View Full Version : the holmes case
anybody else watch the hearing ?
Yeah, but we have a crappy internet connection here at work, so I didn't really catch a whole lot. Was there anything important? I heard the judge reiterate that he was allowing extended media coverage.
Holmes looked drugged and seemed to be nodding off
Oh and no bail it to be set
Teufelhund
07-23-2012, 11:08
They say he isn't cooperating and is being kept in solitary confinement. I'd bet he hasn't been allowed much sleep.
The Heretic
07-23-2012, 11:09
Holmes looked drugged and seemed to be nodding off
I was saying the same thing. Dude looked high as hell, thought he was gonna take a nap right there.
BushMasterBoy
07-23-2012, 11:11
I did not see it, but I figure the guy will end up in the state mental hospital (prison) here in Pueblo. I see a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity". The state will then drug him up until his brain is mush, destroying it with chemicals that will permanently lobotomize him over time.
If he is sent to a regular prison in Canon City or Sterling, the general population of inmates will off him for a candy bar...I couldn't be a jailer because I would accidently leave a rope in his cell.
[Hang]
This "PC civilized society" stuff sucks. There's no question that he did it, it's cut and dried. Guilty, no question about it. Why can't they just take his sorry ass somewhere and off him? This calls for an old-fashioned hanging from a wooden gallows at the town square. Noon, everybody be there for the picnic. I'll bring potato salad.
Chad4000
07-23-2012, 11:18
This "PC civilized society" stuff sucks. There's no question that he did it, it's cut and dried. Guilty, no question about it. Why can't they just take his sorry ass somewhere and off him? This calls for an old-fashioned hanging from a wooden gallows at the town square. Noon, everybody be there for the picnic. I'll bring potato salad.
amen to that...
BuffCyclist
07-23-2012, 11:32
This "PC civilized society" stuff sucks. There's no question that he did it, it's cut and dried. Guilty, no question about it. Why can't they just take his sorry ass somewhere and off him? This calls for an old-fashioned hanging from a wooden gallows at the town square. Noon, everybody be there for the picnic. I'll bring potato salad.
Agreed. I made a comment to my fiancee about how a reporter said something along the lines of "Holmes is being held for allegedly entering a midnight ...".
I'm like, allegedly? Seriously? They caught him with guns in hand, he was wearing body armor, his apartment was rigged with explosives and other incendiary devices and he allegedly did that?!
Agreed. I made a comment to my fiancee about how a reporter said something along the lines of "Holmes is being held for allegedly entering a midnight ...".
I'm like, allegedly? Seriously? They caught him with guns in hand, he was wearing body armor, his apartment was rigged with explosives and other incendiary devices and he allegedly did that?!
Despite the facts, you still need to remember "Innocent until proven guilty." I agree with you, but it's our justice system and to give in to emotional pressure and just take him out back and put a slug through his dome without trial just undermines the whole thing.
DeusExMachina
07-23-2012, 11:36
I did not see it, but I figure the guy will end up in the state mental hospital (prison) here in Pueblo. I see a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity". The state will then drug him up until his brain is mush, destroying it with chemicals that will permanently lobotomize him over time.
If he is sent to a regular prison in Canon City or Sterling, the general population of inmates will off him for a candy bar...I couldn't be a jailer because I would accidently leave a rope in his cell.
[Hang]
Very small chance of him getting off by insanity, at least in Colorado.
Agreed. I made a comment to my fiancee about how a reporter said something along the lines of "Holmes is being held for allegedly entering a midnight ...".
I'm like, allegedly? Seriously? They caught him with guns in hand, he was wearing body armor, his apartment was rigged with explosives and other incendiary devices and he allegedly did that?!
Innocent until proven guilty, even if guilt is doubtless, he still deserves a trial. It's as American as the 2nd amendment.
It's just semantics, don't get hung up on it. They always have to speak in "the accused".
HoneyBadger
07-23-2012, 11:44
To repeat exactly what has already been said: Innocent until proven guilty applies to all US citizens who allegedly break the law. Time to hold the emotions for a minute and respect that we have fair trials in our great country. Most countries don't and many places around the world, you are "guilty until you prove to the authority that without a doubt, you are innocent"
jackthewall81
07-23-2012, 11:50
Everyone has the right to a fair trial. All of you constitution buffs should know that.
Is it still a fair trial if he is drugged ?
BuffCyclist
07-23-2012, 11:58
Yea yea yea, innocent until proven guilty. I get that.
