Jury finds Colorado theater shooter guilty of murder

Good thing a guy like this has easy access to guns.

If anyone was more deserving of the death penalty its this guy. All the more reasons to reopen new and modern mental asylums to house insane people like this nut.

Hard to believe that, in the 21st century, evidence of "careful planning" is regarded as proof of sanity.

Mad people are renowned for their attention to detail when they build their palace made of carrots or their maze of toenail clippings.

Insane is insane.

Insane or not, put him to death. No possible/trustable rehabilitation here.

Death penalty can only take one life but he deserves the death penalty x 12.

If only everyone in the theater had been armed and wearing body armor, this tragedy would never have happened.

Actually, if some of the people were allowed to carry a licensed concealed weapon on them, then the outcome would have been very different.

if some of the people were allowed to carry a licensed concealed weapon on them, then the outcome would have been very different.

Not so much 'very different' as 'very many more fatalities' as in the confusion the concealed carriers pull their weapons and start shooting at all the other concealed carriers who have pulled weapons. Who's to know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

I think the bad guy was easily identifiable when he started shooting. A concealed carry could have ended his rampage in the first theater. If several concealed carry persons were there it just would have ended sooner. It's not an old Hollywood western made for entertainment. People know where danger lies when it's present.

Great example was the foiled Texas shooter. Guns can kill and they can kill bad guys too.

Several people with concealed weapons would have triggered a mini-shootout, which could have caused more casualties due co-operation no one being sure who is the guy that started shooting first.

Collateral damage due to stray bullets, etc would have made it look like a war-zone.

Nothing against guns and I also carried but I am against concealed carry, if you pack show it openly as is the law in my country.

I think the bad guy was easily identifiable when he started shooting.

In future situations, there could be more than one bad guy. What if the 3rd and 5th guys to shoot are bad guys too, while the 2nd and 4th and 6th guys to shoot are good guy civilians - but how can ya tell which is which?

bass

if some of the people were allowed to carry a licensed concealed weapon on them, then the outcome would have been very different.

MarkG

A concealed carry could have ended his rampage in the first theater.

In a dark theater, with lots of people, gimme a break. More LIBERAL gun laws would have created more casualties. Think about it. In the dark could you be sure who the shooter was? You could more likely end up shooting an innocent person.

Remember, you gun people are LIBERALS on this issue. Goes to show that liberalism and conservatism are points around which reasonable debate can be forged to reach reasonable outcomes. Debate is not an activity to prove oneself correct. Myself included.

Gun nutters come up with some pretty crazy fantasy scenarios where a shooting suddenly starts and everyone is armed yet on the exact same page as to where the danger is coming from. They are forced to believe such nonsense because they are afraid that someone might take their guns.

Not so much 'very different' as 'very many more fatalities' as in the confusion the concealed carriers pull their weapons and start shooting at all the other concealed carriers who have pulled weapons. Who's to know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

Well lets look at the situation - You have the shooter in the very front of the theater all dressed up in 'tactical gear' shooting first and up into the crowd and at random. It wouldn't be exactly difficult to determine, if you are carrying in the crowd a weapon, who to shoot at or assault with your weapon. The idea that people carrying weapons for the purpose of self defense would just at the drop of a pin just start firing in all directions is just well a myth.

Gun nutters come up with some pretty crazy fantasy scenarios where a shooting suddenly starts and everyone is armed yet on the exact same page as to where the danger is coming from.

Well lets run through some scenarios shall we, you have a person in the very front of the theater dressed up in 'tactical' gear and is firing at random people, regardless if they are armed or not. You would honestly have trouble identifying who the threat is?

Lets say you are in a gas station a person walks in with a mask or a bandana covering their face or a balaclava points a weapon at a clerk demanding money you have five other customers in the station all dressed up in normal civilian clothing and all armed and they all pull their firearms. You are telling me those five would not be able to determine it is the person pointing the weapon at the clerk who the threat is?

It is usually very easy to determine who the threat is by how they are dressed and also their behavior.

In a dark theater, with lots of people, gimme a break.

How dark do you think the theater is? Pitch black? The screen with a movie playing usually lights up the room enough to easily tell what color clothing people are wearing, etc. Look at the below links and tell me you would have trouble identifying who shooter is in those conditions because it is too dark.

http://boiseclassicmovies.com/about/the-experience/

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAANrAAAAJGUxY2NhNGYyLWM3NGUtNDA3Mi05Y2FiLTM1ZTZhN2E2YWZjMw.jpg

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAALMAAAAJDYzODJmNWVjLTYyNDQtNDdiNS1iNDFjLWYxY2U2ZDBjYjAxNQ.jpg

Well lets run through some scenarios shall we, you have a person in the very front of the theater dressed up in 'tactical' gear and is firing at random people, regardless if they are armed or not. You would honestly have trouble identifying who the threat is?

