldn't be culpable for it. By this logic, no one would ever be guilty of any crimes.

 

[dylansan]

By this logic, no one would ever be guilty of any crimes. You can't hold up the fact that he did it as evidence in and of itself that he shouldn't be culpable for it.

That fact that he did it makes him "guilty" in the legal sense that he has lost his rights and needs to be prevented from doing it again.

I don't think he is necessarily "to blame" however, as it's impossible to determine who's failing caused this. Did his parents fail to raise him? Or did their parents fail to raise them to be good parents, so it's their fault? Maybe he had bad teachers, who didn't encourage morality. If he was religious, maybe the things his church taught made him do it.

If he did this for religious reasons, if he did it based on the bible, you really have to ask who's to blame here. Whose fault was it that he was introduced to religion?

This is all ignoring the possibility of a mental disorder too. Whose fault is it then?

 

[McLaren]

If he knew exactly what he was doing he wouldn't have done it.

I'm amazed this isn't a bigger defense in our legal system if it actually held any sort of standpoint.

He lacked an understanding of human rights. Isn't it possible that this is because of his environment growing up, that somehow he just never learned? Okay, maybe he could have learned about human rights on his own, but it's also possible his environment made him uninterested in being moral or ethical. Is it really his fault then?

Yes, it's his fault. You're creating a far-fetched excuse for him.

"Your honor, it's not my fault I killed all those people. It was the environment I was raised in. Nobody taught me human rights".

The guy was pretty much in a psych-based degree & likely worked with psychologists & psychiatrists. Based on that, the guy had to have known about human rights, because psychology-based classes cover a wide range of people's mental stability.

If a child is taught from a young age to be a murderer, is it their fault when they kill someone? What about if someone just wasn't taught not to be a murderer? What if just by random chance someone becomes a murderer?

This man wasn't taught from a young age to be a murderer.
Again, unlikely.
Option C is the most likely answer.

Those are all tragedies in themselves and I think it's unfair to the person to assume it's all their fault and cause them pain as a result. As far as I'm concerned, blame has no place in human rights, it's only about knowing when rights certain people don't recognize and preventing them from violating them, by taking away those rights if necessary.

So, it's not completely Timothy McVeigh's fault for what he did? Or OJ Simpson?

Please. The argument you're trying to conjure up holds no ground outside of those who plea insanity/mental illness. Otherwise, every criminal would be trying to use it as a defense. Most criminals know exactly what they're doing when they commit the crime.

That fact that he did it makes him "guilty" in the legal sense that he has lost his rights and needs to be prevented from doing it again.

I don't think he is necessarily "to blame" however, as it's impossible to determine who's failing caused this. Did his parents fail to raise him? Or did their parents fail to raise them to be good parents, so it's their fault? Maybe he had bad teachers, who didn't encourage morality. If he was religious, maybe the things his church taught made him do it.

Does. Not. Matter.

You can not use this argument in court because it allows every person who commits a crime/offense to use it as well. A parent can only raise a child to a certain point. A teacher can only educate a child to a certain degree. You can not hold them responsible to any percentage for what Holmes did. And you absolutely can not place any blame on religion. My religion teaches me that I can do anything I want to anyone, so if I smack you in the face, are you really going to blame me or my unfounded religion?

If he did this for religious reasons, if he did it based on the bible, you really have to ask who's to blame here. Whose fault was it that he was introduced to religion?

Terrorist organizations would be innocent if this argument held ground in court. Don't blame the suicide bomber for those deaths, blame the religion!

 

[arora]

If it is determined that he knows right from wrong, then he is responsible right? Or is that just for silly cop shows on tv?

 

[CAM]

Ever consider the fact that his parents didn't screw up, he understood human rights perfectly, and did it to make a statement about some issue by taking away those rights (the right to life) from others? I think its far simpler than you're making it out to be, dylansan.

 

[dylansan]

I never said it held ground. You're missing the part where I said he should still go to jail and possibly face the death penalty. It holds no weight in court because the court is not about blame, it's about protection. This person, through his fault or someone else's is incapable of recognizing people's rights. Lock him away.