It's just the language used, like its just a rumor that he did those things. The media gets things wrong all the time, but this is the one thing that is ever present.
I couldn't be a jailer because I would accidently leave a rope in his cell.
He had the chance to eat a bullet and he didn't do it. I doubt he would be man enough to string a rope around his neck.
For a group of people who hold the 2nd amendment so dearly, some of you are awful quick to throw out amendments 5 & 6.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
CrufflerSteve
07-23-2012, 12:08
He had the chance to eat a bullet and he didn't do it. I doubt he would be man enough to string a rope around his neck.
After a few years of isolation in max security a rope or bedsheet might seem good.
He's got the toughest DA in Colorado. More death penalty cases than the rest.
Steve
Well, he could accidentally get shot while tryin to escape......
[Coffee]
GilpinGuy
07-23-2012, 12:21
I've had the opinion for years that those that commit the most heinous crimes and are caught red handed, without the possibility of anyone else committing the crime, should be strung up immediately following their trial.
This guy is a perfect example. Have the trial, find him "guilty, without the possibility of doubt, of mass murder - a heinous crime punishable by immediate execution" and march him off to the gallows within minutes of the verdict. No 20 years of appeals and all that shit.
Same goes for child molesters, rapists and other murderers. If a guy is caught raping a little girl, and I mean caught during the act itself, there is no possibility of doubt he did it. He was caught on top of her! String him up immediately after he's found guilty at the trial.
Trials where it isn't so cut and dried are a different story.
jackthewall81
07-23-2012, 12:28
I've had the opinion for years that those that commit the most heinous crimes and are caught red handed, without the possibility of anyone else committing the crime, should be strung up immediately following their trial.
This guy is a perfect example. Have the trial, find him "guilty, without the possibility of doubt, of mass murder - a heinous crime punishable by immediate execution" and march him off to the gallows within minutes of the verdict. No 20 years of appeals and all that shit.
Same goes for child molesters, rapists and other murderers. If a guy is caught raping a little girl, and I mean caught during the act itself, there is no possibility of doubt he did it. He was caught on top of her! String him up immediately after he's found guilty at the trial.
Trials where it isn't so cut and dried are a different story.
So you disagree with the constitution?
SpikeMike
07-23-2012, 12:40
EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, no matter how heinious a criminal they are is entitled to a fair trial, and appeals (should they desire them). Our constitution demands this, and we as the people must demand this. It does not matter is they are obviously guilty and caught red-handed. The rule of law must be applied and applied fairly for everyone.
Personally, I hope they revive the gas chamber for this guy and make him suffer.
EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, no matter how heinious a criminal they are is entitled to a fair trial, and appeals (should they desire them). Our constitution demands this, and we as the people must demand this. It does not matter is they are obviously guilty and caught red-handed. The rule of law must be applied and applied fairly for everyone.
Personally, I hope they revive the gas chamber for this guy and make him suffer.
Correct and this is always done because making exceptions opens the door to failure. Better off to treat every case the same rather than leave interpretation. Think about it. What constitutes getting caught? Police seeing it, family member? Photos, which of course can be doctored? I mean there is nothing that is 100 percent fool proof to where executing someone immediately is worth the risk. I agree it sucks to have these things drawn out when we know he did it but I know if anything ever happens to me I wanted to be guaranteed a free trial.
I don't understand why he didn't just kill himself before doing all this
GilpinGuy
07-23-2012, 13:00
So you disagree with the constitution?
I wrote that he should get a trial. And a fair one at that. IF he's found guilty without any possibility of doubt, string him up right after the verdict is read.
Maybe I'm off base here. Does the Constitution prohibit the immediate execution of convicted murderers following a fair trial?
Canuckistani
07-23-2012, 13:06
Well, he could accidentally get shot while tryin to escape......
[Coffee]
If Holmes is found guilty, I hope there's another Jack Ruby in town.
If Holmes is found guilty, I hope there's another Jack Ruby in town.
My mom and I were talking about this last night!
68Charger
07-23-2012, 13:22
I don't understand why he didn't just kill himself before doing all this
Because he's a coward... maybe he ran out of ammo entirely, and was caught going back to the car to reload/flee?
what's ironic is that they only possible defenses would be insanity, or the conspiracy theorist idea that he was manipulated by another party.
