Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
They canceled the Paris red carpet showing, which I think was more out of taste than security concerns.
I've been wondering the exact same thing. I think things opening this weekend may all be a bit lower than usual. And movie theaters are in trouble already these days, as home media continues to expand...
Based on the news article and Wikipedia article linked here, it seems the alleged shooter was on his way to withdrawing from his academic program of study when this happened.
Given that school starts pretty soon, I wonder if the event could have been partly caused by stress from the shooter's personal situation.
Of course, that doesn't excuse him at all; that sort of stress does not cause normal people to go on shooting rampages.
The Batman movie thing was just his taking advantage of a situation to (1) find lots of people together, and (2) rely on the element of blending in, as some moviegoers would (and did) think that it was just a prearranged stunt.
In other news:
Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01) confirmed for ideologuing idiot.
That makes sense. There would be less shootings in movie theatres if people were allowed to bring guns in!
Are you sure? What I heard was that he withdrew a month ago.
Here's a post from a forum I go to:
^ Tell him too soon.
^^ From the WaPo story:
^^^ To be fair, he's saying that someone could have shot the shooter...which, while still crazily unrealistic, is more reasonable than his going on about Christianity (or lack thereof in society) having anything to do with this.
The statement from Gohmert doesn't really surprise me, on account of he's an American Congressman.
People dying in random Toronto shootouts, now people dying in random Colorado shootouts...the worst thing is you can do nothing to prepare for this shit.
@Eelektross' quote:
That last bit is tactless, but I'd take that sort of sentiment at face value rather than as posturing(I have the same brand of skepticism towards declarations of sympathy etc., seeing it more as politeness and grief porn than genuine feels-which is probably a false image on my part). Given the media circus that's always thrown onto these tragedies, I can imagine distancing eventually taking place. An analytical attitude in such a case is better than a lol-this-shit-happens-all-the-time-who-cares apathy.
@glennmagusharvey:
I just find it amazing that he didn't consider the possibility that the reason people aren't allowed to bring guns into movie theatres is to prevent things like this...Here's something a school acquaintance of mine wrote on tumblr.
That was a good read, Evergreen.
I love all these people who're ragging on potential weapons carriers for not doing anything. The guy was decked out in bulletproof and there was tear gas. This wasn't the best climate in which to make a firing decision, and it probably wouldn't have amounted to jack shit except frightening moviegoers even more.
The gas is the real problem there. Bulletproof armour isn't actually bulletproof, but a range modifier that sucks kinetic energy out of a round's impact. Its essential use is to reduce the range of other weapons, ensuring that one can be in a position to fire on another from a place of relative safety. In a theatre, the range is going to be short enough that a bullet impact is going to break bones and/or cause internal bleeding anyway, so he would have gone down. Tear gas, on the other hand, would prevent others from shooting.
Not that I think civilians have a responsibility to be prepared for someone opening fire in a film cinema. Technical elements aside, very few people would be psychologically prepared for that. Even most military or police personnel outside a combat zone would be unprepared for it.
In any case, this is really unfortunate. I don't agree with that idea that it had nothing to do with Batman or the recent film release, but nor do I think responsibility can be laid at the feet of media. Likely, this person saw through the Batman films a template he could put over the real world. Had it not been Batman, it would have been another film, game, anime or whatever. The problems at play here are clearly much more fundamental than "Batman made him do it" (not that I think anyone here holds that opinion).
Anyway, this is quite a sad happening, my condolences to everyone involved on it
I'd have to read professional analyses of his condition before coming to a conclusion, but as far as I could guess, it could also be entirely unrelated to what the movie was, and more that it was going to be a venue packed with mostly unarmed and distracted people. Or maybe he was dressed in such a way that he blended in, I don't remember.
As for if someone else had been armed: those few who actually keep enough of their wits about them to do something other than run away have been known to hesitate for fear of being mistaken for an accomplice. That's what happened with one guy in the Giffords shooting. I mean, I don't know how much that applies in this case, considering how much Holmes did that says this was premeditated -- no one else there was wearing gas masks and bulletproof clothing, as far as we know, I don't think -- but my point is, there were plenty of reasons why another gunman might not have been helpful. And the clothing Holmes was wearing isn't foolproof, I know, but it could have been just enough that he could have still fired more rounds even after being shot, or something. Whatever weapon he was using was apparently powerful enough to send bullets into a neighboring theater and injure people there, so even if he was knocked down he could have pointed his gun in some random direction, kept firing, and still done a lot of damage, which he quite possible would have done considering he was only there to kill people. I don't know, though; this is rather speculative on my part.
^^ I think that ignores the fundamental question, though, which is "why?".
Obviously, we can't tell for sure, but people don't just shoot up a crowd because they can. There's always an underlying reason for it. This person's goal was not, ultimately, to kill -- killing was the means by which he could fulfill his unidentified objective.
Choosing a summer blockbuster in order to fulfill his objective is a sensible conclusion, but it's still only a conclusion that goes half way. What about the Bane getup? And why Batman, of all blockbusters, and why now? It's clear to me that this was premeditated, with the explosives in his home and the use of the costume, protective gear and tear gas, so we have to ask why he chose that time and that film. And he wore a costume that clearly resembles the villain from said film, so I think there's a pretty clear connection. What that connection ultimately is remains a mystery, true, but in the position of an investigator, I'd be using that as a strong potential lead.
Is that bit actually true? Because all I've heard for sure is that he had a gas mask, because, you know, tear gas.
I don't think he was intending to dress exactly like Bane, and I've read that he wasn't. I think his getup just helped to deflect suspicion because there probably were people there dressed up as Bane, and they might have assumed he half-assed it or something. Not that he necessarily intended to look like Bane, but as a matter of necessity, he looked like that.
Again, I don't know, but it might simply be a matter of this being the point in time where everything he wanted was in his possession -- stuff he might not have had when The Avengers premiered. I think, if there's any connection to it being a Batman film, it's probably just a blending in thing, rather than some motive based on the contents of the Dark Knight series.
Good point. It might have been mistaken for a costume when it was just a convenient approximation.
Well one thing's for sure: Getting to see his motive unfold for us as the investigation continues will be quite interesting.
Unfortunately I'm going to miss most of the early developments because I'll be in Israel. I'll try to get ahold of whatever newspapers I can...
So I just read that Holmes dyed his hair read and said "I am the Joker" when caught. But he's also batshit crazy, so I can't say if there was any need for it to be a Batman movie, specifically, until I finish reading the SA thread on it, as that's where I'm getting my info.
EDIT: Okay, so that was actually just from some reporting news station or other, so it's likely crap. The Joker doesn't even have red hair anyway.
^I heard that was from the NYPD commissioner, apparently Aurora's police chief is good friends with him so that's how he heard it.
I'm still inclined to believe that he's full of shit regardless.
^^^ You think they'd learn by now...
CNN has a reporter outside of the suspect's family home right now.
>Had it not been Batman, it would have been another film, game, anime or whatever. The problems at play here are clearly much more fundamental than "Batman made him do it" (not that I think anyone here holds that opinion).
I completely agree here, but I have to say in the case of the Nolan films I can to an extent see why. The movies have all had societal break-downs, revolutionaries, and have a whole bunch of people who thought Joker was right.
In any case, I will defer to the wisdom of Roger Ebert
“The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about Basketball Diaries?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it. The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”
In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.”
Or maybe his shipment of tear gas didn't come in time for the Avengers premiere
CP, I think it's only fair to tell you that you're on thin ice with the mod team right now. For your own sake, I'd advise you to be more cautious henceforth.