Colorado Shooting at Dark Knight Rises Opening

[TheOcelot]

I steal £10 from you. I spend nine of them. You steal £1 back from me.

Guess what, you're £9 down.

Sorry, but the way I see it, a life is worth another life. To say that it's 'the same' if he dies implies that his one life is equal to all the lives he's taken. For it even come close to 'fair', he'd need to die a number of times equal to the number of people he killed. And that's before you even factor in the anguish of family and friends.

If anything, after what he's done, his life is worth less.

What about the idea of the victims families deciding his fate, which I have always found an interesting idea. If they say he lives, he lives. If they say he dies then he is executed. If they want him to spend the rest of his life behind bars, then so be it.

Edited July 23, 2012 by MilesKnightwing

[Patticus]

I steal £10 from you. I spend nine of them. You steal £1 back from me.

Guess what, you're £9 down.

Theft cannot be equated with murder at all. You can't steal a life and have it stolen back later. You can't take a murderer's life in exchange for the restoration, the resurrection of someone he or she killed.

Sorry, but the way I see it, a life is worth another life. To say that it's 'the same' if he dies implies that his one life is equal to all the lives he's taken. For it even come close to 'fair', he'd need to die a number of times equal to the number of people he killed. And that's before you even factor in the anguish of family and friends.

If anything, after what he's done, his life is worth less.

Are you a Daily Mail or The Sun reader by any chance? Because that post reads like something those rags would print.

His life is not outweighed by the lives he took because life has no defined value. If you think that his life should be forfeit because he killed a bunch of people, killing because he killed, that's a definite 'eye for an eye' situation. Will killing him bring any of the dead back to life? No. Will it provide solace to the aggrieved families? No, because they'll never get their lost loved-ones back.

What possible good can come out of killing the man that wouldn't happen if he was given life imprisonment?

[Coral]

Urm.... yeah...

Before they change the picture... you might wanna take a look at the BBC's homepagefor their photo of the guy in court. For anyone doing media studies at the moment, you'll most likely see the significance of why I point out this particular image.

Or for those who are not doing media studies, to put it another way "out of all the photos they had, they decided to go with that one."

They're doing that on CNN too. But they had a whole row of interesting facial expressions, and of the whole added together, to me they look like he's either really sleepy and trying to stay awake (eyes half closed, then popping open almost immediately to wake themselves up) or he's thinking about something. Either way, it's a big stressing point the media is pointing out right now.

[Patticus]

They're doing that on CNN too. But they had a whole row of interesting facial expressions, and of the whole added together, to me they look like he's either really sleepy and trying to stay awake (eyes half closed, then popping open almost immediately to wake themselves up) or he's thinking about something. Either way, it's a big stressing point the media is pointing out right now.

He's been doped out of his head for at least four days, from before the shooting until now.

[Linkabel]

Urm.... yeah...

Before they change the picture... you might wanna take a look at the BBC's homepagefor their photo of the guy in court. For anyone doing media studies at the moment, you'll most likely see the significance of why I point out this particular image.

Or for those who are not doing media studies, to put it another way "out of all the photos they had, they decided to go with that one."

As someone that is in the media it depends on the media if they want to shock the audience with photos. Saying that I don't think you will get a flattering photo of this guy.

[Tornado]

If you think that his life should be forfeit because he killed a bunch of people, killing because he killed, that's a definite 'eye for an eye' situation.

Simply repeating this without paying any mind to the several times it has been pointed out to be a faulty logical premise doesn't make it any less faulty.

What possible good can come out of killing the man that wouldn't happen if he was given life imprisonment?

This has also already been said multiple times in this thread.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gilda

[-Mark-]

Theft cannot be equated with murder at all. You can't steal a life and have it stolen back later. You can't take a murderer's life in exchange for the restoration, the resurrection of someone he or she killed.

Are you a Daily Mail or The Sun reader by any chance? Because that post reads like something those rags would print.

His life is not outweighed by the lives he took because life has no defined value. If you think that his life should be forfeit because he killed a bunch of people, killing because he killed, that's a definite 'eye for an eye' situation. Will killing him bring any of the dead back to life? No. Will it provide solace to the aggrieved families? No, because they'll never get their lost loved-ones back.

What possible good can come out of killing the man that wouldn't happen if he was given life imprisonment?

