Mass Shooting at Theater In Denver Area (Dark Knight)

[Sun Tzu]

To DC's point, I agree to an extent. I think part of what makes this whole incident even more freaky is that it was so...random. I think American society is moderately obsessed with labeling the kind of kids that go to med school as respectable, upstanding, "good egg" citizens. I mean...how many parents look at the life this kid had and would give up a kidney just for their own kid/s to have the same career path? Honor student at a UC? Neuroscience major working on their PhD?

The fact that he was so far beyond mentally stable, but was still able to ace his way through the US educational system is just...odd. It would be so much easier to wrap everything up in a nice little package if he were a high school dropout with prior arrests for smoking weed, or something common like that.

I agree that the attention shouldn't be focused on the homicidal maniac that planned to slaughter hundreds of innocent people, but I think it's only natural to do a double take considering the sort of social brainwashing we've been enduring for the vast majority of our lives.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

intelligent and alienated are a dangerous combination

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

intelligent and alienated are a dangerous combination

Yeah, but most intelligent are alienated to an extent.

SI

[Young Drachma]

Well and the thing is, he wasn't an active Ph.D. student. He was withdrawing from that program at CU Medical School precisely because he was having academic problems.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

intelligent and alienated are a dangerous combination

yeah but that's what text sims are for.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, but most intelligent are alienated to an extent.

SI

tell me about it.


tapes up package. contemplates enemies. consults manifesto

[Scoobz0202]

Was reading a story on CNN and went through the pictures. The last picture was taken in front of the parents of the killer house. Just a crap ton of media. For some reason that made me uneasy. I can't imagine finding out your son just murdered 12 people and wounded many more and now you have hundreds of media in front of your house.

[molson]

So Holmes showed up in court today, orange hair and all. It's kind of surprising that someone who planned this for so long apparently didn't have a plan for this part of the whole thing except sitting there like an idiot looking confused. No public statement, or grand explanation. Why is he even alive? I guess though, that's only surprising from a rational perspective.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by molson

sitting there like an idiot looking confused.

...

[molson]

Also, a nice counter to the "Costanza award winner" discused above:

President shares story of hero who tended to friend in theater shooting - CNN.com

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by Rizon

...

Look at that fucktard

[Logan]

It bothers me that the media needs to use words like "alleged" and "accused" with this psycho.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by molson

Also, a nice counter to the "Costanza award winner" discused above:

President shares story of hero who tended to friend in theater shooting - CNN.com

Great story.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by heybrad

I hope I don't come across as inappropriate with this, but this article about a couples account in the theater with their children is stunning on multiple levels. This guy definitely wins the Costanza award for not only putting down his 6 month old in the middle of the chaos, leaving the theater, but also getting in his car and driving away without his fiance and a 4 year old. Here's the article.

Couple in Colo. Theater Shooting Escape With Baby and Toddler in Tow - Yahoo! News

I'm just now catching up on the news since mid-day Friday. Hadn't heard about this.

I love how the writer concealed the fact that he drove away by nonchalantly throwing in the line about him driving back. His quote in the line before was about being "out here." I Know how he feels, though. I feel kinda bad that I was "out here" in Kentucky and left all those people in the theater, too.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Logan

It bothers me that the media needs to use words like "alleged" and "accused" with this psycho.

Er, it's the appropriate thing to do as a journalist.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Er, it's the appropriate thing to do as a journalist.

I understand that, it wasn't a criticism of the media. I think it's appropriate in 99.9% of cases. This isn't one of them.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Logan

I understand that, it wasn't a criticism of the media. I think it's appropriate in 99.9% of cases. This isn't one of them.

Who gets to decide the .1%?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Who gets to decide the .1%?

Me. It's why I said it bothers "me".

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Who gets to decide the .1%?

The shooter's own mother who says they have the right guy.

[cuervo72]

It still seems uneven how they apply "alleged" though. If it pertains to the crime itself, ok, fine. But there is no need to say he is alleged to have bought ammo for instance - I think it can be verified that he did. Maybe not an actual example, but my wife and I caught a couple instances of "allegedly" that were thrown around willy-nilly.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Er, it's the appropriate thing to do as a journalist.

