1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Police: 13 dead; 58 injured in Colorado theater shooting

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    You beef up security in one place (court houses, movie theaters, malls, sporting events, etc.) and people who want to 'do evil', go to a softer target. An example is our US embassies in the middle east; we built fortresses for our embassies in Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia (I haven't seen our embassy in Kuwait since Desert Storm 1); the terrorists attacked our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. It is not as easy as hiring a bunch of mall cops.
  2. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    Dec 2, 2010
    What, are we supposed to remember where you live??

    Here's another example why it's a good idea- thoughtful towards others if nothing else- to put in a location.
  3. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    Aug 28, 2006
    Yes, do nothing, that is what I have been saying all along. :nono2:

    Do the things that will actually help prevent them is what I have been saying. Focus on the early signs of porblems and quit ignoring them, denying them, medicating them, and all the other ways we sweep them under the rug. That is the only way you are going to prevent these types of horrific events.

    If you want to put security guards in theaters to keep people from using their phones, kids from carrying on, even someone from robbing the candy counter (maybe) then that's fine, have at it. But to expect it to have any imapct on a deliberate, highly planned and violent assault like this is just being impractical at best, irresponsible is a better term probably.
  4. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    Jun 6, 2009
    No one is supposed to know where I live now or have lived at any time in the past.
  5. longrider

    longrider Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    Apr 21, 2007
    Elizabeth, CO
  6. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    Actually, I thought the first suits would have been filed yesterday.
  7. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    Sep 16, 2006
    How could he mimic scenes from a movie he hadnt seen? It was opening night, after all.
  8. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Apr 17, 2003
    What took so long? Trouble finding a family member/victim to sign on?

    The defendants:
    -The theater. Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

    -Holmes' doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

    -Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."​
    I didn't know about the doctors, but the other two targets have also been targets in this thread.

    (BTW: He could have "mimicked" actions he saw in the trailers ...)
  9. dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    Jun 12, 2009
    but attended of his own free will... It's evident that the Dark Knight series was violent even before this movie was released.
  10. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    So... then your solution would seem to be remove all security from everywhere... right?

    You seem to be saying that adding security in one place moves the target to somewhere else... which implies that you think the solution is not to add security...

    So... take down all security everywhere, and we are all safer somehow?:confused:

    Yes, but I said this earlier and didn't get a good response.

    You (and some others) seem to be saying there was no way to predict this guy was going to do this even though he did suddenly start buying 1000s of rounds of ammo, riot gear, and weapons... So... in the 2 months or so of prep and planning, you're saying none of that would be suspicious enough to prevent him... and putting guards wouldn't stop him because he would have a new plan...

    So... explain to me how 15 years ago they are going to stop him from doing this last weekend. Whatever childhood "signs" he gives that maybe he will one day evolve to be a killer... he is still 15 years away from actually doing it!

    And you're saying we can't prevent it now... what were you going to do 15 years ago?

    That just doesn't make any sense to me?

    So... and I'll ask again... Do you lock your doors? Do you have a home security alarm? Why? Those things aren't even as good as having a security guard... and yet, I'm betting you have at least one of those methods of deterrent.

    Some people also have dogs and fences. But, someone who wants to get into your home is going to anyway, right? So why bother with the locks and pets and fences and alarms?

    That's the point I'm making. People like to say "nothing could be done" when they really mean "I wasn't prepared"...

    Yes, there is a pattern of escalation where IF every time they beef up security then criminals might escalate too... that is true... but again, you're left with two reactions:

    1. Do nothing. Expect that bad things will happen, but don't bother with locks or anything because you've already accepted that nothing you do will be enough so why waste any money at all trying to secure anything? You're dumb if you spend money on any form of security after asserting that security is not going to be enough.

    2. Try something. Add some security. It might not be enough to thwart everything... but the next guy might have to change his plan. At least you're trying, and not giving up.