Never read either of them. And yes, it won't bring anyone back to life. It probably won't make anyone feel better, either. But to put it simply, it's what's fair and what he deserves, as far as I'm concerned.

And you know what killing him would do that prison wouldn't? Save taxpayers from having to pay for his food and living costs for the duration of his sentence and remove any and all chances of him offending again should he ever be released.

Edited July 23, 2012 by -Mark-

[Patticus]

Simply repeating this without paying any mind to the several times it has been pointed out to be a faulty logical premise doesn't make it any less faulty.

Man kills 12 people, is killed in return. He took 12 lives, so that, to you, justifies his life being taken. I cannot comprehend that world view, and I'm afraid I will always see it as being an eye for an eye in cases such as this. It seems archaic, barbaric, more suited to dictatorships and the past than to modern civil society.

His life is going to be taken by a sober judiciary, just because he thought in his own twisted, quite possibly mentally ill or drugged up view, that taking dozens of lives was acceptable.

Is the judicial system taking what he's taking?

This has also already been said multiple times in this thread.

I was simply explaining why he looks the way he does in all of the purposefully-unflattering pics linked to on the BBC homepage.

Never read either of them. And yes, it won't bring anyone back to life. It probably won't make anyone feel better, either. But to put it simply, it's what's fair and what he deserves, as far as I'm concerned.

Justice is blind. Or it should be. The judge's verdict ought not to be a forgone conclusion, and yet somehow it is, so what we have on our hands is nothing but a show trial.

And you know what killing him would do that prison wouldn't? Save taxpayers from having to pay for his food and living costs for the duration of his sentence and remove any and all chances of him offending again should he ever be released.

Actually, the cost of even cases seeking the death penalty and failing, as well as the penalty itself, is much higher than that of life incarceration: http://www.deathpena...s-death-penalty

[Tornado]

Man kills 12 people, is killed in return. He took 12 lives, so that, to you, justifies his life being taken. I cannot comprehend that world view, and I'm afraid I will always see it as being an eye for an eye in cases such as this. It seems archaic, barbaric, more suited to dictatorships and the past than to modern civil society.

His life is going to be taken by a sober judiciary, just because he thought in his own twisted, quite possibly mentally ill or drugged up view, that taking dozens of lives was acceptable.

Is the judicial system taking what he's taking?

Your premise is that murder is always murder is always murder is always murder. The circumstances/reasons for it, the way it is planned out and who ultimately does the deed makes no difference. That is what you are justifying your eye for an eye argument on, and why you keep saying that it is the same thing as him punishing all of those innocent people.

The problem is that that is simply not true. Not legally. Not socially. Not culturally. And not even morally. It never has been true since the first progressive legal system, and unless we are going to start throwing policemen in jail for life if they kill people in the line of duty, it will never be that way. There are degrees of murder, defenses of murder, justifications of murder and even situations where murder isn't considered murder at all. So the "Murder is always Murder" idea, and the closely related "You're stooping down to his level" one, in regards to the death penalty is a non-argument because there is simply no basis for it.

Justice is blind. Or it should be. The judge's verdict ought not to be a forgone conclusion, and yet somehow it is, so what we have on our hands is nothing but a show trial.

Actually, the cost of even cases seeking the death penalty and failing, as well as the penalty itself, is much higher than that of life incarceration: http://www.deathpena...s-death-penalty

I've also already covered both of these things in detail.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gilda

[Patticus]

I know that there are justifications for killing; "it was kill or be killed," "I was only following orders," etc, and I know all about the degrees of murder... but this man took a dozen lives in a premeditated killing spree, and is probably going to have his own life taken away in return in a premeditated lethal injection (unless his insanity plea is accepted). I cannot understand why that, in this specific case, is not an eye for an eye. The only difference is that while he injected hot lead, he'll be injected with some poisonous concoction... and the holes will be different sizes.

[Badnik Mechanic]

If anything, after what he's done, his life is worth less.

According to what power or authorisation?

Don't get me wrong here, I want this person put on trial and found guilty. But I don't want the people to effectively turn into him when passing judgement. And saying that anyones life is worth less over someone elses is certainly a step in that direction.

I don't know if I'm the only one who has this belief, but I don't think anyone should have or be given the right to say how much someones life is worth, because... well.. for lack of a better expression, it just seems wrong to me.

