Shooting inside Colorado movie theater during Batman premier

[dylansan]

No external forces pushed him to kill 12 people and put bombs in his appartment to kill more people. He's the one to pull the trigger and made the bombs. It's not his parents fault. He's grown up and to prepare his killing plan since 5 months he got his mind. It's not like he took the first kitchen knife and kill his neighboor because he had the devil inside. Don't try to put fault on anybody else, it's all his fault. There's a good chance he wasn't really enjoying the life, probably a lot unhappy but it is a reason to bring 12 random people to death. He could have just shot himself in his appartment. End of story.

As I've said, being miserable could have perhaps been a "motive" for him, but what's more important is what caused him to think such a motive was more important than human life.

The decisions people make are just the result of chemical reactions in the brain. His brain was wired is such a way that his motives, whatever they were, caused him to kill. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Exorcet]

No external forces pushed him to kill 12 people and put bombs in his appartment to kill more people.

You saying so doesn't make this true.

He's the one to pull the trigger and made the bombs.

I don't think anyone disagreed.

It's not like he took the first kitchen knife and kill his neighboor because he had the devil inside.

How is that situation any different?

I'm defending the guy, I not making excuses. dylansan had raised valid points that I think are being dismissed too easily out of emotion. No need to agree, but at least think about it.

We don't have any complete understanding of the mind, and this whole situation seems entirely irrational. The mom also apparently wasn't surprised. I wouldn't rule out mental issues given that.

 

[a6m5]

I think some of us in this thread is giving James Holmes way too much credit. From what little we know, this has been very simple so far. How was his mind affected, brain is wired, in my view, none of that really matter as long as he was not mentally retarded, and was incapable of understanding that killing another human being was against the law.

Did he understand the law? Yes. Did he understand the consequence? Yes. Strategy he used to execute this massacre is a dead giveaway that he was not only fully aware of resistance & accountability he would end up facing, but he was so smart & slick going about it. He pulled the job off like some kind of pro.

This wasn't about how he witnessed a dog being put down when he was ten, or his mom never give him enough milk for the cereal in the morning. Obviously, he was very sick, but he was fully aware of the violations he was committing, and the consequence of his actions.

Again, with what we've heard & read so far, this is as simple as a bad man killing bunch of innocent people. I guess he could still claim that he thought he was shooting at the alien space vampires or something, but his very detailed, meticulous game plan gives it away. He knew he was being bad, he knew to avoid and surrender to authority. The "why", he had his reasons, but that's his problem. Yeah, maybe he got picked on as a kid, or maybe it was genetic. But bottom line, he understood that murder was against the law, but still decided to act on it.

 

[dylansan]

Did he understand the law? Yes. Did he understand the consequence? Yes.

This is why I think it's so important to ask why he did it.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

To better understand Holmes decision to do such atrocity, we could ask ourselves why would not we do the same as him ? He did not feel the same way about killing others like most of us do.

Maybe for him, when he made the decision and planning it, it was not as hard as we might think it was, it might be as easy/simple as choosing what soft drink to buy. Does that mean he is insane or immoral ? He surely knew it was wrong to kill others, but for him, the concept of guilt/remorse might never been an equation to his decision.

 

[niky]

We would not do the same because we have it hardwired into our brains that it's wrong to kill. In fact, in most cases, you have to aggressively train police and soldiers to ensure that they can pull the trigger when needed to. This is because we have empathy, and if we see our opponents as human, we won't be able to kill them. This is why part of army indoctrination is to dehumanize the enemy. Helps if they're a different ethnicity. Makes it easier. "Gooks", "Towelheads"... such seemingly innocuous insults are part of the conditioning that helps soldiers get over the fact that they're shooting at living, breathing, humans. Of course... that kind of conditioning can go too far...

A mass murderer has no empathy. He needs no conditioning to pull the trigger on other people...

If your brain is wired in such a way that you would feel no remorse at killing... given that we don't know how to rewire the brain so that it's "normal", then you're a danger to other people and the State, and need to be put away or put down. That's all there is to it.

 

[CAM]

I'm not sure if this really applies to this situation, but I learned in some Psych classes that "consciousness" (which I believe is this "decision making force" dylan is on about) was by far the least understood aspect of our existence and hadn't been explicitly tied to any external or internal factors yet..

