I am hoping that the NRA has the good sense not to tread on the backs of the victims of this heinous crime, for political gain. That is a strategy best left to the opposition. It just shows them up for the ghouls they are.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Agreed. However with an issue like this the moral high ground is good- Unless it makes it appear as though your side has no defense, and the lull in activity is capitalized by the opposition to weaken your public standing, and turn popular support against you.

 

 

Yes. Wait, you aren't against stop and frisk?

 

I have no problem with stop and frisk, if only it weren't for that "pesky constitution-thing". Damn that old paper, preventing smarter people from keeping us safe from ourselves. (N.B. I'm not serious, Stop and frisk is un-American, and any cop who does it without reason should be fired)

I hope the shooter or his attorney makes a statement claiming that that is why he targeted this theater.

 

 

Sent from my DROID4

 

I think his motivations won't come out in trial, but I'm sure there will be something, perhaps, revealed once they navigate his apartment. I'm sure that somewhere on the computer, in any writings, or SOMEWHERE, there will at least be enough to allow for someone to come up with a decent theory on why he did what he did.

From what I have read the theater has a no guns policy. If its true I would take a guess that it played a role on why the guy picked that theater. People who carry I would guess take on the responsibility to follow the rules legal and civil. I'm not going to nor would I carry a firearm where it is not allowed. I would go somewhere that allows it.

 

From what I remember from taking CHL class - The only 3 things you have to remember is 3006 signs of fedral ordnance, 51% alcohol signs, and public schools. Those are the only places that I can remember that it is against the law to carry even with a CHL permit. Other signs made by businesses are to discourage firearms on their establishment, but have no legal strength. They can reserve the right to serve you, but nothing legal.

 

Did you know you can carry in an airport up to the TSA check piont that makes you throw your water away. Pretty interesting. Provided you have a CHL permit and the state you are in recognizes your permit from your home state.

 

None of which is legal advice, don't take my word for it, research yourself and come to your own understanding.

Entering someone's property against their rules constitutes trespassing. It may only be a civil matter and not criminal but regardless. The owners can still have the cops come file a report and provide an unwelcome situation. By putting up a sign that says no guns and you bring a gun they are saying you cannot enter their property. Has nothing to do with denial of service.

 

 

From what I remember from taking CHL class - The only 3 things you have to remember is 3006 signs of fedral ordnance, 51% alcohol signs, and public schools. Those are the only places that I can remember that it is against the law to carry even with a CHL permit. Other signs made by businesses are to discourage firearms on their establishment, but have no legal strength. They can reserve the right to serve you, but nothing legal.

 

Depends on the state. In many states you can carry at schools (or in the parking lot), in most states you can carry where they serve alcohol and even drink, and in some states "no guns" signs carry the legal weight of criminal firearms violations.

 

http://www.motherjon...-message?page=2

 

Grow up, grow some.

 

Start a new thread about your ideas and I will be happy to discuss why I don't think people that own guns deserve special law enforcement scrutiny beyond anyone else that acts in a way you don't like.

For the love of money, First lawsuit.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/#comments-fullwrapper

 

 

Suing Warner brothers, cause dark night is Violent? Come on now....

No words can describe the amount of disgust I have for this lawyer and person who is suing.

If they think this movie is too violent then they have never watched the shoot-em-up movies from the 70s and 80s.

Suing Warner brothers, cause dark night is Violent? Come on now....

 

The key word here being frivolous.

Guess they never seen movies like Taxi Driver and that was mild. But maybe if Batman only killed zombies?

 

For the love of money, First lawsuit.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/#comments-fullwrapper

 

 

Suing Warner brothers, cause dark night is Violent? Come on now....

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

There is some credibility to number 1. Fire exits should be alarmed to alert in case of an emergency. Maybe if there was an alarm somebody might have caught him outside gearing up. I know where I work all emergency exits have some sort of alarm, even if it's silent.

 

Merit to #1 the rest is just digging..

Yes, either a crash bar with some sort of ruckus sounder unless its used as an exit. If not, a day time contact which should set an alert off by the control.