Because he's a coward... maybe he ran out of ammo entirely, and was caught going back to the car to reload/flee?
what's ironic is that they only possible defenses would be insanity, or the conspiracy theorist idea that he was manipulated by another party.
According to the witnesses his AR jammed and he had no clue how to correct it. Thanks to his lack of training and knowledge the spree ended and I fear more lives would have been lost had he not had a malfunction or had some basic firearms training.
According to the witnesses his AR jammed and he had no clue how to correct it. Thanks to his lack of training and knowledge the spree ended and I fear more lives would have been lost had he not had a malfunction or had some basic firearms training.
Too bad one of the people in there didn't clear it and ventilate his ass
I wrote that he should get a trial. And a fair one at that. IF he's found guilty without any possibility of doubt, string him up right after the verdict is read.
Maybe I'm off base here. Does the Constitution prohibit the immediate execution of convicted murderers following a fair trial?
The law allows appeals on reasonable grounds. What constitutes reasonable grounds is what has been blown completely out of proportion.
ChadAmberg
07-23-2012, 15:44
I have a question. Official reports and such point to he was wearing a "tactical vest" which to me means a vest with lots of pouches for mags and such. No armor. But all the "chatter", especially the anti-CCW crap, says he was armored up and you couldn't shoot him.
Which is true as far as we can tell? Has any official sources referred to kevlar or plates? Or just tactical vest and such?
HoneyBadger
07-23-2012, 15:47
I have a question. Official reports and such point to he was wearing a "tactical vest" which to me means a vest with lots of pouches for mags and such. No armor. But all the "chatter", especially the anti-CCW crap, says he was armored up and you couldn't shoot him.
Which is true as far as we can tell? Has any official sources referred to kevlar or plates? Or just tactical vest and such?
yeah this is a bit confusing. He was probably wearing the vest over his armor... but like everything else right now, just speculation.
ChadAmberg
07-23-2012, 15:58
yeah this is a bit confusing. He was probably wearing the vest over his armor... but like everything else right now, just speculation.
Here's a pic of what's being put out somewhere:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526434_410312952338922_356220965_n.jpg
No reference to armor, just tactical vest.
I'm really starting to think there was no armor at all.
Well they got the guns right lol. The mask was just a regular one, not some high speed version shown there.
Canuckistani
07-23-2012, 16:19
To a news reporter, a 'tactical vest' is probably equivalent to 'ballistic armor'. You know, just like an FA AR is the same thing as a slingshot.
Teufelhund
07-23-2012, 16:20
What a ridiculous mock-up. I seriously doubt he stormed in there looking like Judge Dredd, but this kind of shit is created for entertainment value, not journalism.
By the way, this whole thing reminded me of a pretty disturbing movie (can't remember the name, sorry) I caught on Netflix several months ago, where a pretty bright, but psychotic kid executes a well-planned scheme to dress in body armor, arm himself to the teeth, and massacre most of an entire town. If you find this movie, be warned you will be very pissed off when you get to the end of it. In light of the recent and very similar event so close to home, I don't think I could watch it again.
Song Dog
07-23-2012, 16:24
I haven't been following this much. But I think a good punishment would be burned alive on a stake with the 12 families shooting him with a .22...no headshots allowed. Payback is a bitch.
What a ridiculous mock-up. I seriously doubt he stormed in there looking like Judge Dredd, but this kind of shit is created for entertainment value, not journalism.
By the way, this whole thing reminded me of a pretty disturbing movie (can't remember the name, sorry) I caught on Netflix several months ago, where a pretty bright, but psychotic kid executes a well-planned scheme to dress in body armor, arm himself to the teeth, and massacre most of an entire town. If you find this movie, be warned you will be very pissed off when you get to the end of it. In light of the recent and very similar event so close to home, I don't think I could watch it again.
Was it Rampage? I think it was a Uwe Boll crapfest.
Even if he had armor, even level iv, I gotta believe a pistol round from ten yards to the chest would still hurt like hell and maybe knock him wouldn't it? An untrained person like him id think it would at least scare the crap out of him
Teufelhund
07-23-2012, 16:33
Was it Rampage? I think it was a Uwe Boll crapfest.
Yes, that was it. Definitely a B flick, I only watched it because the story looked like it was something different than the usual. It did not go the way I expected it to.
BuffCyclist
07-23-2012, 16:34
What a ridiculous mock-up. I seriously doubt he stormed in there looking like Judge Dredd, but this kind of shit is created for entertainment value, not journalism.