 

[dylansan]

If your brain is wired in such a way that you would feel no remorse at killing... given that we don't know how to rewire the brain so that it's "normal", then you're a danger to other people and the State, and need to be put away or put down. That's all there is to it.

I agree with you.

But I also think, given a person has no control over the wiring of his own brain, torture is unwarranted. And even though we don't know exactly the physical difference between a normal brain and that of a murderer, we may still be able to determine some possible causes of this brain wiring by examining the life of this person and people like him and looking for connections. If there is some way people can better prevent their kids from growing up to do this, I would certainly want to know.

 

[a6m5]

If your brain is wired in such a way that you would feel no remorse at killing... given that we don't know how to rewire the brain so that it's "normal", then you're a danger to other people and the State, and need to be put away or put down. That's all there is to it.

I was going to type up exactly that in response to Ridox & dylan.

Do I think there should a study on what was going inside Holmes' head? Absolutely. Do I think this study should be taken into account in court? Affect his sentencing in anyway? With what we know about the case so far, absolutely not.

I believe that all our brains & minds are unique in how we process information. However, when it comes to individual committing serious crime, while fully understanding the law, consequence of his/her actions, it doesn't matter how you ended up justifying the crime. You understood the crime, you understood the consequence.

Edit: I just caught mention of torture in dylan's post above. For the record, I am for more practical prison system, but I don't recommend torture!

 

[niky]

Impulse control and motor control are pre-frontal lobe functions. Studies have been done that can pinpoint the specific areas of the brain that are underdeveloped or "different" in serial killers. It's pretty much a guarantee Holmes will have abnormalities in that area.

"Consciousness" itself, that center-of-being feeling that you and I have that tells us: "This is me, I am here" is a different matter...

In this case, looking for environmental factors is pretty pointless. As with ADHD, psychotic behavior is not the result of bad parenting. With ADHD, though, you can train the child with externally applied executive self-regulation functions to mitigate the problems. Homicidal psychopathy is of a different order, and the warning signs are often hidden, as some psychopaths (like Holmes) are smart enough to hide these tendencies before they explode and kill other people.

You can't train a psychopath to believe other people are people. They just won't believe it. They may fake remorse, if needed, or have real remorse if they're about to be killed or punished... but that remorse won't be for the dead...

In the end, whether he is clinically insane or merely partially insane (all killers are) doesn't matter. He did the crime, he has to do the time.

 

[McLaren]

I'm just trying to be understanding of everyone. Why exactly do you think blame is so important? Once the people are locked up, why is being angry with them better than being sad that they have to be there?
I have considered the question of why people do bad things, and unlike you, I have an answer. My answer is consistent with what we know about physics and I am extrapolating from it in order to determine bad people deserve. And I have come to the conclusion that hatred and the need for violent retribution like torture is cruel and unnecessary.

And you have simply judged me for that and left disgusted.

Your answer is not consistent at all. I had to send this thread to my gf who's currently majoring in psychology, & from her opinion, she seems to think you just read a Psychology 101 book. She also doesn't understand the constant repetition with the backbone of your argument (the "brain wiring"), and that you don't seem to understand as much as you think you do about how the human brain works as people get older & how their mentality matures.

I am not answering the rest of your post because you simply seem incapable of realizing that there is not a reason for every person. You believe nobody has a choice in their actions, that nobody really is to blame for their actions, or that James Holmes is a child mentally, or that every tragedy is an accident, and yet, you haven't provided a single bit of scientific evidence to support your argument.

All these claims about Holmes not being completely to blame is your job to prove. You need to prove the environment caused James to do what he did. You need to prove at 24, he doesn't know better (which is the biggest form of nonsense yet; 14-16 years old is when everyone should know wrong from right). You are the one who needs to prove this because you are the one taking that stance. My side of the debate already has its proof that he's to blame; he committed the crime, was caught with the evidence on him, & has no previous record for anyone to believe he was mentally unstable. In fact, his intelligence in neuroscienece is a strong argument against that.

So, until YOU start presenting evidence for your assumptions that he's not stable, I have no reason to continue b/c I'm not the one arguing he's insane (yes, that's exactly what you're doing at this point; making a case for him to plead such a verdict).