But don't torture him just because you think he deserves it. It might feel strange but I think this person deserves at least some sympathy for becoming a murderer as, even if he knew what he was doing, I don't think it was his choice.

 

[arora]

Sympathy, yes, but more importantly he deserves justice, as do well all.

 

[dylansan]

Yes. I thought I was pretty clear about that. I don't know why people think I'm suggesting the possibility that he doesn't go to jail. Anyone who read my posts in this thread would see that I know he has to go to jail and could potentially get the death penalty.

I'm not an idiot. I don't think everyone should just be totally free to do whatever they want and can't be held responsible for their actions. To suggest that I do is horrifying.

 

[arora]

Yeah man, I hear you It's just that we are on the net and all that

 

[McLaren]

I never said it held ground. You're missing the part where I said he should still go to jail and possibly face the death penalty. It holds no weight in court because the court is not about blame, it's about protection. This person, through his fault or someone else's is incapable of recognizing people's rights. Lock him away.

And you're missing the underlined part.

He is very well capable of recognizing people's rights. The classes & area he majored in deal with this sort of subject.

I know full well you keep talking about him going to jail. What I'm debating though is your attempt to say it's not all his fault. It is. His parents, his teachers, his religion, none of those factors physically forced him to do what he did. Regardless of the rare chance that any outside factor actually led him to killing those people, the law will recognize that he carried out the massacre & not that outside factor.

But don't torture him just because you think he deserves it. It might feel strange but I think this person deserves at least some sympathy for becoming a murderer as, even if he knew what he was doing, I don't think it was his choice.

Whose choice was it then? Who is partially to blame, & how are you going counter when the person/group you blame comes back at you saying you're wrong?

What stops other criminals from claiming it wasn't their choice to commit a crime?

 

[shmogt]

So do you have a reason relevant to this case, then? Or no?

Because for the third time, if you want to make a passionate defense about abolishing the death penalty, you should start by giving reasons that matter to this case.

I do.

I absolutely care that this guy could spend the rest of his life living far better than the people who survived what he did.

How do you not understand? This guy I really don't care if he dies because he's a psycho. However allowing him to die makes the death penalty legal meaning it's also legal for others who may be innocent. If its illegal he lives and so do all the innocent people who would of been killed by the death penalty. It's really only one more guy in prison and you make it seem like prison is super fun. He will go to a high security crazy people only place. He's got two options which is sit in the cell and stare at a wall all day which we all know from school is madness or go out in the yard an probably get raped and beaten if not killed anyway by the other guys.

 

[McLaren]

How do you not understand? This guy I really don't care if he dies because he's a psycho. However allowing him to die makes the death penalty legal meaning it's also legal for others who may be innocent. If its illegal he lives and so do all the innocent people who would of been killed by the death penalty. It's really only one more guy in prison and you make it seem like prison is super fun. He will go to a high security crazy people only place. He's got two options which is sit in the cell and stare at a wall all day which we all know from school is madness or go out in the yard an probably get raped and beaten if not killed anyway by the other guys.

You keep using this as the backbone of your argument against the death penalty, yet you've to actually offer any sort of evidence for this:

Meaning this guy dies fine whatever than 5 more non guilty people die

If the statistic for the death penalty really meant that only 1 in 6 of the people given it were actually guilty, it wouldn't be around.

 

[dylansan]

And you're missing the underlined part.

He is very well capable of recognizing people's rights. The classes & area he majored in deal with this sort of subject.

He understands what rights are and who has them, but apparently justified violating them because he thought something was more important. This is wrong. You have to ask how he got the idea that sending a message or whatever he tried to do was more important than human life, and you can't ignore that his environment was at least partially responsible for him getting that information, along with the wiring of his brain which allowed him to accept it.

I know full well you keep talking about him going to jail. What I'm debating though is your attempt to say it's not all his fault. It is. His parents, his teachers, his religion, none of those factors physically forced him to do what he did. Regardless of the rare chance that any outside factor actually led him to killing those people, the law will recognize that he carried out the massacre & not that outside factor.

If there isn't free will (and I'd argue there isn't), then yes, his environment did force him to. The law doesn't need to recognize that because that's not what the law is for.

Whose choice was it then? Who is partially to blame, & how are you going counter when the person/group you blame comes back at you saying you're wrong?