    I think about 9/11 and the one plane that went down in Pennsylvania... the one where they started to get wind of what was going on... knew what was going to happen... and rather than let themselves be killed doing nothing, some fought and stopped that plan from hitting its target. Those people gave their lives not only to save some unknown target... but it sent a message to all future hijackers. The next time you try and take a plane, you might have to fight every passenger... and you will lose that fight. You will not hijack that plane and not make it to your target.

    The people on that plane could have said "it doesn't matter, they will just change their plan"... but they didn't.... and not only were whatever the target's lives saved that day... I strongly suspect it did force terrorists to change their plans and realize they can't do that again.

    Try something at the theater to thwart this kind of attack... and the next guy will have to change his plan. That change might be to realize he can't do it.
  11. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2006
    The one against Warner Bros will get thrown out. There's no way he could have been mimicking some of the action scene in the movie. The showing he opened fire at was the first showing. He couldn't have seen the movie let alone taken the time to plan on re-creating scenes from it.

    The one against the theater... ehhhh, might hold some water.

    Against what's his name's doctor... I haven't heard it said he was on meds for anything prescribed by any doctor, but still, really?
  12. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    No, not even close. We're going to need more security.
    You have to tighten up security, but that will shift future gunmen some place else where the security isn't as tight or nonexistent. Church, grocery stores, little league games.....
    But even guards everywhere won't prevent a 'motivated' gunman from committing the same acts.
    We're going to have to take multiple actions to prevent future horrific events like this. Better security, more controlled access to weapons, ammo and body armor and a better method to get deranged potential threats off the street.
    But it isn't going to be easy.
  13. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Nov 15, 2005
    You clearly get it.
  14. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Nov 15, 2005
    The doors on the Aurora theaters were locked too...

    I know a number of people on these forums who buy 1000s of rounds of ammo and own several guns. What magic means do you have (that no one seems to have) to predict which people legitimately buy ammo and which do not?

    as to your #1: There are gray areas, not just black and white. Locks are cost effective for many reasons. Guards and metal detectors at every entrance and exit are not. So yes lock doors but, no, do not put guards at every point of possible entry of every event or location where people gather. Think about all the places you go where more than 30 people might be present. I've been to several different types this week. (I'm not double counting restaurants for instance, that is one type.) Again, short of arming everyone with an AR-15, I can't see how every place people meet can be secured.

    As to your #2: I'm not a fan of the "We gotta do something and we gotta do it now" instant reaction. We're talking about one, single event in the past how many years of movie going? Fifty years? 75 years? This week there was a single vehicle accident that killed more people than in Aurora. In fact, in 1899 there were more automobile fatalities than there have been movie theater fatalities over that entire time. How much do you want to spend on what so far has been a once in every two lifetime event?

    I am not saying do not do anything. I am saying only do something that really makes a difference without breaking the bank. And do things that can be scaled and replicated to many situations, not just movie theaters. Remember where you've been today and where you will be tomorrow. Stop at each location and think about how many different points need to be secured to actually provide real safety in that location. Then multiply by the millions of places there are in the US.

    This is not the trivial task you imply. Because you can't just say "we gotta do something in theaters and gotta do it now." That won't work and will cost the theaters their existence faster than one event every 50 years.

  15. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Nov 15, 2005
    "Start somewhere..." For a single event that has happened once in our lives?
    One or two "mall" cops would not have been watching the exit. Remember--there where 16 theaters, each with multiple exits. That means one or two per screen. That becomes cost prohibitive...
    Sure at the midnight, sold out showings there might be enough money. But remember the theater gets ZERO dollars for the ticket sales the first 2 weeks. Only from concessions. And real security means people not just for the sold out showings but also for the showings that might only have 100 people. Or 50. Or 25.
    Ah, some insight here. Unless you've been to a theater how can you possibly propose security measures for a multiplex these days?
    Walk into and around a 30 screen multiplex. You don't have to buy a ticket and you likely can do it at a time that is fairly quiet. Look at all the doors. Every door needs to be secured with more than a lock to prevent what just happened. Remember for fire safety every door is required so you can't try eliminating doors either.