 

[arora]

I had to send this thread to my gf ..

Oh did you.

I have no reason to continue

I agree.

 

[dylansan]

So, until YOU start presenting evidence for your assumptions that he's not stable, I have no reason to continue b/c I'm not the one arguing he's insane (yes, that's exactly what you're doing at this point; making a case for him to plead such a verdict).

Why would he plead insanity? Please tell me how anything I said would suggest that?

By the way the only proof required for my argument is that free will doesn't exist. If you would like to argue that it does, feel free. The simple fact that the brain operates and grows according to the laws of physics is proof enough that there isn't.

It doesn't matter what specific processes are involved in brain development. It doesn't matter that most people learn to respect human rights as they get older. This person didn't. Why?

 

[McLaren]

Why would he plead insanity? Please tell me how anything I said would suggest that?

You have spent the last couple pages arguing that Holmes did not know what he was doing & that he is not to blame alone. Instead, you blamed his parents, teachers, & religion.

You know who else does that? People who make a case for insanity.

By the way the only proof required for my argument is that free will doesn't exist. If you would like to argue that it does, feel free. The simple fact that the brain operates and grows according to the laws of physics is proof enough that there isn't.

Wrong. All there is to it. If the logic you've spewed in this thread was as right as you believe it to be, then nobody is responsible at all for their actions. It's all society's fault according to you.

It doesn't matter what specific processes are involved in brain development. It doesn't matter that most people learn to respect human rights as they get older. This person didn't. Why?

Prove it.

 

[dylansan]

You have spent the last couple pages arguing that Holmes did not know what he was doing & that he is not to blame alone. Instead, you blamed his parents, teachers, & religion.

You know who else does that? People who make a case for insanity.

You know what people who make a case for insanity don't do? Say that the criminal should still go to prison or get the death penalty.

This is a basic failure of logic. If A then B. B. Therefore A. Wrong.

Also I never said Holmes didn't know what he was doing, just that he is not responsible. You're making stuff up now.

Wrong. All there is to it. If the logic you've spewed in this thread was as right as you believe it to be, then nobody is responsible at all for their actions. It's all society's fault according to you.

NO. It's not ANYONE"s fault. If you still think I'm arguing other people should be blamed, you haven't been paying attention.

Prove it.

If he respected people's rights he wouldn't have violated them.

 

[niky]

By the way the only proof required for my argument is that free will doesn't exist. If you would like to argue that it does, feel free. The simple fact that the brain operates and grows according to the laws of physics is proof enough that there isn't.

Whether "free will" is a construct or not doesn't matter. If a dog goes rabid and starts attacking everyone and everything, we put the dog down, whether he knows why or not.

It doesn't matter what specific processes are involved in brain development. It doesn't matter that most people learn to respect human rights as they get older. This person didn't. Why?

Go back to my post. Malfunction of specific parts of the brain cause a person to process information differently, think differently and socially interact differently. That matters. You're looking for an external cause that most likely does not exist.

Again, while there is an underlying cause, the decision maker made his decision, and he must pay the consequences. This is what you, I and everyone else on Earth does everyday. We make decisions based on how we are predisposed to think. If we can be convinced the way we think and make decisions is wrong, we will attempt to change the way we think.

If a person cannot be convinced to change the mode of thought that sees the lives of other humans as having no worth, then it is in the interest of society to remove that person in whatever way it deems fit.

I do agree that the desire for vengeance shouldn't be the point of this case. Torture won't bring those people back. But if he had full cognizance of his actions, however his mind is wired, and he knew the consequences (which, he apparently does, being a college level student), then he should be tried and sentenced and given a punishment equal to the weight of his crimes.

Sadly, we have no way of painfully killing a person a dozen times over. Yet.

 

[McLaren]

You know what people who make a case for insanity don't do? Say that the criminal should still go to prison or get the death penalty.

That's half the reason people plea insanity to begin with; to avoid the maximum punishment.

Also I never said Holmes didn't know what he was doing, just that he is not responsible. You're making stuff up now.

Bull crap kiddo.

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

He committed the crime, so obviously Holmes didn't know what he was doing, according to you.