Originally Posted by Logan

I understand that, it wasn't a criticism of the media. I think it's appropriate in 99.9% of cases. This isn't one of them.

Style rules don't get altered because of a "slam dunk" case. Even the 9/11 mastermind were the 'alleged' masterminds and so forth prior to any sort of conviction.

[stevew]

I guess maybe the correct application is he is allegedly a murderer in the eyes of the law. So there are correct ways to use that word. But saying he is the alleged killer or alleged gunmen is very incorrect, as he was caught in the act. Sandusky was perhaps an alleged child molester, because he was not arrested in while in mid molestation.

Logan isn't alone, cause it also pisses me off.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess maybe the correct application is he is allegedly a murderer in the eyes of the law. So there are correct ways to use that word. But saying he is the alleged killer or alleged gunmen is very incorrect, as he was caught in the act. Sandusky was perhaps an alleged child molester, because he was not arrested in while in mid molestation.

Logan isn't alone, cause it also pisses me off.

It might piss you off. But when I was in the newsroom, if I edited a reporters story because it pissed me off, I'd be pissed off and unemployed.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by stevew

as he was caught in the act

No he wasn't, he was caught outside the theater near the emergency exit door dressed like the guy who did it and with similar weapons. Not quite caught in the act.

[Logan]

Time to settle down. I don't want anyone fired over this. I said it bothers me that a reporter needs to use words like that. I know it's not their choice.

[molson]

It doesn't bother me it's just odd that that's become the rule even in the case of stuff like "allegedly bought ammunition". That's not even a legal allegation yet. "According to the police" would be more accurate if you want to qualify it, and it looks like that's what some news outlets use, and apparently for them, no meltdown or lawsuit has come from as the result of them using more accurate phrasing.

And obviously they could report a fact like, "Holmes killed people" because his estate couldn't show that was printed with reckless disregard for the truth, or that it wasn't true. The media reports on all kinds of other facts that are less certain than that one without worry. It's just a pointless convention that's applied without thought.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Logan

Time to settle down. I don't want anyone fired over this. I said it bothers me that a reporter needs to use words like that. I know it's not their choice.

And I'm saying that they "need to" because it's the right thing to do.

It is 100% morally and ethically appropriate to use the word alleged here.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by wade moore

And I'm saying that they "need to" because it's the right thing to do.

It is 100% morally and ethically appropriate to use the word alleged here.

Yup.

"Alleged" does not mean "might have done". It means "accused but not proven". It can't be proven until the trial is concluded.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Yup.

"Alleged" does not mean "might have done". It means "accused but not proven". It can't be proven until the trial is concluded.

It just means that the state is legally alleging murder, which is true. It's also true, separately, that he killed people, and that's a fact could can be verified and printed as well, same as any other fact that could be printed with the appropriate verification. You don't need a trial to prove a fact or print a fact, you only need a trial to lock someone up because they committed a crime. But it's probably just easier for newspapers to have a blanket rule than try to try to judge it case by case.

[Rizon]

Interesting, just ran across this reading definitions of alleged.

Yahoo Education:

OTHER FORMS:
al·leged·ly (-ljd-l) KEY (Adverb)
Usage Note:
An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but against whom no charges have been proved. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified. In their zeal to protect the rights of the accused, newspapers and law enforcement officials sometimes misuse alleged. Someone arrested for murder may be only an alleged murderer, for example, but is a real, not an alleged, suspect in that his or her status as a suspect is not in doubt. Similarly, if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely mislaid, then we may safely speak of a theft without having to qualify our description with alleged.

So in conclusion: /shrug

[molson]

Ya, on the last part of that definition, at least I haven't heard any news outlets yet refer to the "alleged shooting", I think I have heard stuff like that before though. I am seeing "alleged shooting suspect" on CNN, which is also silly. That doesn't even make any sense. At least "alleged shooter" is accurate, if unnecessary.

