Shooting inside Colorado movie theater during Batman premier

[a6m5]

I wish we knew a bit more about the "why". This morning, I only learned of the incident when my coworkers told me, so I didn't even know who the shooter was. When I heard that he was a young college kid, I was glad for the fact that it seemed that he acted on this alone. Just the night before, I saw a story on a Caucasian suicide-bomber, so I was afraid that this might've been another terrorist attack.

I also echo sentiments regarding the 3-month-old in the movie theater at midnight showing. I actually argued this with a friend of mine. If the kid was like close to ten or something, maybe. Bringing baby or toddler to late evening showing at the movie theater is a no-no in my book.

As far as the gun rights/control topic in this thread, I don't think we can accurately determine if concealed carry weapons could have helped in this case. Reportedly, the man was wearing ballistic helmet, kevlar armor, etc. It's debatable if handgun ammunition would have stopped the shooter. It is entirely possible that it would have done more harm than good.

Having said that, I also find the counter opinion about the armed mass not helping in the matter ridiculous. Of course it would have helped, and if I was the gunman, I know I wouldn't go into a room full of armed people and start shooting, especially if I was afraid of getting shot. Afraid enough to cover my entire body with kevlar.

Personally, I think this shooting is more about what was inside this individual's head, and less about the guns.

I am very sorry for the victims, and their families. Kids and fans just wanted to enjoy the new Batman flick, and they certainly did not deserve this. I'm also very sorry how much tax dollar is going to be wasted on this dumb piece of trash. 👎

 

[Bobert power]

The shooter was dressed up as villain Scarecrow. (yes, i like batman stuff) But whats really twisted is that he shot an infant at point blank range, AN INFANT!

 

[Pako]

Horrific!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I wish we knew a bit more about the "why".

For now, we can only speculate. It appears that this was very much a planned crime. The shooter was dressed in character, and announced himself as the Joker to police when they apprehended him. Based on reports of the arrest, he made no attempt to resist arrest, and the mugshot that has been circulating shows him to look very pleased with himself.

Based on all this, I think it wouldn't be out of the question to suggest that Holmes wanted his attention. Twenty-four hours ago, no-one knew his name. Now he's headline news around the world. I think he might have wanted to be remembered as the Joker, given that he told police he was.

The shooter was dressed up as villain Scarecrow. (yes, i like batman stuff)

He wasn't dressed as the Scarecrow. Reports suggest he modelled his look after Bane, but announced himself as the Joker. This is the first I've heard of him the Scarecrow.

If he was, as I suspect, seeking attention, then it makes no sense for him to be the Scarecrow. The Scarecrow is only a secondary villain in BATMAN BEGINS and his other appearances are only minor (mostly, one suspects, because Christopher Nolan really liked Cillian Murphy's performance the first time around). Bane and the Joker, on the other hand, are major villains. If Holmes wanted attention, if he wanted to be remembered as a real-life Batman villain, then he would probably dress as either of those before the Scarecrow.

 

[Zenith]

In a country with 300 million people, it only takes one to cause a tragedy.

As said before, this is going to ignite another debate about gun restrictions. Looks like I need to ready up for a hail storm of fearful and uneducated arguments.

 

[McLaren]

For now, we can only speculate. It appears that this was very much a planned crime. The shooter was dressed in character, and announced himself as the Joker to police when they apprehended him. Based on reports of the arrest, he made no attempt to resist arrest, and the mugshot that has been circulating shows him to look very pleased with himself.

What part of "college photo" did you miss? Does his hair look dyed in any way?

Oates said he would not release Holmes' booking mugshot and also would not comment on the suspect's demeanor with detectives. However, CNN reported a federal law enforcement source with detailed knowledge of the investigation said Holmes had colored his hair red and told police he was "the Joker."

http://www.wibw.com/home/nationalne...-Told-Police-He-Was-The-Joker--163247136.html

No one knows what he looks like right now.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Does his hair look dyed in any way?

Do you understand the properties of red light? As it is at the lower end of the visible spectrum of light, the colour red tends to appear very differently in photographs and on television than it does in real life. Ferrari actually paint their Formula 1 cars a very bright colour of red so that it will appear darker on television and in photographs. All of the accounts describe Holmes' hair as "red", but there are hundreds of different shades and tones of red.

