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

They say he isn't cooperating and is being kept in solitary confinement. I'd bet he hasn't been allowed much sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alxone

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rondog

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rondog

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?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BuffCyclist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BuffCyclist

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".

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"

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 ?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5th Amendment

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6th Amendment

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

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]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeMike

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackthewall81

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxthis

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canuckistani

If Holmes is found guilty, I hope there's another Jack Ruby in town.

---

My mom and I were talking about this last night!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 68Charger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChadAmberg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

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/hphot...56220965_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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

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.