[TheGerkuman]

The entire justice system is based on all people who are not convicted having the same rights, and the convicted to lose some (but not all) of theirs. I wouldn't say that the worth of a person has anything to do with their rights though.

[PSI Wind]

You know, I forgot to mention this, but if you're even hated by the majority of 4chan, you're the most disgusting "thing" that ever lived, James.

[Ruby CUL Terumi]

Belgian news says they still don't know what his problem was. The US is thinking of making the weapon laws more strict.

EDIT: They want to make it more strict, but they don't want to turn the people against them. As the Belgian politician said: "It's about the will of the people. Things like this are, sadly, collateral damage. Once a year, there's always a massacre."

Edited July 23, 2012 by CUL

[Sami]

I've said it multiple times, but since the "eye for an eye" thing is continually being brought up, I'll repeat myself.

There are two options here, assuming he is convicted as guilty:

> Keep him imprisoned for the rest of his life

> Kill him quickly and tastefully

Killing him saves time, money, and resources. Keeping him in prison for life gives us a moral high ground. Call me soulless, but frankly, I think the former is a much bigger priority in an organized society such as ours.

[Ekaje]

Actually, the death penalty can cost more than life imprisonment in some cases. Though a big part of it is due to things in the legal system leading to big trial costs.

http://www.foxnews.c...-state-budgets/

Overall, according to Dieter, the studies have uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. That expense is being reexamined in the current budget crisis, with some state legislators advocating a moratorium on death-penalty trials until the economy improves.

...

Minsker said just keeping prisoners on death row costs $90,000 more per prisoner per year than regular confinement, because the inmates are housed in single rooms and the prisons are staffed with extra guards. That money alone would cut $63 million from the state budget. But other savings would ripple through every step of the criminal justice system as well, from court costs to subsidized spending for defense attorney and investigation expenses.

Also it can take time for the execution to take place, though the article uses an example from another state, so we don't know how long it would take for it to get done since Colorado apparently hasn't executed someone since '77.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Ekaje

[Patticus]

I heard something interesting about this on the radio earlier, from a reporter who studied the Columbine massacre and wrote a book about it; he said that one of the worst things the media does in these situations is to stereotype the accused as the traditional quiet, shy person who always kept to themselves, probably got bullied, and something just made them snap. He said that that's what happened with Columbine, and it wasn't accurate at all. He went on to say that the problem with this is that it makes people think that their friends, family, co-workers etc would never do that sort of thing, because they don't fit the personality, which stops them from offering help to someone that might be considering something like this.

It was an interesting point of view.

[Solkia]

Huh, so Death row is more expensive? I would think the accumulated total of a life sentence would cost more than that of being sentenced to death, so color me shocked.

Only 1 execution since '77 huh? Wow.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Solkia-kun

[Sami]

If a life sentence really is the most practical solution, then I'm perfectly fine with that. I'd prefer finding a way to lower the cost of either one considering both happen to be insanely expensive, but I'll take what I can get.

[-Mark-]

According to what power or authorisation?

Don't get me wrong here, I want this person put on trial and found guilty. But I don't want the people to effectively turn into him when passing judgement. And saying that anyones life is worth less over someone elses is certainly a step in that direction.

I don't know if I'm the only one who has this belief, but I don't think anyone should have or be given the right to say how much someones life is worth, because... well.. for lack of a better expression, it just seems wrong to me.

Guess it's just my view on it. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can knowingly and willingly kill other people in cold blood is a worthless piece of shit who doesn't deserve to live at all and deserves any and every possible punishment and worse. Killing evil people isn't 'wrong'; they're the ones who are wrong to begin with. It's like throwing away rubbish or washing away filth.

Sorry, but anyone who can do this sort of thing is instantly dehumanised in my eyes, which is probably why I hold the views on the matter that I do. Lives are so precious, but if someone can take the life of another person in cold blood, the value of theirs becomes null and void, and their life becomes something that they don't deserve to have.

As I said before, I don't have enough faith in humanity to believe that such people can ever reform, and even if they do, there's nothing they could ever do to redeem themselves even if they could. They can't change history or bring people back to life. Killing them won't, either, but at least it's giving them what they deserve by removing them of what they don't.

And quite frankly, I find it absolutely ridiculous that putting a man to death can cost more than it would to keep him locked away with food and clothing for 50-60 years; what the hell? This guy just turned a gun on a theatre full of people and took a dozen lives in an instant. I really don't see how it can cost so much. He's the guy who did it. They know he did it. Stand him against a wall and put a fucking bullet through his head. Done. I don't see why they have to go through so much red tape and paper trails just to give a humane and expensive death to someone who doesn't deserve it.