NO. It's not ANYONE"s fault. If you still think I'm arguing other people should be blamed, you haven't been paying attention.

Wrong. It is Holme's fault. He carried out the crime, he is to blame. Nothing twisted his arm into doing it.

You are out of your mind if you think no one is at fault for this massacre. Nothing more than an insult to those who died to claim no one is to blame for their deaths.

 

[dylansan]

Gah, even the people who understand me don't understand me.

Whether "free will" is a construct or not doesn't matter. If a dog goes rabid and starts attacking everyone and everything, we put the dog down, whether he knows why or not.

Yes. And I'm just trying to say it's unfortunate that you have to put the dog down. That's ALL I'm saying. All the people who keep saying "Let this guy suffer in jail" or "Kill him painfully" or "It would make me so happy to see people beat the 🤬 out of him" are just a mystery to me. Imagine saying that about a dog. There is no difference, as far as I'm concerned.

Go back to my post. Malfunction of specific parts of the brain cause a person to process information differently, think differently and socially interact differently. That matters. You're looking for an external cause that most likely does not exist.

I'm including improper brain development in external causes. I short, anything that causes the brain to become unable to comprehenld rights is the cause. Not responsible, or to blame, just the cause.

Again, while there is an underlying cause, the decision maker made his decision, and he must pay the consequences. This is what you, I and everyone else on Earth does everyday. We make decisions based on how we are predisposed to think. If we can be convinced the way we think and make decisions is wrong, we will attempt to change the way we think.

Exactly

If a person cannot be convinced to change the mode of thought that sees the lives of other humans as having no worth, then it is in the interest of society to remove that person in whatever way it deems fit.

Exactly.

I do agree that the desire for vengeance shouldn't be the point of this case. Torture won't bring those people back. But if he had full cognizance of his actions, however his mind is wired, and he knew the consequences (which, he apparently does, being a college level student), then he should be tried and sentenced and given a punishment equal to the weight of his crimes.

Exactly.

That's half the reason people plea insanity to begin with; to avoid the maximum punishment.

What part of "or the death penalty" allows people to avoid the maximum punishment. The punishment should not be based on any of this at all.

Bull crap kiddo.

Okay, different context. He knew what he was doing, but he didn't have the full understanding because he didn't see the value in human life. If he understood that, he wouldn't have done it.

He thought he knew what he was doing, basically. But not.

Look, I don't want to argue semantics anymore. I'm just saying sadness is more justified than anger when these things happen. Prevention is more justified then cruel punishment like torture. I'm not trying to flip the whole legal system on it's head.

He committed the crime, so obviously Holmes didn't know what he was doing, according to you.

He didn't have a full understanding of the situation which is why he made the wrong decision. He still made the decision, knew he made the decision, etc. I'm just trying to point out why. You still never told me why there are bad people.

Wrong. It is Holme's fault. He carried out the crime, he is to blame. Nothing twisted his arm into doing it.

The laws of physics made it impossible for him to do anything else. Not specific people, events, but just his environment in general. Just the most random reactions within his brain that could have caused a malfunction.

You are out of your mind if you think no one is at fault for this massacre. Nothing more than an insult to those who died to claim no one is to blame for their deaths.

Again with the "insult" to the victims. If you think I'm doing this to be cruel, suit yourself. If you think I'm trying to make a logical argument, then whether you think it's offensive or not is irrelevant.

Again, we're arguing semantics. Someone is "at fault" if you want to call it that, in the respect that he did it and needs to take responsibility for it. But he did not have a choice in being at fault.

I'd appreciate not being called "out of my mind" for seeing things differently.

 

[McLaren]

Gah, even the people who understand me don't understand me.

Because everything you keep posting doesn't make logical sense. You are constantly making an argument that Holmes had no control over himself. Where is the scientific proof? Because if what you said had any sort of ground, there would have been hundreds of criminals pleading they did not have control over their crimes & they are not at fault.

What part of "or the death penalty" allows people to avoid the maximum punishment. The punishment should not be based on any of this at all.

What part of the underlined section do you not get?

Okay, different context. He knew what he was doing, but he didn't have the full understanding because he didn't see the value in human life. If he understood that, he wouldn't have done it.