    And in the 30 plexes there are big theaters and small theaters. All hold more than 12 people so all need to be secured. But they don't all generate enough money to pay for the people necessary to secure them.

    So keep locking the doors (why are you suggesting that we don't lock them? We're not suggesting that.) But don't panic just yet either.

  16. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Until the guy walked out of one of them and propped it open so he could come back inside. Stopping that one single thing might have thwarted the whole plan.

    We're not just talking about anyone buying 1000 rounds of ammo and own guns.

    We're talking about a guy who apparently never owned a gun until 2 months ago... suddenly buys multiple guns, riot gear, and reportedly 6000 rounds of ammunition... and no indication that he even went to a gun range to practice.

    I've posted links and discussed how our government is supposedly using data mining and ISP monitoring to help them find terrorists before they do something. They are theoretically looking for just this kind of thing.

    What I would expect to happen is... a flag is raised when someone who never owned a gun suddenly buys multiple guns, lots of ammo, and riot gear. You should be able to have someone watch the guy and see... does he go to a target range or gun club? Or is he saving all that ammo?

    We watch and follow people in this country for doing far less than this guy did in the last couple of months prior to the shooting. It isn't magic... it is called paying attention.

    On a semi-related note... Several years ago I was out with my sister. I bought a few hundred dollars worth of movies at a video store, we ate dinner, and when I stopped to get gas my credit card didn't work. I called and found they had deactivated it due to "suspicious" charges since I hadn't charged that much in a single day before.

    Think about what I'm saying here... A credit card company shut down my card the same day for a new buying pattern.

    This guy suddenly buys riot gear and 6000 rounds of ammo, and buys several guns locally too... something there should have triggered someone to ask what was up.

    You're talking in absolutes, though. I never said you could 100% secure any location. That's an impossible assertion that I would never make.

    But you can do better. You find out you need to do better when something bad happens.

    IF you lock your doors and never are robbed... done deal! IF you get robbed, you have to think maybe locks weren't enough... so maybe you buy a dog or get an alarm. Get robbed again, you might think about a fence or dog/alarm whichever one you didn't get before... and so forth. You don't surely throw up your hands and say "I'll just get robbed no matter what, so why bother improving"... right?

    Or... maybe you move... because you decide that neighborhood is just not safe. That's another possible solution.

    So... in my mind the theater needs to think about improved security. What? I don't know... but something. I'm not talking knee-jerk... I'm talking evaluate the situation see what you can afford and make improvements.

    OR... maybe your theater going public will decide your theater isn't safe... and they won't buy tickets... and then you'll go out of business because you failed to respond.

    Depends how you are going to break these things down. IF you are going to say this was the only one-guy-shooting-in-a-crowded-theater event... then yeah... but it isn't the first time something in Colorado has had such an event (remember Columbine?)... and other places in the country have had shootings... so if you consider them all, then it might seem like these things are occurring closer together, just in different venues.

    What does that have to do with anything? Was it a purposeful wreck caused by someone who was trying to kill people? Then there might be a relation... but if we are talking about an accident, then I see no connection.

    Using that logic, consider the 9/11 event... 4 planes... How often does that happen? But I'm sure you wouldn't argue there was no need to improve airport and airplane security, right?

    As they say, there's always a first time... The key is to learn something and see if we can prevent the next time.

    I never said the task would be trivial. But the decision to do something is. It should be a no-brainer for people to want to do something... and the right people should already be sitting at a table somewhere discussing just what they can do to improve security.

    Where would you draw the line? How many of these events before you would deem it necessary? 2? 5? 10? Would it change your mind if you were in that theater, or someone you knew?

    You say that... but how can you say that? What would they be doing if they were not watching the theater exits?

    I've already said that some theater designs make it tougher... but others can possibly have a guard positioned in a location in the parking lot where he could watch multiple exits from a single location.

    OR... wait for it... how about a guard in a control room watching monitors and having a security camera on each exit! And that one single guard can watch 16 doors from inside... and when he sees that guy propping the door up he can go down to that door OR maybe you hire 2 guards so one can stay in the monitor room.

