Current
60 Partly Cloudy
3-Day Forecast
HI: 88°
LO: 58°
HI: 88°
LO: 58°
HI: 88°
LO: 58°
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.
-
-
-
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@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.....
-
-
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'.
-
-
-
-
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.
