Freeze Warning issued September 24 at 8:47AM MDT expiring September 25 at 9:00AM MDT in effect for: Archuleta, Dolores, Eagle, Garfield, La Plata, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, San Miguel
Theater shooting trial day 53: Start of the penalty process
Day 53 in the Aurora movie theater shooting trial – People vs. James Eagan Holmes. Today, the penalty phase of the case begins. The jury found Holmes to be legally sane and therefore guilty when he went into the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight Rises in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater and opened fire on the audience, killing 12 and wounding 70.
@Heather - Additionally, why did JH wear a gas mask. Because he knew it was painful.
by kdsmith7/22/2015 7:19:25 PM
Public Defender Tamara Brady: "The defense has no argument regarding phase 1."
by anica.padilla7/22/2015 7:19:28 PM
law came from religion, not religion from law....that is lower case r, not capital. Justice is really well defined by Humble Pride, in this forum. Humane Killing---give me a break. A being's body can be killed, but it doesn't necessarily kill the being. Sounds weird, but that is where it is pain comes in. Not the death, itself. This is why both religion and law is so controversial. Are they core requirements to control? Is the control developed out of fear of the things that Might, Could, or Have happened during your lifetime? Maybe there are no answers, just assumptions like without doubt, which is impossible.
by oxk7/22/2015 7:19:50 PM
by Robin7/22/2015 7:19:56 PM
@Lynn thank you today is the 1st day I've seen him...
by LG7/22/2015 7:19:59 PM
Why do you suppose AC (Brauchler) is not giving these statements?
by Nadine7/22/2015 7:20:05 PM
Richard Orman is so boring and bad at retorik that i want to punch him with a chair
by Wow this is bad 7/22/2015 7:20:09 PM
Heather-you haven't been watching the trial. He DID intend to torture with tear gas. He said it to Dr. Reid! He wanted chaos, coughing, eyes stinging, inability to see...WHY DID HE WEAR PROTECTIVE GOOGLES????
by fascinated7/22/2015 7:20:17 PM
@Fpsych don't say "bible" in here!! You will anger everyone!
by Me7/22/2015 7:20:20 PM
@kdsmith, I believe there is a difference between intending to torture and 'happening' to torture, his intention was to kill them, not to torture them. My belief is that it makes a difference. I don't think he was trying to 'scare' them either, as to the comment regarding the 'fear factor'.. Scaring them makes them more likely to panic and cause difficulty to his purpose Just saying.
by Heather7/22/2015 7:20:46 PM
I just stood and clapped for Orman. Anyone else? Ha!
by DocJ7/22/2015 7:20:48 PM
Legal question: Why wouldn't the defense just stipulate to at least one aggravating factor and then they could have avoided the possibility of emotional arguments? What would be DT objective in arguing this?
by trl27/22/2015 7:20:55 PM
No joke, NT8!!!
by fascinated7/22/2015 7:20:58 PM
Nothing, she said nothing!
by Pavel7/22/2015 7:21:01 PM
didn't expect that!
by happy7/22/2015 7:21:06 PM
While I think the agrivating factor for a child under 12 is present, I'm so sure Orman did a great job did such a good job proving that one. Fortunately, they just need 1.
by Tammy Garrison7/22/2015 7:21:10 PM
was wondering what the DT could say -- guess nothing
by mandi7/22/2015 7:21:13 PM
He wore a mask so he could navigate the tear gas, not necessarily due to the 'pain' it would cause him.
by Heather7/22/2015 7:21:17 PM
So what is the possible outcomes of this hearing? Sorry I missed that.
by Tired7/22/2015 7:21:21 PM
Some of you are missing the point on this whole killing a child thing. It doesn't matter if he intended to kill everyone, it matters that he had the SPECIFIC INTENT to kill a child, not a general intent to kill everyone.
by panda9117/22/2015 7:21:27 PM
WOW.... all the fighting this morning by the DT and they have nothing to say now!!!