Now you're changing your argument that he did know what he was doing, he just didn't understand why. How about he did know, and he just didn't care anyway?

And don't start your stupid, "Oh, why didn't he care" excuse. There is not an answer behind every person's thought.

He thought he knew what he was doing, basically. But not.

You just said he did know up above....You have no idea anymore what kind of stance you're taking.

Look, I don't want to argue semantics anymore. I'm just saying sadness is more justified than anger when these things happen. Prevention is more justified then cruel punishment like torture. I'm not trying to flip the whole legal system on it's head.
He didn't have a full understanding of the situation which is why he made the wrong decision. He still made the decision, knew he made the decision, etc. I'm just trying to point out why.

Except I'm waiting for the proof of this. Show me the evidence that he didn't have a full understanding of the situation.

The why is the motive. We know why, the DA just won't release it so the defense can't make a case out of it.

You still never told me why there are bad people.

Because people are 🤬 looney. Why do people do anything....

The laws of physics made it impossible for him to do anything else. Not specific people, events, but just his environment in general. Just the most random reactions within his brain that could have caused a malfunction.

Sorry, but don't believe it. A man with his level of intelligence & education says otherwise.

Again with the "insult" to the victims. If you think I'm doing this to be cruel, suit yourself. If you think I'm trying to make a logical argument, then whether you think it's offensive or not is irrelevant.

I didn't say you were doing it to be cruel & logical argument is a laugh.

You're sitting here saying no one is at fault for those deaths. There is no logical argument for spewing such words.

But he did not have a choice in being at fault.

You just said no one was fault & had been making repetitive case for it.
Now you claim he is at fault, he just had no choice in being so.

Your whole argument is continuously losing any ground it had.

I'd appreciate not being called "out of my mind" for seeing things differently.

You're not seeing anything differently through reasonable thought is the problem....

 

[dylansan]

And don't start your stupid, "Oh, why didn't he care" excuse. There is not an answer behind every person's thought.

The sooner you realize this is baloney the sooner you will understand my argument.

Every effect has a cause. Things don't just spontaneously happen for no reason. Including decisions. This is fundamental.

Link 1
Link 2

Except I'm waiting for the proof of this. Show me the evidence that he didn't have a full understanding of the situation.

You're not getting it. Understanding INCLUDES knowing that observing human rights is more important than any other motive. That is required for a full understanding. If he understood that, it would be physically impossible for him to make a decision that violated rights. Therefore he didn't understand the importance of human rights and therefore didn't have a full understanding.

He understood the consequences, in that he knew he would go to jail and probably get the death penalty. But that's not the whole understanding.

The why is the motive. We know why, the DA just won't release it so the defense can't make a case out of it.

In court, the why is the motive. I'm asking you why he found that motive more important that human rights. You're telling me there's no answer. That's baloney.

Because people are 🤬 looney. Why do people do anything....

There are answers to the question but you're unwilling to consider any of them.

Sorry, but don't believe it. A man with his level of intelligence & education says otherwise.

An educated and intelligent man can't have malfunctions in his brain. You're going to say that?

I didn't say you were doing it to be cruel & logical argument is a laugh.

You're sitting here saying no one is at fault for those deaths. There is no logical argument for spewing such words.

You just said no one was fault & had been making repetitive case for it.
Now you claim he is at fault, he just had no choice in being so.

Your whole argument is continuously losing any ground it had.

You were and still are arguing semantics. And now you're using it to tell me I'm flip-flopping.

You clearly have a definition of fault that is very different to mine. I'm trying to get you to reevaluate that definition using examples, but I gave up and am now forced to use other words in the hopes of clarifying my position.

Answer me this. What is the difference between at fault, to blame, and cause?

You're not seeing anything differently through reasonable thought is the problem....

Your "reasonable thought" consists of "show me the PROOF" even though all the required proof is a set of premises and conclusions based on them. I thought you had accepted the premises, but since you don't think there's such thing as cause and effect, we clearly have found the stumbling block.

 

[niky]

Understanding INCLUDES knowing that observing human rights is more important than any other motive. That is required for a full understanding. If he understood that, it would be physically impossible for him to make a decision that violated rights. Therefore he didn't understand the importance of human rights and therefore didn't have a full understanding.