The shooter was not the only one 'dressed up' - other members of the audience had dressed up for the screening. Before he started shooting he threw a canister that emitted a gas or smoke, causing eye irritation and obscuring visibility. One witness said all she could see was a silhouette. Others said they thought it was a prank, part of the screening, people didn't realise what was going on.

So yes, quite likely armed people in the audience would initially have some trouble knowing who to fire at. By the time the smoke cleared, they would be surrounded by people, some of them maybe in weird costumes, pointing guns and looking for someone to shoot at. Owning a gun doesn't make you immune from panic, confusion or tear gas.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/aurora-witnesses-describe-shooters-entrance-chaos/

Uh, Noliving, do all of your scenarios include a gunman wearing a bandana or otherwise having a massive arrow pointing to him being the threat?

How about this: you walk into a restaurant and two men have their guns out and pointed at each other. Solve that for us.

The shooter was not the only one 'dressed up' - other members of the audience had dressed up for the screening. Before he started shooting he threw a canister that emitted a gas or smoke, causing eye irritation and obscuring visibility. One witness said all she could see was a silhouette. Others said they thought it was a prank, part of the screening, people didn't realise what was going on.

Yes other members had dressed up but not as tactical gear to make them look like a soldier or SWAT member. All had dressed up in very obvious costumes related to batman. Not a single one of them walked into the theater from the emergency exists half way through the movie, which are next to the screen by the way and lead directly outside the building, meaning everyone saw him walked in, nor were they standing in the very front of the movie theater throwing gas canisters into the crowd for a few seconds and then firing a round into the ceiling while sanding in front of everyone in the center front of the theater.

No one in your article claimed they had trouble identifying the person/silhouette as the threat just that at first some of them didn't realize that what he was doing was lethal but they all knew right away when they realized what was going on that it was that person. Meaning if your in row 8-25 and you see someone in row 7 stand up with a firearm stretched in their hand aiming at the center front of the the theater where the silhouette is standing throwing gas canisters into the crowd and firing into the crowd, you're not going to think to yourself gee I bet it is the person in row 7 killing us at random and not the silhouette. Nor are people in row 1-6 going to turn around and say hey it is the person in row 7 that is killing us and not the person standing right in front of us who we just watched walked in from the emergency exits half way through the movie throwing gas canisters and firing a gun into the ceiling and then lowered the gun at the crowd level.

Uh, Noliving, do all of your scenarios include a gunman wearing a bandana or otherwise having a massive arrow pointing to him being the threat?

No not all scenarios but the scenarios you are most likely to encounter are those.

How about this: you walk into a restaurant and two men have their guns out and pointed at each other. Solve that for us.

OK, one is threatening to verbally kill or is taunting the other while the other party is asking for people to call 911 or asking for help from the public. One is advancing on the position of the other and the other one is most likely retreating while still pointing the firearm at the person advancing on them. In other words when you see two people in normal civilian clothing aiming guns at one another, usually one is retreating and one is advancing on the other and making verbal threats/taunts against the other one, it is a good bet that the one retreating is the more 'innocent' party while the one following the other person around with a firearm in public is probably the 'aggressor'.

How about this: you walk into a restaurant and two men have their guns out and pointed at each other. Solve that for us.

The obvious answer to that is to turn around and run out of the restaurant while dialing 911.

But more likely in today's America would be to start filming it on your smart phone and trying to remember how you post a video on YouTube.

So what do you do? Pull your gun on the aggressor?

More guns in the cinema wouldn't have stopped this one, that's just wishful thinking. And the death penalty had no deterrent effect. What is demonstrable is that easy access to guns allows nutters to take lives more efficiently.

More guns is always the answer. Imagine a school shooting at a university. You hear gun shots then 2 guys run out with their guns drawn. Surely you're smart enough to know if they just did the shooting or if they are getting the hell out of there.

Just look for the bandana.

more guns is always the answer.

More guns and body armour. If everyone was always carrying a gun and always wearing body armour, shooting deaths would go down to zero.

Why can't everyone see the truth of this logic?

So what do you do? Pull your gun on the aggressor?

Up to you on what you want to do. If you want to engage the aggressor you can, if you don't want to engage the aggressor and just witness what is going on you can do that and if you want leave the area you can do that as well.