Furthermore, there were contradictory reports claiming that Holmes had dressed himself as the Joker and that he had dressed himself as Bane; other contradictory reports claimed that the shooting was timed to co-incide with a gunfight on-screen, and that it was timed to coincide with Batman's first appearance in the film. Therefore, it is conceivable that people could have mistaken hair dye for spray paint, especially in a darkened theatre. In this case, if Holmes used too much hair dye, his hair would appear much darker than he intended, as many darker shades of cheap commercial hair dyes are based on red and blue pigments. This would create a tell-tale fuzz of lighter blue or red around the roots of his hair, but the low quality of the picture makes this difficult to distinguish.

Finally, Holmes is wearing an orange shirt in the picture, and is standing before a white background of some kind. These are typically associated with prison garb.

Therefore, you can see how someone might easily mistake the photograph for a mugshot.

 

[McLaren]

Finally, Holmes is wearing an orange shirt in the picture, and is standing before a white background of some kind. These are typically associated with prison garb.

Therefore, you can see how someone might easily mistake the photograph for a mugshot.

Except for the fact that it had been posted in the thread previously that it was not his mugshot, yet you continued to post that it was.

And I'm sorry, but your eyes may be going if you think his hair anything close to dyed red in his college photo. All you have to do is look at the other photo of his circulating to see what color his natural hair is.

As for the conflicting reports about him being dressed as The Joker, I'd like to see those b/c every report has only said that he identified himself as The Joker. Your paragraphs about how his hair would be seen in the theater are irrelevant because it was the police that identified him as having red, dyed hair. The chance of anyone in the theater seeing what color his hair was, is unlikely since A) It's dark & there's gas in the room and B) the guy wore a gas mask covering his face.

 

[Froudeybrand]

I just saw that there was a 3 month old baby injured in the shooting. I'm so sad to hear about the victims who were injured & or killed. It's suprising/upsetting just how many children were there.

In saying that who the hell takes a 3 month old out to the cinemas at midnight?

 

[bergauk]

Do you understand the properties of red light? As it is at the lower end of the visible spectrum of light, the colour red tends to appear very differently in photographs and on television than it does in real life. Ferrari actually paint their Formula 1 cars a very bright colour of red so that it will appear darker on television and in photographs. All of the accounts describe Holmes' hair as "red", but there are hundreds of different shades and tones of red.

Furthermore, there were contradictory reports claiming that Holmes had dressed himself as the Joker and that he had dressed himself as Bane; other contradictory reports claimed that the shooting was timed to co-incide with a gunfight on-screen, and that it was timed to coincide with Batman's first appearance in the film. Therefore, it is conceivable that people could have mistaken hair dye for spray paint, especially in a darkened theatre. In this case, if Holmes used too much hair dye, his hair would appear much darker than he intended, as many darker shades of cheap commercial hair dyes are based on red and blue pigments. This would create a tell-tale fuzz of lighter blue or red around the roots of his hair, but the low quality of the picture makes this difficult to distinguish.

Finally, Holmes is wearing an orange shirt in the picture, and is standing before a white background of some kind. These are typically associated with prison garb.

Therefore, you can see how someone might easily mistake the photograph for a mugshot.

The reports I've seen have said it was a photo provided by his college.

He claims to be "The Joker," not once did he ever say he was Bane. The reason why people THINK of Bane, is because of his attire. Which would obviously look very Bane-like. The man was armored. It's hard to look like a man in a suit when you're covered in every single type of body armor conceivable..

Finally.. Most mugshots tend to show you in what you were wearing when arrested. Generally not your prison garb.

 

[Omnis]

I was talking with my bartender buddy tonight about it and he says when his friend described the story to him, it sounded like the kid copied the movie Rampage almost to the tee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampage_(2009_film) Blame Uwe Boll.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Except for the fact that it had been posted in the thread previously that it was not his mugshot, yet you continued to post that it was.

Is that really the issue here? I'm simply pointing out how someone could come to the conclusion that the picture was his mugshot, especially given how news outlets reported it as such. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to prove that I ignored what you said. Well, guess what? Given your attitude, I don't want to read what you have to say. At all.

 

[Tornado]

Is that really the issue here? I'm simply pointing out how someone could come to the conclusion that the picture was his mugshot, especially given how news outlets reported it as such.

No. The issue is that you built your blatantly obvious conclusions ("This looks like it was a planned crime!" "I think he did it for the attention!") partially around how smug he looked in his "mugshot," and now you're just trying to explain it away after it was pointed out that it wasn't his mugshot.

Well, guess what? Given your attitude, I don't want to read what you have to say. At all.