If you're a post-graduate student in Neuroscience, it's a pretty sure thing you've had classes in Ethics, and you know what human rights are. Understanding is not going to be a problem.

Most criminals understand that it's wrong to take other people's stuff. They simply don't care.

Simple semantics.

 

[dylansan]

If you're a post-graduate student in Neuroscience, it's a pretty sure thing you've had classes in Ethics, and you know what human rights are. Understanding is not going to be a problem.

Most criminals understand that it's wrong to take other people's stuff. They simply don't care.

Simple semantics.

I would argue that they understand what's commonly accepted as being right and wrong, but they don't agree with it. If they actually thought it was wrong they wouldn't do it.

 

[niky]

And the law will care if you don't understand... but won't give two flying figs if you don't agree. Hence, the differentiation. In this case, the Law doesn't care if he doesn't believe other humans are worth valuing, for whatever reason. If he has the cognitive faculties to know that he should value them and he should not go on a shooting spree, then that's it... he's convicted.

 

[Blaze_409]

Some of what I heard in the last two pages is ridiculous. physics caused him to kill?
Lets not have bad taste. The guy is a murderer. We should not be trying to find far-fetched excuses as to why he did what he did so he can walk free...So please. No one should be defending this man for whatever bs excuse. The fact that he was a Neuro Grad Student is even more disturbing. It just means that the reason he did what he did is even more sick and twisted than what we could imagine. No one thought he was capable of this kind of thing. That just goes to show that he did well to hide his ulterior motives. People who kill for revenge show signs of anger etc...This man had none of the sort. These killings where probably part of some sick experiment that he's only going to be consumed with in Prison.

 

[dylansan]

We should not be trying to find far-fetched excuses as to why he did what he did so he can walk free...So please.

Then actually read what I wrote.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I would argue that they understand what's commonly accepted as being right and wrong, but they don't agree with it. If they actually thought it was wrong they wouldn't do it.

It does not matter if they agree or not about what's commonly accepted as being right or wrong. Human made choices, everyday we make decision. Every people who are addicted knew it's wrong choice to do, but they could not make the right decision due to many reasons. On the other hand, there are people who could make the right decision to stop their addiction and stood by it no matter what. Self determination to do what's right and the unwavering intention to do so have more role in people's tough moral choices.

He knew what he was doing, but he didn't have the full understanding because he didn't see the value in human life. If he understood that, he wouldn't have done it.
He thought he knew what he was doing, basically. But not.

How do you know that ? He could have known the value of human life, he could have understood all that, but he still did it anyway. Why ? He made the choice to do so, what brings him into making such decision is the real cause. This also means he knew exactly what he was doing, every choices that we make, we are fully aware of it, our mind, our consciousness made the decision, Holmes probably decided to ignore what's right or wrong, ignore his own morality and all things that society deemed as right.

If he respected people's rights he wouldn't have violated them.

I am sure he respected people's rights when he wants to and chooses to, in that moment, he just chose to violate them anyway. Just like when soldiers in war choose to kill unarmed enemies who have surrendered, or when they rape women and kill children. A less extreme example : when someone "choose" to bullies the weak for fun and thrill, but came home and "choose" to act like a good kid who respected parents and all.

By the way the only proof required for my argument is that free will doesn't exist. If you would like to argue that it does, feel free. The simple fact that the brain operates and grows according to the laws of physics is proof enough that there isn't.
It doesn't matter what specific processes are involved in brain development. It doesn't matter that most people learn to respect human rights as they get older. This person didn't. Why?

Free will does exist. Human have the freedom to do according to their own choices, no matter how limited that freedom is.

Simple example :
People can choose to kill themselves, it's called suicide, sometimes they even choose to bring others together to their deaths in their attempt for suicide. Did they have free will ? They sure do, that's why they can make the choice to do so. They can also choose no instead of yes. Suicide bombers have the same brain like most of us, but they have been indoctrinated that their actions are justified, and they choose to follow their leaders.
I am sure not everyone who have been indoctrinated could come up with the same decision, some would just chickening out, some would choose no on moral grounds, some hold their principle so high that even death would not change their mind to do such atrocities.
Unfortunately, some would do the act of killing themselves and others like a bee circling a honey pot, they just put their own being higher than any other and choose to ignore everything else.