    Modern technology is a wonderful thing... if people use it. Security cameras are also pretty darn cheap too.

    And that's another thing... IF we narrow to this specific case... there was probably only that one movie playing... so all 16 doors wouldn't need to be guarded if the rest are locked and the theaters empty.

    I mentioned before... Dennys is open 24 hours. Go during the 11pm-5am hours and notice how they have a security guy there... not all day, but they have him at night when they expect more trouble.

    Like I said... start somewhere.

    As I've said before... IF their margins are that small... then they are doomed to go out of business anyway. I mean, if that's going to break them... their teetering on the edge anyway... and if enough people are scared and start staying home... they might go out of business due to not spending money on security.

    I can't... but neither can you or anyone else in this thread. I'm saying I know they can do something... Others are saying they can't do anything. I'm pretty sure I'm closer to the possibilities.

    I did work for a 6-plex years ago. Back then, part of my job as an Usher was actually to go into all of the 6 theaters and make sure things were ok and no disturbances. I wouldn't have been expected to thwart a criminal... but my presence in each theater made it more difficult for someone to sneak in or out. Now imagine if a security guard did that... or like I said install security cameras!

    I've asked that of the people who say that having a guard wouldn't have stopped anything because the guy would have known there was a guard and made a new plan. My question was, IF you think the guy is going to make a new plan no matter what you do... then what's the point of the lock?

    The guy thwarted the lock in this scenario anyway... he propped the door open! So that lock was ZERO effect... so why bother paying for that lock?
  17. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    Aug 28, 2006
    I tried to think of a better way to summarize my closing arguments than what has been presented so far, but I think this is the best I can do:

  18. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    Mar 20, 2010
    This would require Congress to pass legislation to monitor or to require gun/ammunition dealers to report sales to the government. Such legislation has been proposed in the past, but it has always failed. The NRA has successfully lobbied that this type of tracking would infringe on the "rights of law-abiding citizens." In other words, they don't want the government to know who is buying guns or ammunition. That is the state of the law. So this information is simply not available to the government. That situation could change, but it is unlikely given the political climate at this time.

    As for watching someone, that again is unlikely to occur. Watching someone takes a lot of manpower. It is not that easy. What you are advocating is placing someone under surveillance. It is possible to do, but then the officers surveilling this guy are pulled away from something else. It is a very expensive proposition.

    Also, something like this has the potential to go wrong. Sometimes an innocent person will be surveilled. He may be detained in the course of the investigation/surveillance.

    Americans will be up in arms if that happens. Remember, Americans want their government to serve them and prevent violence. But the media will go crazy if an innocent person falls under suspicion. This will lead to adverse publicity and anger from citizens.

    Law enforcement is a thankless job. Many law enforcements successes never receive any publicity. Americans almost never want to thank their law enforcement personnel for anything, but they will be quick to criticize.
  19. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    I have visions of the LA bank robbery years ago when the police were only armed with handguns. The two robbers where wearing body armor and the police bullets just bounced off the robbers until Swat arrived with bigger weapons.

    That is the scenario had there been mall cops there. That wasn't going to stop this from happening. Locking the door behind him? Might have stopped him. Or he might have just walked around to the front and started his shooting in the lobby.

    Ever been exposed to tear gas? I have several times (REFTRA in GTMO). Even most seasoned police officers aren't going to be able to perform normally once exposed.

    We do need to make some changes in this country. While the assault weapons ban wasn't perfect, it would have prevented him from having a 100-round clip. Why did our elected officials in DC let it expire?

    Why are the rights of a mental patient seemly more important than those going to a movie?

    We can't respond with a knee-jerk reaction to this as Tom pointed out. But we should look at all the things that allowed this to happen and see what we can do to prevent future occurrences.
  20. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    Jun 6, 2009
    He wasn't a mental patient. He was a grad student in a doctoral program and considered one of the best in his class.

Share This Page