[Logan]

I'll say that especially in light of my most recent infraction, I did not mean to derail this thread. Sorry.

[Shkspr]

We can just move the discussion to the "this is the thread for mistakes of grammar and usage in the wake of a national tragedy" thread, right?

[DanGarion]

Just saw a picture of all the victims and remembered how someone at one point thought this was all race related when there was a comment on all the victims being black (but it was a triage comment, not race related). Every murdered victim is white.

[Lathum]

WTF just happened on the last page of this thread?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Just saw a picture of all the victims and remembered how someone at one point thought this was all race related when there was a comment on all the victims being black (but it was a triage comment, not race related). Every murdered victim is white.

Yeah, that was my fault. I saw some real-time account of all the victims being "black" and didn't realize it was lingo.

[Chief Rum]

If a fact is reported which can cause financial, legal or personal harm to a private individual, the reference to it must include alleged at the appropriate point in the sentence to show that which has not yet been verified, so that the newspaper can legally describe the sentence as not a bald stating of fact but a sentence of presumption based on unverified facts at that point in time.

For a fact not to include this, it must either be a positive/neutral fact (no one cares if you say someone is beautiful, except for the beautiful person who will be happy), attributed to a source and very preferably a known and revealed source with credible testimony, or it must be witnessed directly by the reporter him or herself.

This is standard media approach, and it's a sensible approach, even if it's maddening to some who feel they "know".

[Chief Rum]

Sorry if that stirs it up. If y'all are satisifed, you can just move along here.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by rowech

It would seem Costanza has weighed in...

TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter

I'll take my response to the other thread, since the first stat he uses is flat-out wrong...

[rowech]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll take my response to the other thread, since the first stat he uses is flat-out wrong...

I deleted my post as I didn't realize there were two different threads going for different aspects.

[Grover]

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/20...-Biddeford-man

Sigh.

[Julio Riddols]

Apparently just about anyone can get a hold of about 15 guns and all the ammo they need at a moments notice. I need to hang with a more connected crowd.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by rowech

I know it's impossible but I feel like we have to change the mindset we have in situations like this. Sometimes hiding, etc. can be the right move but sadly, in some situations, people have to charge the guy from all directions. Some aren't going to make it but I feel like it's the best way to limit loss of life.

Maybe I'm wrong...don't know what I would do in that situation.

I would have charged him, but you wouldn't have the time to form a plan or get a like minded group to go along. The first instinct is to run away from danger, even people who understand combat I would think they would take cover first before processing the decision to make an attack. However, if one person charges the probability a second person and then another increases, you sort of break a threshold in the basic instinct to flight that might trigger another person (who is combative enough) to attack as well.

Chances of success would be pretty slim but if you take enough of his focus the next guy gets that much closer, and then the one after him nails the guy. But if you just run, unless you are closest to the exit what are your chances there? If you are far enough away hide/run is a good option, but if you are at point blank I think the only real shot is to attack. There might even be enough lag from the moment they pull out the gun to the point they start firing that you tackle them before they can track towards you. They will do a lot less damage if they are on the ground.

I'm paranoid enough that if someone pulls out anything that even looks like a weapon in public I'd probably beat the crap out of them rather than risk it. I fear the cops and jail a lot less than a murderer.

[Lathum]

I think a lot of the line of thinking that people as a group should attack the attacker comes from 9-11 when the passengers took down the terrorists and the plane. The difference is in that situation they knew there was no way out.

[Matthean]

I've thought about it, but there's no way to know for sure unless you are in the situation. You pretty much have to gang tackle from behind and restrict his hand and arm movement enough to where he can't aim backwards and nail you.

[SportsDino]

I'm paranoid enough that I've ran through these sort of scenarios myself... I've basically boiled it down to proximity to the event and who I'm with, based on some macarbe game theory.

At point blank range when weapon is sighted and not started firing or pointing my way, charge immediately in hopes I can close before I am adequately targetted.