Because you were paying attention to begin with.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No. The issue is that you built your blatantly obvious conclusions ("This looks like it was a planned crime!" "I think he did it for the attention!") partially around how smug he looked in his "mugshot," and now you're just trying to explain it away after it was pointed out that it wasn't his mugshot.

The phrase "mind your own business" springs to mind here. As far as I am concerned, the issue is resolved - or it was, until you felt the need to comment.

I was not trying to explain anything away, thank you very much. I was simply pointing out how someone - anyone; not just me - could have mistaken the photo as having been his mugshot. Yes, I ignored McLaren. But like I said, I don't like his attitude, so I'm not inclined to humouring him by reading what he says. If that makes me petty, then I'm petty.

 

[Tornado]

The phrase "mind your own business" springs to mind here. As far as I am concerned, the issue is resolved - or it was, until you felt the need to comment.

The phrase "public forum" springs to mind here. I would imagine you would know how that works since you were once a moderator of it.

I was not trying to explain anything away, thank you very much. I was simply pointing out how someone - anyone; not just me - could have mistaken the photo as having been his mugshot.

Someone who only had the most basic amount of information for the case so far, since none of your explanations hold up to even the smallest of investigation (What conflicting reports, by the way? Since he opened fire in a dark theater after lobbing a grenade while wearing a gas mask, I can't imagine any of the reports of his appearance matter at all besides the arrest report).

Yes, I ignored McLaren. But like I said, I don't like his attitude, so I'm not inclined to humouring him by reading what he says. If that makes me petty, then I'm petty.

Then don't comment as if you know what you're talking about if you are intentionally ignoring posts that contain rather crucial information for what you are saying just because you don't like having your own attitude reflected back at you.


And also don't try to chalk it up to pettiness on your part that made you uninformed when McLaren wasn't the only one who told you that it wasn't his mug shot.

 

[McLaren]

Is that really the issue here? I'm simply pointing out how someone could come to the conclusion that the picture was his mugshot, especially given how news outlets reported it as such. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to prove that I ignored what you said. Well, guess what? Given your attitude, I don't want to read what you have to say. At all.

You're so full of it, that it continues to be a blessing you're not a moderator anymore.

You were not pointing out any conclusion. You were full on posting that it was his mugshot & even explained to CAM that it couldn't have been from a prior conviction.

The shooter's mugshot has been released:

The bastard looks quite pleased with himself.

That's the mugshot media outlets are running with. And it's not from a prior conviction, because this was Holmes' first offence.

Your last posts reek of hypocrisy. You accuse me of having an attitude, but your response to me & to Toronado now show you're obviously butt hurt by being corrected because as the trend goes with you, you just post whatever you choose to without reading posts by anyone else unless they reply to you, in which you talk down to them.

I couldn't care less if you don't like my attitude. Fact is, you can't stand being in the wrong by anyone.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You're so full of it, that it continues to be a blessing you're not a moderator anymore.

I recommend that you tread very, very carefully. The above could be considered to be a personal attack.

 

[McLaren]

I recommend that you tread very, very carefully. The above could be considered to be a personal attack.

Personal attack, or an attempt to warn me out of spite instead of a legitimate reason?

 

[EDK]

You're so full of it, that it continues to be a blessing you're not a moderator anymore.

Pretend you said that to a Moderator, or any other member. How does it come across?

Play the ball, not the player. I think you've been here long enough and made enough posts to know that.

A member's current (or prior) Moderator status has nothing to do with the quality or content of their posts. You need to back away from that line of conversation.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

EDIT - Disregard. EDK said everything that I said.

 

[phillgt2002]

I really blame this on gun laws. There should be a psychiatric screening before you can legally purchase a gun, but then you have gun toting piece of **** Republicans (Sorry to any Republicans) wanting their bull**** gun amendment enforced when they don't even know what the hell this is actually causing.

I have a friend that lives in Aurora Colorado and I haven't gotten a response from him since, I have this gut wrenching feeling in my feeling that the last message that I sent him on July 17th will be the last one..

I'm sorry but I really don't know what to say about this anymore and all I have is just anger to spew out and the things that could have been done to prevent such a tragic and heinous crime, I am just going to leave with a photo below.

Take time to read the information in that photo.

Also I do know that the people of the NRA are trained but firearms can still be distributed through a back door. Suppress a major factor to a problem and that will weaken the overall outcome.

 

[Patrick]

Even if there were gun laws he would've found a way to acquire them.

 

[Tornado]

I really blame this on gun laws.

He had grenades on his person when he did the deed and he filled his apartment with explosives in order to taunt the police after the fact.