Would that be stooping to his level? Not in my opinion, anyway. As I've said before, the key difference is that the people he killed were innocent. He isn't. Therefore, again, in my opinion, he no longer has any rights to life, a humane death or anything else, and I don't see how killing such a person can be seen as anything other than the morally right thing to do, after what he's done. I don't see killing evil people as a bad thing. Even take it back to the purest, base concept in fiction; good guys kill bad guys. Does that make heroes the bad guys? No. Because the people they're killing are bad people, it's seen as the just and acceptable thing to do.

It actually quite sickens me that we live in a world where one human being can take the life of another out of pure malice, and thirty years later (or less) can be back to living a regular life. It's disgusting.

Edited July 24, 2012 by -Mark-

[Sami]

Considering how personal of a matter morality is for everyone, I don't really see how this line of discussion is worth pursuing. Regardless, I'll bite:

The way I see it, committing the act of murder (especially on multiple innocent people such as in this case) indicates that one has absolutely no value for humanity. That, by extension, applies to his own life as well. To put it simply, I honestly wouldn't consider someone like this to be human in any sense beyond physical genotype. Judging from some posts, I'm sure some others here will disagree, and that's fine, but that's just the way I see it.

Beyond that, I wouldn't consider life in prison to be a more merciful sentence than death; merely one that presents an unnecessary moral satisfaction. I just want the solution that saves the most money and resources because frankly, it'd be better spent on actual people.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Desudash Demonhoof

[Old dead account]

You know, I forgot to mention this, but if you're even hated by the majority of 4chan, you're the most disgusting "thing" that ever lived, James.

[Patticus]

Oh America...

Batman Showings: 'Mass Hysteria' And Arrests

At least three people have been arrested across the US after apparently making threats related to the latest Batman movie, amid heightened anxiety following the shooting dead of 12 people at a Denver cinema.

In Maine, police arrested a man after he told them he was on the way to shoot a former employer after watching The Dark Knight Rises.

Timothy Courtois of Biddeford, Maine, had been stopped for speeding, but a search of his car found an AK-47 assault rifle, four handguns, ammunition and news clippings about the Denver shooting, authorities said.

In southern California, a man at a Sunday afternoon showing of The Dark Knight Rises was arrested after witnesses said he made threats and alluded to Friday's massacre when the movie did not start.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies were called to the cinema complex in Norwalk after moviegoers said 52-year-old Clark Tabor shouted: "I should go off like in Colorado."

They said he then asked: "Does anybody have a gun?"

The Denver massacre left at least 12 people dead and more than 50 injured. James Holmes, who appeared in court on Monday, is accused of using a shotgun, an assault rifle and a handgun in the attack on the crowded cinema.

About 50 people fled a cinema in Sierra Visa, Arizona after a man who appeared to be intoxicated was confronted by police.

The Cochise County Sheriff's office described it as "mass hysteria".

However, fears of copycat attacks have failed to significantly dampen enthusiasm for the final installment of director Christopher Nolan's trilogy.

Warner Bros reported that it had brought in $160.9m over the weekend, making it the third highest opening weekend ever.

http://news.sky.com/...ria-and-arrests

This is seriously messed up. How could anybody actually want to emulate the Denver killings? I know late night showings of these films are often populated by annoying little kids who just won't bloody shut up, brought in by stupid parents with no sense of responsibility and no consideration for other moviegoers, and I know how infuriating all that can be... but damn, does it have to necessitate further deaths?

What is it about this film that's making people behave this way?

[Sami]

Oh America...

What is it about this film that's making people behave this way?

You say that like Europe doesn't have its own share of psychopaths.

Anyhow:

Looks like Christian Bale is visiting the victims. Cool.

[Autosaver]

Remember that one post talking about getting Batman to the victims?

Victims of Friday's shooting at a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" received a visit from Batman himself on Tuesday, as Christian Bale reportedly stopped by Aurora, Colo.

"Mr. Bale is there as himself, not representing Warner Brothers," a representative for the studio told the Denver Post.

http://www.huffingto...t_n_1699662.htm

Edit: You ninja!

Edited July 24, 2012 by Autosaver