by LG7/22/2015 7:21:36 PM
Nadine, we speculated he's going to argue after phase 2, if they get there.
by Tammy Garrison7/22/2015 7:21:40 PM
DT is effectively conceding the aggravating factors....would have been insulting the intelligence of the jury to argue against them anyway....
by flip7/22/2015 7:21:45 PM
@fascinated, why would you presume I have not been watching the trial simply as I have not been commenting? How ignorant.
by Heather7/22/2015 7:21:50 PM
NT8 - Batleship will never be played the same!
by Just Thinkin7/22/2015 7:21:52 PM
So, what's the general consensus? Do you think he will get death?
by Nadine7/22/2015 7:59:55 PM
this is so heartbreaking...
by colo7/22/2015 7:59:57 PM
me thinks the DT just abandoned ship...... wonder if the went women and children first?
by NT87/22/2015 8:00:16 PM
@fascinated, I'll work on it! Promise! I also had it in my notes...
by Kels7/22/2015 8:00:17 PM
@Panda911 - He shot her 4 times. Not just once because he was shooting in the area but FOUR times!
by Just Thinkin7/22/2015 8:00:19 PM
How long before the Jury comes back would be a Great Poll question I'm thinking @Anica :)
by LG7/22/2015 8:00:22 PM
@Heather - So what did he intend it to do to his victims? Tickle them???
by kdsmith7/22/2015 8:00:24 PM
panda, that's what I was thinking/worried about - intent to kill a child.
by Tammy Garrison7/22/2015 8:00:25 PM
Unless he KNEW that there would be NO CHILDREN in the theater, then he had intent to kill everyone, including children.
by Marsha Laurienti7/22/2015 8:00:28 PM
We need an AMEN in the house, for Orman's fantastic sermon.
by kdsmith7/22/2015 8:00:31 PM
nevermind---Marshall just answered my question....
by Tired7/22/2015 8:00:33 PM
@Heather - You need to rewind the trial and listen again. You are simply wrong on this account.
by kdsmith7/22/2015 8:02:37 PM
@Heather--i had the same impression as fascinated. If you've been watching, you missed a few things....like, for instance, Holmes first went into the theater dressed normally...he clearly would have seen children in theater 9. Then, knowing there were children present he went outside, dressed himself and armed himself and came back in to kill everyone in the theater, INCUDING THE CHILDREN.....
by flip7/22/2015 8:02:47 PM
@Heather - "Not Watching" Because you insist on arguing points that have already been determined by facts and judged on by a jury of JH's peers.
by kdsmith7/22/2015 8:03:16 PM
My point is, JH is an intelligent person who was rational at the time of the crime, he wanted to kill them - that was his sole purpose - and he wanted to do it in the most effective way possible, hence the careful planning and added care to disconnect himself from the situation. Those who are presuming he had intent to cause fear or pain, are clearly confused about his intent and the reason he was found 'guilty'.
by Heather7/22/2015 8:03:27 PM
Grateful to channel 7 for playing victim's testimony on the breaks...in the end this is what should be remembered not the swiveling monster at the defense table.
by JW7/22/2015 8:03:35 PM
I wondered about this the first time I heard her testify. She says that it was during the previews that there was an explosion. Wasn't the movie already playing? Human memory is a strange thing..
by litprof7/22/2015 8:03:45 PM
JH is towering over Ms. Higgs. No wonder they kept her at the back table.
by Kristle7/22/2015 8:03:51 PM
Heather- I write that because your comments seem pretty darned ignorant, and if you read what other people are responding to you with, they agree. You are asking questions about things that were covered in testimony early on...'As in week 1-2. The court reporter could read back the notes to you to clarify that which you clearly didn't see during testimony. Thus, you can't have seen the entire trial. It's very clear. Not in any way ignorant on my behalf. Check out the responses to your 'statememts'. I'm not alone in my thinking.