Any other near situation take an angled path based on the shooter's arc of fire and try to grab and immediately swing anything that might work (chair, weapon like object, anything that might make me enough of a target and draw fire where I want it at the worst case).

I'm assuming in either scenario whether my family is there are not, the idea being if I'm that close any situation the amount of time I can slow the attack is more time they can run the other direction.

At farther ranges the idea is a shield rush (anything I can push long enough as I close on the shooter, and I can move some pretty large objects when I'm angry).

If I have my family with me at longer ranges, get them covered and the simplest instruction I can to get them out of there with little exposure and depending on the escape probability either run out with them or run opposite and charge shooter at the point I want to draw the fire so they can escape.

Hiding is a last resort, if escape is highly improbable, even then I'd probably plan out whatever I can with what I have in the expectation of bum rushing whenever the shooter is about to reach the spot he can fire on my hidey hole.

Tactically, even with automatic weapons I am presuming the ability to suppress multiple directions at once is limited, so if the person is focusing on killing as many innocents as possible they will aim for concentrations so you have that much more chance to approach at odd angles (assuming the shooter is focusing on aiming kill shots so they are less intent on the corners). Also unless they have training they will probably overreact and freak out if they notice someone is actually bull charging them so they'll probably waste more time and bullets on me than normal which gives that many more people a reprieve before the shooter reloads.

If I actually tackle (or my corpse has enough momentum) to knock them to the ground that is probably enough 'points' to make the endeavour completely worthwhile. That much disruption to the 'plan' and the time it gives others to escape, find cover, or decide to bumrush him while he is down is probably worth a life or two.

If I get shot to death before I hit I figure it would average on 2-4 shots rather than one, so at least I ate up ammo and hopefully a few seconds and maybe spooked the person so much they lose focus.

If my family escapes, ultimate win.

If I actually get to the bastard and live then at the very least I'd have an interesting story.

If it was a false alarm, then I get some jail time for beating up some stupid kid who thought it would be funny to bring a paintball gun to a theatre (you deserve a broken nose at the least for that shit).

Like many scenarios in life the averaging out of the big wins makes up for the large number of death cases. But ultimately I would do it because I've always been a bit of a hot tempered idealist... I despise the thought that these individuals exist so much that I'd be willing to be as opposite them as possible. And I've been wired for as long as I remember to just react to my gut instinct what I feel is right (hell, I've made the wrong choice more often when I stop to think about things too much and rationalize away whatever bad decisions I've made when my first instinct was just something simple and plain common sense the right thing to do).

I don't think it is even that rare a phenonmenon, it's the soldier who jumps on the grenade... you don't need too long to think about what you have to do, you just can't spare the time to consider whether you will survive it.

EDIT:
In all these scenarios I am assuming I am the only attacker, I believe there is no way you can get any random group to form a plan in enough time to make a difference (obviously the lockdown situation is a bit different). My belief is attack on instinct and the attention you draw in itself is enough to get an informal swarm reaction for others to attack. I even believe I've seen examples of this in my life, for instance an idiotic Walmart black friday mini-stampede where I bumped someone and enough people realized they should stop (not all did) that the crowd was stopped. People can recognize actions faster than words (in my theory).

[Logan]

I'm gonna print this out, laminate it, and put it in my wallet.

[spleen1015]

I always think about what I would do in this situations. I'd like to believe that I wouldn't run, but try and take the person out instead. I don't think the people who are doing these types of things are prepared for the intended audience to fight back. I think that is the least they expect.

What is more likely to happen is that I will be like that guy who left his fiance and her 2 children behind. I'd likely put everyone else around me in danger so that I could get away.

Who the hell knows what I would do? I hope I'm never in a situation to find out.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I'm paranoid enough that I've ran through these sort of scenarios myself... I've basically boiled it down to proximity to the event and who I'm with, based on some macarbe game theory.

At point blank range when weapon is sighted and not started firing or pointing my way, charge immediately in hopes I can close before I am adequately targetted.