The point is nobody is to blame per se, because anyone who could have caused this couldn't have explicitly predicted it. Everyone just acted on what they knew, and if what they knew was wrong, they possibly did something wrong, but it's not their fault they had the wrong information.

What stops other criminals from claiming it wasn't their choice to commit a crime?

Nothing. In fact all they'd have to do is argue that there's no such thing as free will. But like I've said a million times it's irrelevant to a courtroom because all that matters in a courtroom is whether they did it and whether they recognize human rights, not whether it's their fault if they don't recognize human rights.

 

[Blitz24]

He understands what rights are and who has them, but apparently justified violating them because he thought something was more important. This is wrong. You have to ask how he got the idea that sending a message or whatever he tried to do was more important than human life, and you can't ignore that his environment was at least partially responsible for him getting that information, along with the wiring of his brain which allowed him to accept it.If there isn't free will (and I'd argue there isn't), then yes, his environment did force him to. The law doesn't need to recognize that because that's not what the law is for.The point is nobody is to blame per se, because anyone who could have caused this couldn't have explicitly predicted it. Everyone just acted on what they knew, and if what they knew was wrong, they possibly did something wrong, but it's not their fault they had the wrong information.
Nothing. In fact all they'd have to do is argue that there's no such thing as free will. But like I've said a million times it's irrelevant to a courtroom because all that matters in a courtroom is whether they did it and whether they recognize human rights, not whether it's their fault if they don't recognize human rights.

There is some "limited" free will though. If there isn't then there wouldn't be much to judge here.

 

[CMvan46]

But don't torture him just because you think he deserves it. It might feel strange but I think this person deserves at least some sympathy for becoming a murderer as, even if he knew what he was doing, I don't think it was his choice.

He deserves 0 sympathy. You are responsible for your own actions plain and simple. I had a couple friends in high school that were higher than kites every weekend from grade 9 to 12 and tried to have me to the same. My parents never came out and said don't smoke and I was never strictly punished for anything. Amazingly though I never felt like doing it and simply made the decision not to. Now see I made a decision because I know I am responsible for my own actions and the resulting consequences. I made a decision against what people were telling me to do.

Yes people can live hard lives and yes people are dragged through hell and back every day but that in no way whatsoever is an excuse to kill even one person let alone try to mass murder an entire movie theater. This is his fault and I think it is an enormous disrespect to those who lost their lives to suggest anybody else has something to do with it.


By your logic the environment we are raised in means everything. So why do we hold Olympic games and celebrate its victors? It's just their environment that won anyway. When another guy gets a job over me I'll just blame it on the environment he was raised in was better than mine...

 

[dylansan]

He deserves 0 sympathy. You are responsible for your own actions plain and simple.

Let's go back to an analogy I made earlier. Someone taught to be a murderer from a young age. If that person grows up to be 20 and then kills someone, are they responsible for their actions? Why or why not? I don't think it's as plain and simple as you claim.

I had a couple friends in high school that were higher than kites every weekend from grade 9 to 12 and tried to have me to the same. My parents never came out and said don't smoke and I was never strictly punished for anything. Amazingly though I never felt like doing it and simply made the decision not to. Now see I made a decision because I know I am responsible for my own actions and the resulting consequences. I made a decision against what people were telling me to do.

Maybe you never felt like doing it because your parents did a good job raising you not to give into peer pressure but your friends' parents didn't. Not amazing, just fortunate.

The decision was yours, the ability to make that decision came from everything you had learned from your parents, teachers, etc. whether you knew it or not.

Yes people can live hard lives and yes people are dragged through hell and back every day but that in no way whatsoever is an excuse to kill even one person let alone try to mass murder an entire movie theater.

No it isn't, and I never suggested it was. We're not talking about someone having a hard life, we're talking about someone who doesn't have a respect for human life. Whatever his motivations, somehow he was not taught to respect people's lives. Told maybe, but he never actually learned.

This is his fault and I think it is an enormous disrespect to those who lost their lives to suggest anybody else has something to do with it.

Oh please. If I were one of the victims I assure you I would still not want to see him tortured. Because I'm not basing that desire on emotion.