Gun control has nothing to do with it.

 

[McLaren]

Pretend you said that to a Moderator, or any other member. How does it come across?

Play the ball, not the player. I think you've been here long enough and made enough posts to know that.

A member's current (or prior) Moderator status has nothing to do with the quality or content of their posts. You need to back away from that line of conversation.

I'll only back away because it's off-topic. My views will not change, however.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I am just going to leave with a photo below.

Take time to read the information in that photo.

I think you're reading a bit too much into this.

First of all, the theatre shooting happened at approximately 12:20am local time. By the time a full account of the tragedy had emerged, it was probably closer to 2:00am, if not later.

Secondly, I see 104 retweets and 10 favourites - in a country with a population of 314 million people (and that's assuming the people who favourited and retweeted it were all in America). No doubt more people saw it and/or commented on it, but I can only go by what's in the picture.

Finally, the shooting happened in the early hours of Friday morning. This is not a time when people are typically awake, because Friday is a week day. I'd hazard a guess to say that most of the people who were awake at the time were watching THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. The film goes for nearly three hours, and by the time people got home, they would have gone straight to bed - so they probably would not have heard about the shootings until early the next morning. Look at the timestamp, which reads 9:20am.

What I'm trying to say here is that while the comments from American Rifleman are insensitive, it's entirely conceiveable that the person who posted it had no idea the theatre shooting had taken place when they posted it. Take my Friday, for instance - I got up at 7:00am, but I didn't have time to watch the news or look at headlines until about 3:30pm. And take a look at this tweet (the second hit you get if you Google "twitter @nra_rifleman", as I did), which was posted at 10:43am - one hour and twenty-three minutes after the Tweet in the image you posted was uploaded - and says that the @NRA_Rifleman account has been deleted.

I don't think it's fair to say the comments are deliberately insensitive. And while the NRA does support gun ownership, I can't imagine they would endorse a senseless massacre like this one. They may not condemn it, but that doesn't mean they condone it.

 

[EDK]

I'll only back away because it's off-topic. My views will not change, however.

You don't need to change your views, but you do need to be cautious of your attitude and approach toward other members (And therefore the rules).

First you're glad he isn't a moderator, next thing you know, you'll wish I wasn't a moderator. The rules remain the same, no matter who's enforcing them. Don't forget that.

 

[McLaren]

You don't need to change your views, but you do need to be cautious of your attitude and approach toward other members (And therefore the rules).

I believe that applies to mods as well, correct?

First you're glad he isn't a moderator, next thing you know, you'll wish I wasn't a moderator. The rules remain the same, no matter who's enforcing them. Don't forget that.

I have my reasons for him. Why would I suddenly wish you're not a moderator unless you're proposing a reason for me to?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Lol! I can't believe that dude went in to defending the mug shot with his "visible spectrum of light" argument!

I am the joker.

 

[bergauk]

Pretend you said that to a Moderator, or any other member. How does it come across?

Play the ball, not the player. I think you've been here long enough and made enough posts to know that.

A member's current (or prior) Moderator status has nothing to do with the quality or content of their posts. You need to back away from that line of conversation.

Pretend that everyone on the forum is treated equally regardless of their status. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to instill fear among members. It tends to put a very sour taste in their mouths.

Remember, you're here to make sure we all follow the rules. Not to incite fear of being banned, warned or otherwise reprimanded for our conduct on the most controversial section of the forum where heated debates often come up.

 

[EDK]

I believe that applies to mods as well, correct?

It applies to everyone, and if you have an issue with a post from any member (Including moderators) we would encourage your to report it.

I have my reasons for him. Why would I suddenly wish you're not a moderator unless you're proposing a reason for me to?

Point is, Jordan gets to decide who should or should not a Moderator. Your opinion on the subject is irrelevant, no matter how compelling it might be for you.

So if you go around expressing your opinion about who should or should not have been a moderator, whether past or present, you're calling Jordan's judgement into question. Was that your intent?

Pretend that everyone on the forum is treated equally regardless of their status. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to instill fear among members. It tends to put a very sour taste in their mouths.

Remember, you're here to make sure we all follow the rules. Not to incite fear of being banned, warned or otherwise reprimanded for our conduct on the most controversial section of the forum where heated debates often come up.

As a moderator, a portion of my responsibilities is to enforce the AUP.

• You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

That was the only point of my post. It was a fair warning, for borderline behavior. Argue the point? Fine. Direct comments toward an individual that could be construed as abusive? Not fine.