Welcome to Gaia! ::

There has been research conducted on the amount of theaters near the scene that had no weapons posted or not. The theater that saw the shooting apparently had a no weapons sign posted where the others, including an even larger theater than the one targeted did not. http://johnrlott.blogspot.jp/2012/08/so-are-movie-theaters-in-aurora.html?m=1

From what I'm hearing as here say with the court case is that this data is being used against him in an effort to show this was a premeditated attack, not a moment of craziness.

We have an attempt to ban weapons, but what good is that going to actually do when criminals target the areas that conceal carry members aren't allowed to bring their concealed guns?
Mimetic Hybrid
We have an attempt to ban weapons

Well that sounds awfully general.
The Infamous Unami's avatar

Conservative Raider

Dostya
Mimetic Hybrid
We have an attempt to ban weapons

Well that sounds awfully general.

Also, accurate.
The Infamous Unami
Dostya
Mimetic Hybrid
We have an attempt to ban weapons

Well that sounds awfully general.

Also, accurate.

I mean, are they attempting to ban weapons in theaters?
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
The Infamous Unami
Dostya
Mimetic Hybrid
We have an attempt to ban weapons

Well that sounds awfully general.

Also, accurate.
Except not. The government isn't attempting a weapons ban, they're attempting to instate more regulation. Big difference
I think CCW could be effective against "random crazy guy with no real plan except grab gun and shoot." Not so much in a case where someone is doing so much planning that they expect to get shot at.

Take the Aurora example. You have a heavily armed opponent who took the time to get protection in the form of ballistic headgear and bulletproof leggings, who planned a way to get the element of surprise, and he had plenty of visual distractions from smoke bombs and low lighting. Then you add a crowded room of panicked people running in fear.

You think the average CCW permit holder can deal with all that plus their own emotions and panic in check to take the clean shot? Do you think someone won't just accidentally get in the way? The odds that they injure or kill someone innocent is far greater than them taking out the gunman in this case.
More than likely you would have had even more people killed as the other people packing would have been shooting around in a dark, crowded theater hitting bystanders and then those new shooters in turn would be targeted by others. The police would have had to engage multiple shooters, not knowing who was the original shooter or if this was a terrorist group carrying out an attack. Not knowing who was the first perpetrator and who was a "defender", anyone who drew and shot a weapon would have had to be either taken out or arrested, and if ballistics showed any of those bullets of their hitting another person, they would have been charged with either armed assault or murder as the situation dictated.
how can they base premeditation on that act being committed in the gun free theater as opposed to the single other non-gun free theater? that's just conjecture.
Less Than Liz's avatar

Profitable Prophet

7,700 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
logan the god of candy
how can they base premeditation on that act being committed in the gun free theater as opposed to the single other non-gun free theater? that's just conjecture.

Because it would simply be one brick in the wall of evidence. It makes it a little more likely that it was premeditated, and assuming there are no evidentiary rules that categorically bar it, or that it's not found too prejudicial, and it meets the proper evidentiary burden, the prosecution can use it to craft its theory.

For the record, I haven't heard of the prosecution using this, but I also haven't been following the Aurora case very closely.
Less Than Liz
logan the god of candy
how can they base premeditation on that act being committed in the gun free theater as opposed to the single other non-gun free theater? that's just conjecture.

Because it would simply be one brick in the wall of evidence. It makes it a little more likely that it was premeditated, and assuming there are no evidentiary rules that categorically bar it, or that it's not found too prejudicial, and it meets the proper evidentiary burden, the prosecution can use it to craft its theory.

For the record, I haven't heard of the prosecution using this, but I also haven't been following the Aurora case very closely.


that brick is two blocks away, near another wall missing bricks.
Less Than Liz's avatar

Profitable Prophet

7,700 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
logan the god of candy
that brick is two blocks away, near another wall missing bricks.

Hey, you asked how, not about the wisdom of it.
Noogie's avatar

Liberal Bloodsucker

7,250 Points
  • Voter 100
  • Generous 100
  • Tycoon 200
Ammo Amy
More than likely you would have had even more people killed as the other people packing would have been shooting around in a dark, crowded theater hitting bystanders and then those new shooters in turn would be targeted by others. The police would have had to engage multiple shooters, not knowing who was the original shooter or if this was a terrorist group carrying out an attack. Not knowing who was the first perpetrator and who was a "defender", anyone who drew and shot a weapon would have had to be either taken out or arrested, and if ballistics showed any of those bullets of their hitting another person, they would have been charged with either armed assault or murder as the situation dictated.
Logic?! In MY Politics?
Noogie
Ammo Amy
More than likely you would have had even more people killed as the other people packing would have been shooting around in a dark, crowded theater hitting bystanders and then those new shooters in turn would be targeted by others. The police would have had to engage multiple shooters, not knowing who was the original shooter or if this was a terrorist group carrying out an attack. Not knowing who was the first perpetrator and who was a "defender", anyone who drew and shot a weapon would have had to be either taken out or arrested, and if ballistics showed any of those bullets of their hitting another person, they would have been charged with either armed assault or murder as the situation dictated.
Logic?! In MY Politics?


Shocking, isn't it? And it's something so blatantly obvious I'm surprised more people aren't pointing it out.

Even in the Giffords shooting, the wrong man was almost shot because Joe Zamudio thought the guy who disarmed Loughner was the shooter, and that was in a less crowded, open, brightly lit area in the daytime.
Pure speculation on the parts of 'better to be a willing target than be able to defend oneself'.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
No, frightened civilians blasting away in a dark and crowded room would not have helped anything whatsoever.

As far as premeditation, the booby trapped apartment should be good enough to establish that. Good day.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games