In every aspect of life, in every thing we do every day, when we give up to do what's right, when we give up in our struggle, every time we give up something or anything, we choose to do so, and not because of nature or fate.
To say yes or no is a choice, when we said that fate or nature caused us to give up doing what's right or give in to evil, we were just making sad excuses for the bad choices we made.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No one should be defending this man for whatever bs excuse. The fact that he was a Neuro Grad Student is even more disturbing. It just means that the reason he did what he did is even more sick and twisted than what we could imagine. No one thought he was capable of this kind of thing. That just goes to show that he did well to hide his ulterior motives.

You clearly know very little about psychological disorders. For all we know, he's a paranoid schizophrenic who has gone the past six months listening to a puppet of a mariachi band member telling him to kill everyone.

Yes, Holmes was a grad student in neurology. And yes, that means he's a very intelligent man. But intelligence does not make someone immune to psychological disorders.

 

[photonrider]

......XsnipX....... But intelligence does not make someone immune to psychological disorders.

Absolutely. In fact, the child-like and colourful fictional arch-criminal known as 'The Joker' is taken to be 'devillishly intelligent' - in the world of comics taken to be the most intelligent criminal of all time by many.
Intelligence is the acquiring, storage and retrieval of information. This shooter was a guy who could lecture on temporal illusions and subjective experiences quite lucidly.

Focusing on the victims, however, brings many stories to light - and there is emerging a thread that links these victims - a characteristic that seems to personify the average American: many threw themselves over loved ones protectively, some sacrificing their lives to do so.

Home of the brave.. . .

One of those people, Josh Nowlan, threw himself over his friends protectively, then listened as the shooter walked up to them and pulled the trigger. At that point, the after-market magazine that the killer was using, jammed - the shooting ended, and Josh's life, (and the lives of many, many, many more) was saved. Bravery comes from the heart, not the mind. As does the subjective judgement of morality.

The successful application of acquired intelligence depends on the withdrawal at will, of the right information.

A 'Thank You' to those who provided more links and information on the victims.

One more story:
Alex Teves (died taking a bullet for his girlfriend) had a habit of wearing a white T-Shirt and blue jeans to school pretty much everyday according to his father. Eventually the school declared an 'Alex Teves' day, and all the students came to school that day wearing white T-Shirts and blue jeans. I would think that had a bigger impact on many people's lives (including my own - because I cannot wear a white T-Shirt and blue jeans without Alex coming to mind, even for a moment) than if they had sat through a lecture on temporal illusions. Forget the shooter - there is a vast circle of people around him that will give him the attention he deserves.
Please, let us remember the victims.

Cheers,
Harry.

 

[CodeRedR51]

So............

How about some good news?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...cid=maing-grid7|aim|dl2|sec1_lnk2&pLid=183189

 

[Blaze_409]

You clearly know very little about psychological disorders. For all we know, he's a paranoid schizophrenic who has gone the past six months listening to a puppet of a mariachi band member telling him to kill everyone.

Yes, Holmes was a grad student in neurology. And yes, that means he's a very intelligent man. But intelligence does not make someone immune to psychological disorders.

Well for one we dont know that he was mentally ill. Do you also think that all of Al quaeda, Nazi's, and Hezbollah are all schizophrenics? You probably don't. I don't like how society assumes that all people are good and that when someone does wrong clearly they where not in there right mind.....
When the lion killed his brother so he could lead the pack do we say that "oh the lion is schizo, sadist, psychopathic "? No we don't.

So when someone above says that "oh clearly he did not understand the value of human life therefore he must have not been in his right mind
" is the lion in his right mind? Is the killer whale in his right mind when he kills his trainer? He killed and obviously did not care about the consequences. He wanted to achieve something and killed to get it

We are all animals. Some people just want to kill for there own reasons. Food, revenge, power, control, instill fear.

. If you believe he is mentally impaired then ok. We don't have to agree

And I don't think it is any coincidence that Holmes chose the Dark Knight premiere as the shooting ground. Could have been any movie theater but I think it had to be the dark knight for him. It's disturbingly ironic. The Dark knight, vigilante. Probably thinking he was on Gotham or something waiting to see batman...