It's a really apathetic view to think this was only his fault, and that some people are just bad people and there's nothing we can do but torture them to make us feel better about it. If we really want to prevent this from happening, you have to realize there are reasons people become sociopaths and there are ways to actively prevent that from happening. But you have to acknowledge that reasons exist.

And I would assume the victims would want to prevent others from becoming murderers too, so I don't see how this is in any way disrespectful.

 

[Tornado]

However allowing him to die makes the death penalty legal meaning it's also legal for others who may be innocent.

Killing him or not killing him has no bearing or precedent on what may happen for future death penalty cases because it is rare that capital punishment cases aren't tried by themselves without comparison to other cases; nor does it have any bearing or precedent on what may happen for future death penalty cases where the accused was innocent. You need to prove the assertion that it does, because all this case does is follow already established laws.


They aren't putting the death penalty in place because of this when it is already there and they would simply plan on using it, and as such there are better situations to take a stand against the death penalty than a case like this one, because it undermines the very argument you are trying to make.

 

[McLaren]

He understands what rights are and who has them, but apparently justified violating them because he thought something was more important. This is wrong. You have to ask how he got the idea that sending a message or whatever he tried to do was more important than human life, and you can't ignore that his environment was at least partially responsible for him getting that information, along with the wiring of his brain which allowed him to accept it.

That's what motive is for. And even if his environment is partially responsible, you can't hold it accountable in anyway as you questioned it before hand as possibly being at fault.

He lacked an understanding of human rights. Isn't it possible that this is because of his environment growing up, that somehow he just never learned? Okay, maybe he could have learned about human rights on his own, but it's also possible his environment made him uninterested in being moral or ethical. Is it really his fault then?

If there isn't free will (and I'd argue there isn't), then yes, his environment did force him to. The law doesn't need to recognize that because that's not what the law is for.

Except there is free will. His environment did not physically force to commit the crime. It did not put the gun in his hand, it did not pull the trigger.

To suggest his environment may be to blame, you must prove it first. Can't just sit in court & say it did it.

The point is nobody is to blame per se, because anyone who could have caused this couldn't have explicitly predicted it. Everyone just acted on what they knew, and if what they knew was wrong, they possibly did something wrong, but it's not their fault they had the wrong information.

The only person to blame is James Holmes. He is the one who caused it, he is the one predicted it months ago when he started planning it. It is his fault.

There is no, "he's not entirely to blame" argument unless you're ready to start proving whatever else influenced him can be blamed as well & you've already theorized his parents, teachers, & religion.

Nothing. In fact all they'd have to do is argue that there's no such thing as free will. But like I've said a million times it's irrelevant to a courtroom because all that matters in a courtroom is whether they did it and whether they recognize human rights, not whether it's their fault if they don't recognize human rights.

Except they do argue that in the form of insanity! The issue is they have to prove their insane in the first place.

 

[arora]

It's a really apathetic view to think this was only his fault, and that some people are just bad people and there's nothing we can do but torture them to make us feel better about it. If we really want to prevent this from happening, you have to realize there are reasons people become sociopaths and there are ways to actively prevent that from happening. But you have to acknowledge that reasons exist.

You do realize some of us understand all that already right?

We know the guy is very smart, looks like he was very disappointed at limited employment opportunities after a stellar under grad works. It does not seem likely to me he quit his post grad because he could not cut it. Something snapped, and that is what the focus should be on, we have serious social issues in this land and they are not going to simply go away with 'catch the ones who lash out and punish' deeper things need to be addressed.

 

[Schwartz]

The only person to blame is James Holmes. He is the one who caused it, he is the one predicted it months ago when he started planning it. It is his fault.

That is an insanely shallow view of the situation.

 

[Azuremen]

That is an insanely shallow view of the situation.

How so? It is the most straight forward and logical.

I don't understand this current idea in society that we must differ some blame to other parties for the actions of an individual.

 

[McLaren]

Let's go back to an analogy I made earlier. Someone taught to be a murderer from a young age. If that person grows up to be 20 and then kills someone, are they responsible for their actions? Why or why not? I don't think it's as plain and simple as you claim.Maybe you never felt like doing it because your parents did a good job raising you not to give into peer pressure but your friends' parents didn't. Not amazing, just fortunate.