Any other near situation take an angled path based on the shooter's arc of fire and try to grab and immediately swing anything that might work (chair, weapon like object, anything that might make me enough of a target and draw fire where I want it at the worst case).

I'm assuming in either scenario whether my family is there are not, the idea being if I'm that close any situation the amount of time I can slow the attack is more time they can run the other direction.

At farther ranges the idea is a shield rush (anything I can push long enough as I close on the shooter, and I can move some pretty large objects when I'm angry).

If I have my family with me at longer ranges, get them covered and the simplest instruction I can to get them out of there with little exposure and depending on the escape probability either run out with them or run opposite and charge shooter at the point I want to draw the fire so they can escape.

Hiding is a last resort, if escape is highly improbable, even then I'd probably plan out whatever I can with what I have in the expectation of bum rushing whenever the shooter is about to reach the spot he can fire on my hidey hole.

Tactically, even with automatic weapons I am presuming the ability to suppress multiple directions at once is limited, so if the person is focusing on killing as many innocents as possible they will aim for concentrations so you have that much more chance to approach at odd angles (assuming the shooter is focusing on aiming kill shots so they are less intent on the corners). Also unless they have training they will probably overreact and freak out if they notice someone is actually bull charging them so they'll probably waste more time and bullets on me than normal which gives that many more people a reprieve before the shooter reloads.

If I actually tackle (or my corpse has enough momentum) to knock them to the ground that is probably enough 'points' to make the endeavour completely worthwhile. That much disruption to the 'plan' and the time it gives others to escape, find cover, or decide to bumrush him while he is down is probably worth a life or two.

If I get shot to death before I hit I figure it would average on 2-4 shots rather than one, so at least I ate up ammo and hopefully a few seconds and maybe spooked the person so much they lose focus.

If my family escapes, ultimate win.

If I actually get to the bastard and live then at the very least I'd have an interesting story.

If it was a false alarm, then I get some jail time for beating up some stupid kid who thought it would be funny to bring a paintball gun to a theatre (you deserve a broken nose at the least for that shit).

Like many scenarios in life the averaging out of the big wins makes up for the large number of death cases. But ultimately I would do it because I've always been a bit of a hot tempered idealist... I despise the thought that these individuals exist so much that I'd be willing to be as opposite them as possible. And I've been wired for as long as I remember to just react to my gut instinct what I feel is right (hell, I've made the wrong choice more often when I stop to think about things too much and rationalize away whatever bad decisions I've made when my first instinct was just something simple and plain common sense the right thing to do).

I don't think it is even that rare a phenonmenon, it's the soldier who jumps on the grenade... you don't need too long to think about what you have to do, you just can't spare the time to consider whether you will survive it.

EDIT:
In all these scenarios I am assuming I am the only attacker, I believe there is no way you can get any random group to form a plan in enough time to make a difference (obviously the lockdown situation is a bit different). My belief is attack on instinct and the attention you draw in itself is enough to get an informal swarm reaction for others to attack. I even believe I've seen examples of this in my life, for instance an idiotic Walmart black friday mini-stampede where I bumped someone and enough people realized they should stop (not all did) that the crowd was stopped. People can recognize actions faster than words (in my theory).

Failing all this, If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them...maybe you can hire The A-Team.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I always think about what I would do in this situations. I'd like to believe that I wouldn't run, but try and take the person out instead. I don't think the people who are doing these types of things are prepared for the intended audience to fight back. I think that is the least they expect.

What is more likely to happen is that I will be like that guy who left his fiance and her 2 children behind. I'd likely put everyone else around me in danger so that I could get away.

Who the hell knows what I would do? I hope I'm never in a situation to find out.

I think a lot of us came to the conclusion that we'd bum rush the guy in a situation like this after what happened on 9/11. But there have been so few instances of that happening that I assume when you are in the moment, you either freeze, panic, or try to get the hell out of there. Or whatever other self-preservation action you can take. The only disruptions seem to come out of opportunity (someone's able to hit the shooter from behind or the side, or in such close proximity that they can get their hands on them).