 

There is some credibility to number 1. Fire exits should be alarmed to alert in case of an emergency. Maybe if there was an alarm somebody might have caught him outside gearing up. I know where I work all emergency exits have some sort of alarm, even if it's silent.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

It was the opening night for the movie... no one even saw the movie...how in hell did it contribute to any of this?

 

Suing Warner brothers, cause dark night is Violent? Come on now....

 

For those that haven't seen any of the current movies in the Batman trilogy...the extremely ironic part about this is that Batman has never actually killed someone in any of the movies. It's also exploited as his only weakness, that he doesn't and can't kill any of his enemies. I hope WB uses that.

 

 

For those that haven't seen any of the current movies in the Batman trilogy...the extremely ironic part about this is that Batman has never actually killed someone in any of the movies. It's also exploited as his only weakness, that he doesn't and can't kill any of his enemies. I hope WB uses that.

 

Nor does batman use guns. He typically fights with his hands does be not ?

 

The lawsuit is just suing evebody and their mother to see who poney up the cash, I'm surprised they aren't suing smith and Wesson, or

Glock, or while they are at it Reebok sneakers, since those are the shoes that allowed him to be able to walk into the theater for his killing spree.

Entering someone's property against their rules constitutes trespassing. It may only be a civil matter and not criminal but regardless. The owners can still have the cops come file a report and provide an unwelcome situation. By putting up a sign that says no guns and you bring a gun they are saying you cannot enter their property. Has nothing to do with denial of service.

 

I'll take your word for it on trespassing. Not sure what the laws on private business that is open to the public are with reguard to government issue license or documents. Civil is one thing and worth the risk of protecting my wife and children. Although I don't know how eager they would be to spend money on a civil case when there was no damage done. Rules of a private company or establishment open to the public is one thing, the federal laws are not to be messed with. Whats the saying, the government spares no expense in the constant pursuit of a guilty verdict.

 

Have been told by law enforcement in Texas that when confronted by a private company or their security with reguards to your firearm. Stating that it is government issue usually makes them lose interest or concern real quick. As the right to carry is issued by the government. Then again not sure many would confront someone about their firearm if truly concerned, I'm sure they would just call the police. Of course your behavior has a lot to do with it. When you act like you belong, people think you belong and dont question. If you act strange or odd - the concern grows. When in Texas I have noticed several people over time that were able to take notice of my firearm, and have just smiled at me as I gave them a reassuring smile and nod back.

 

Nor does batman use guns. He typically fights with his hands does be not ?

.

 

 

But The Joker......

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Entering someone's property against their rules constitutes trespassing. It may only be a civil matter and not criminal but regardless. The owners can still have the cops come file a report and provide an unwelcome situation. By putting up a sign that says no guns and you bring a gun they are saying you cannot enter their property. Has nothing to do with denial of service.

 

Actually, if you are asked to leave, and you don't, it isn't a civil matter. In most states (probably all states), it is a violation of the law, and you can be arrested for trespassing. If you are asked to leave, and do, then you are not violating the law, assuming you have a legal right to be there initially (unlike breaking into a place).

 

Example: You are open carrying at a restaurant in an open carry friendly state. Somebody complains. The manager asks you to leave. If you refuse, you can be charged with trespassing, but not a firearms violation. Because you have a firearm is the reason you were asked to leave, but that makes no difference. It would be the same as being asked to leave because you aren't wearing a shirt. However, if say, somebody complains, and the waitress asks you to leave, and you don't, you cannot be charged with trespassing, as the waitress has no legal right to make you leave. I have seen instances similar, and the police were called, but because the manager had no issue with it, the open carriers were not breaking any law.

But The Joker......

 

And the Joker was portrayed as a psychopath who was trying to harm everybody, and was eventually brought to justice. No reasonable person would take from The Dark Knight that it's okay to kill people. That's why I hope this lawsuit fails. The whole idea of Batman, or any superhero movie, is bringing true justice to criminals. I don't see how you can claim that it says violence is okay...reasonably that is.

But The Joker......

 

...used knives?

 

I think? only seen it once.

 

 

...used knives?

 

I think? only seen it once.

 

And lets not forget the pencil.

Start a new thread about your ideas and I will be happy to discuss why I don't think people that own guns deserve special law enforcement scrutiny beyond anyone else that acts in a way you don't like.