Except that's not the case here, so it's irrelevant. We're talking about an intelligent young man studying neuroscience, not a boy in the Middle East brainwashed from birth.

No it isn't, and I never suggested it was. We're not talking about someone having a hard life, we're talking about someone who doesn't have a respect for human life. Whatever his motivations, somehow he was not taught to respect people's lives.

Or maybe he was taught that, & he just doesn't care?

These people exist & he's likely one of them.

Told maybe, but he never actually learned.

Then, that right there is why it is his fault.

Oh please. If I were one of the victims I assure you I would still not want to see him tortured. Because I'm not basing that desire on emotion.

Oh please. It's easy to say such things when you're not even directly involved. Same with the people who keep claiming, "If I was there with my CHL, I would have hid & then shot him when I had a chance".

Until you're actually put in the middle of the situation, it's unlikely you'd know what you would actually do outside of whatever natural instinct would tell you.

It's a really apathetic view to think this was only his fault, and that some people are just bad people and there's nothing we can do but torture them to make us feel better about it. If we really want to prevent this from happening, you have to realize there are reasons people become sociopaths and there are ways to actively prevent that from happening. But you have to acknowledge that reasons exist.

And you have to acknowledge that some people are just worthless scumbags who only value their own interests.

Not everybody will grow up to be good people & you can't predict those who won't. This kid's background was near spotless, so I want to know how you would actively prevent someone like James Holmes from doing what he did? Where would you even start because for the last 24 years of this man's life, he was the least likely person to commit such a crime.

And I would assume the victims would want to prevent others from becoming murderers too, so I don't see how this is in any way disrespectful.

I'm sure near everyone would want prevent others from becoming murderers. Difference is how people choose to go about it. I'll be $100 there's a victim who wants James Holmes dead to teach others a lesson.

That is an insanely shallow view of the situation.

Is it? Then tell me who else to blame & be ready to start showing evidence. If there is no one else, & he's just insane, I along with D.A., are eagerly awaiting that defense.

 

[arora]

How so? It is the most straight forward and logical.

I don't understand this current idea in society that we must differ some blame to other parties for the actions of an individual.

I think it is possible to hold the one solely responsible for his actions, and at the same time question the state of social affairs. Maybe that is just me. Diverting blame though? nope.

 

[Tornado]

That is an insanely shallow view of the situation.

Why? Because McLaren doesn't buy into the assumption that it must not be his fault with no basis other than he did the crime?

 

[bergauk]

- How did an unemployed student get $20,000 worth of firearms and tactical gear?


Respectfully submitted,
Steve

I'd like to touch on just this one point. He probably planned to do this, with the intent of dying himself, or getting caught, in which case. His debt would have no effect on what he was doing.

 

[Schwartz]

How so? It is the most straight forward and logical.

I don't understand this current idea in society that we must differ some blame to other parties for the actions of an individual.

Why? Because McLaren doesn't buy into the assumption that it must not be his fault with no basis other than he did the crime?

If you turn on a football/soccer game just as someone is missing a penalty kick to lose a game, is it his fault they lost? No. There was 120 minutes of other actions leading up to that point. I'm not saying that Holmes shouldn't share the blame, I'm saying that nobody wakes up one morning deciding to commit mass murder without a cause. There is no effect without cause. Weather it was people who caused him to snap or something like possibly a stressful environment, it doesn't matter. It must be investigated.

 

[McLaren]

If you turn on a football/soccer game just as someone is missing a penalty kick to lose a game, is it his fault they lost? No. There was 120 minutes of other actions leading up to that point. I'm not saying that Holmes shouldn't share the blame, I'm saying that nobody wakes up one morning deciding to commit mass murder without a cause. There is no effect without cause. Weather it was people who caused him to snap or something like possibly a stressful environment, it doesn't matter. It must be investigated.

Even if it there is a person or a stressful environment that may have lead him to doing it, the fact remains the same.

That person/work environment didn't make James Holmes kill those people.

Take notice that I never said he just woke up one day & decided to kill people. I'm sure there's an interesting motive behind it. However, I believe that Holmes is the one who should take responsibility for his actions & no one else.