By the way, this whole thing reminded me of a pretty disturbing movie (can't remember the name, sorry) I caught on Netflix several months ago, where a pretty bright, but psychotic kid executes a well-planned scheme to dress in body armor, arm himself to the teeth, and massacre most of an entire town. If you find this movie, be warned you will be very pissed off when you get to the end of it. In light of the recent and very similar event so close to home, I don't think I could watch it again.
It was called Rampage (2009). I saw it a while back on Netflix too and it pissed me off too. Didn't remember it until I saw the trailer again (after googling). Can't believe they ever made a movie like that, who would seriously go to the theaters to see it?
jonny450r
07-23-2012, 16:52
yeah I watched it and the feed was more annoying then anything trying to hear, but at least they're most likely going after the death penalty for this
This "PC civilized society" stuff sucks. There's no question that he did it, it's cut and dried. Guilty, no question about it. Why can't they just take his sorry ass somewhere and off him? This calls for an old-fashioned hanging from a wooden gallows at the town square. Noon, everybody be there for the picnic. I'll bring potato salad.
I'll bring the hotdogs and buns
cfortune
07-23-2012, 16:54
What a ridiculous mock-up. I seriously doubt he stormed in there looking like Judge Dredd, but this kind of shit is created for entertainment value, not journalism.
By the way, this whole thing reminded me of a pretty disturbing movie (can't remember the name, sorry) I caught on Netflix several months ago, where a pretty bright, but psychotic kid executes a well-planned scheme to dress in body armor, arm himself to the teeth, and massacre most of an entire town. If you find this movie, be warned you will be very pissed off when you get to the end of it. In light of the recent and very similar event so close to home, I don't think I could watch it again.
Yeah I caught that movie too. I believe it's called "Rampage" or something to the likes of that. *EDIT* Ronin beat me to it.
BTW, that Judge Dredd comment made me spit out my root beer.
CrufflerSteve
07-23-2012, 17:13
As long as the thread is moving towards culture this is an interesting angle. Kind of at right angles to the gun discussion.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/batman-movies-dont-kill-but-theyre-friendly-to-the-concept/
Batman Movies Don’t Kill. But They’re Friendly to the Concept
Steve
So, if "the alleged suspect" is entitled to rights of fair trial, appeals, yadda yadda, would a CCW holder taking him out on the spot be violating his rights to those things, and therefore be wrong? I mean, it's confusing. Seems like it would have been OK for someone to cap him on the spot in the act, but not after they catch him afterwards still armed and blood-spattered?
From what I've heard, he'd taken a shitload of Vicodin beforehand and was probably too loaded to shoot himself. That's probably why they caught him, he was too fucked up to decide whether to leave or not.
So, if "the alleged suspect" is entitled to rights of fair trial, appeals, yadda yadda, would a CCW holder taking him out on the spot be violating his rights to those things, and therefore be wrong? I mean, it's confusing. Seems like it would have been OK for someone to cap him on the spot in the act, but not after they catch him afterwards still armed and blood-spattered?
From what I've heard, he'd taken a shitload of Vicodin beforehand and was probably too loaded to shoot himself. That's probably why they caught him, he was too fucked up to decide whether to leave or not.
Where did you hear about the pain killers?
Where did you hear about the pain killers?
On one of the jillions of newscasts. Can't remember if I heard it, or the wife heard it and told me, but I "think" it was 1000mg of Vicodin, IIRC. Hell, I could be wrong, it's happened before once.
Jamesonehr
07-23-2012, 17:49
Even if he had armor, even level iv, I gotta believe a pistol round from ten yards to the chest would still hurt like hell and maybe knock him wouldn't it? An untrained person like him id think it would at least scare the crap out of him
Oh yeah it would. Buddy of mine back in the early days of the iraq war (OIF) was hit in the chest with a 9mm wearing level 4. Said it hurt like shit and cracked the plate. Would hurt less then wearing level 3A but a few good shots to the chest would either make him run or drop him due to injury from the impact forces. Bullet "proof" vests dont protect from the blunt forces just the bullet going through you. In some cases you would rather have the bullet put a hole in you then be stopped.
Here's a pic of what's being put out somewhere:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526434_410312952338922_356220965_n.jpg
No reference to armor, just tactical vest.
I'm really starting to think there was no armor at all.
Does Gander Mountain also carry Martian cop uniforms from Total Recall? It's pretty ridiculous how this stuff is worded.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.