 

My thoughts, cogent as they are to me, suffer from my slow typing speed and my desperate server/client upgrade situation at work. Lets just say that I will always be in favor of better mental health care and reporting and I equate it to all that gun owners need to fear from the anti- gun crowd. I just don't have the time to write a paper about it. But, "calling the cops because someone is a little odd," is not the issue. I am talking more along the lines of where you would have to be to do an intervention on an alcoholic friend and the like.

 

 

And the Joker was portrayed as a psychopath who was trying to harm everybody, and was eventually brought to justice. No reasonable person would take from The Dark Knight that it's okay to kill people. That's why I hope this lawsuit fails. The whole idea of Batman, or any superhero movie, is bringing true justice to criminals. I don't see how you can claim that it says violence is okay...reasonably that is.

...used knives?

 

I think? only seen it once.

And lets not forget the pencil.

 

 

Yea, I responded out of turn. Batman and the joker may not have used guns but the lawsuit is about the violence. A hundred people use guns in a movie but the hero doesn't is still a holywood glorification of guns. I am not saying the lawsuit is correct or not, but a disturbed person is adrift in the logic department, so it wouldn't matter if either character never used a gun, especially if 100 people around them did.

Okay so I have a question for you guys:

 

Is there any evidence that Holmes was wearing body armor? As in NIJ rated bullet-resistant armor.

 

I see a lot of people throwing around terms like 'tactical vest' and 'bulletproof vest', but I see nothing indicating that the garments were designed to mitigated bullet impacts. I see that he purchased tactical vests made by BLACKHAWK! from tacticalgear.com, but they appear to only be either plate carriers made from nylon or simply chest rigs for holding magazines and such.

Okay so I have a question for you guys:

 

Is there any evidence that Holmes was wearing body armor?

 

yep. completely unclear. I put that in the "yet to be confirmed," department.

Its one thing to have the information, its another to USE the information.

 

 

 

James Holmes' Psychiatrist Contacted Authorities Prior to 'Dark Knight Rises' Shooting

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie-005231424--abc-news-topstories.html

 

 

The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.

 

The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.

It's my understanding that the psychiatrist contacted the university PD only to get a background check - because of her concerns. The background check showed no criminal history, so that's as far as that avenue went. Secondly she reported it to the university's BETA group (Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment) which did nothing because he was withdrawing.

 

I would almost wager that the BETA team was probably formed after Virginia Tech, since a lot of the major criticism there was that there was no structure in place that would have recognized Cho's mental deterioration. Here we had the structure but once he stated his desire to withdraw, it seems it became, "Not my job, man."

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

It's my understanding that the psychiatrist contacted the university PD only to get a background check - because of her concerns. The background check showed no criminal history, so that's as far as that avenue went. Secondly she reported it to the university's BETA group (Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment) which did nothing because he was withdrawing.

 

 

 

It does sound like they gave up when they found he was withdrawing, based on what the news is saying. Still more to come to light I am sure as they start seeing where people are going to place blame.

 

Where did you here what I bolded? It sounds strange that she would ask for a criminal background check if she was actively trying to tell the officer that she thought he was dangerous. Unless perhaps she was trying to gather some sort of evidence to give the BETA team. Quite frankly it doesn't sound correct.

 

Interesting turns of events.

Apparently a man in New Haven, CT went to see Batman and the managers reported a Man with a Gun... he was arrested even though he had a valid CCW Permit....

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/2012/08/08/conn-man-with-gun-dark-knight-rises-arrested/UPT8oJNs4lhb1LUFqqf1VI/story.html

 

The mayor is a major shitbag though....

Mayor John DeStefano acknowledged the city has had its share of violence but has enacted reforms including new police leadership, walking beats and a task force on shootings. New Haven had 34 homicides last year and 11 so far this year.

 

Destefano said the incident should lead people to reflect on possible changes, suggesting municipalities should be allowed to limit where guns can be carried

‘‘Sometimes just because something is legal doesn’t make it right,’’ DeStefano said.

??!?!!!

 

‘‘Sometimes just because something is legal doesn’t make it right,’’

 

I feel dumberer reading that.