COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Colorado shooting suspect makes bizarre first appearance in court

58 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

How much taxpayer money has to be spent on this bizarro before he's executed?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The media circus continues. What, no info on what he had for breakfast?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

In Norway they look at these kids of incidents as a win for the people. Sure they lost 90 members of their society to a deranged killer, but the fact that they didn't execute him means that society has somehow won.

I hope the US doesn't have such a self-deceiving mentality in this case.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

kinds, not kids.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Mitt Romney stressed that now was not the time to work on new gun legislation.

It never is the right time with these people. Considering the number of mass killings that occur in the US then it probably never will be the "right time".

10 ( +15 / -5 )

How much taxpayer money has to be spent on this bizarro before he's executed?

I am confused. What are you saying?

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

sourpuss Jul. 24, 2012 - 07:34AM JST Sure they lost 90 members of their society to a deranged killer, but the fact that they didn't execute him means that society has somehow won.

Do not pretend that the legal system or the death penalty can be the primary source of hope and healing. Survivors should never be falsely persuaded into believing that the outcome of a murder trial or the fate of a murderer will somehow diminish the long process of grieving and healing.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It's probably a better and cheaper idea for the AMERICAN public/taxpayers money to execute him ASAP! But I bet he's going to choose the INSANITY PLEA which then prolong the case.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

This guy is a nutjob. They need to close this case quickly. Would hate to see copycats start to admire him.

This guy is obviously acting out some Joker fantasy. Wants to see the world burn I gues.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

SimondB: Whenever there's mass killings the fanatical pro gun people always come up with their usual dismissal of any debate whatsoever. "Enforce the laws on the books now" they say as they look to weaken or repeal gun laws. "Emotions are high" Mitt says, let's not talk about it. Why in the hell not, Mitt?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

People saw him. He confessed to doing it. He's not the "accused". He is GUILTY! Why even go to trial? Just to waste taxpayer money to see what his sentencing should be? Even if they decide to execute him, when's that going to happen? Loooooooooooooooong time from now while living in prison still using taxpayer money!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Talking about more gun laws is only a band aid to a deeper problem. Sure, people might not be able to get their hands on guns to shoot each other with, but they'd still be a bunch of nutjobs out there wishing to go on some kind of violent crime spree. They would just get more creative. (e.g Sarin gas, etc.)

The real problem is why so many nutters want to kill innocent people. Focusing on gun laws would make everybody feel like progress is being made, when in reality the REAL problem is completely ignored.

Focusing on gun laws would be akin to Tokyo taking surveys on bullies without addressing the deeper problem.

If this guy fancied himself as some movie villain, he could just have easily bought some household chemicals (e.g. Japan style suicide kit) and set it up to be released in the theater.

Taking away the tools doesn't take away the intentions.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Gaijinfo - superb post. Well done.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The real problem is why so many nutters want to kill innocent people.

Totally agreed, however we need to ban Automatic Assault Weapons. America is not a land of combat zone.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

People saw him. He confessed to doing it. He's not the "accused". He is GUILTY! Why even go to trial?

Yeah, right. Mob justice: that's the way to go. And while we're at it, let's stop wasting "taxpayer money" on poor people or sick people. Let'em die.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think it's interesting that they are saying they are going to charge him with only 58 counts of attempted murder (not counting the 12 counts of murder), because that's the number of people he wounded. Just because he missed or failed to hit them doesn't mean he wasn't trying to kill them. Why wouldn't he be charged with the attempted murder of the rest of the people in the theater? It makes me wonder if somebody tried to shoot one person but missed, can they be charged with attempted murder? I suppose it probably won't matter for the trial, but I'd bet everybody there that didn't get wounded would still feel that jackass was trying to kill all of them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"The real problem is why so many nutters want to kill innocent people."

Great. So what's your answer?

And while you're at it, come with the other answer about why so many people are killed and injured by guns each year in the US.

If you don't get my point, I'll make it clearer. Religious leaders, philosophers, psychologists all try to explain why "nutters" want to kill innocent people. Actually, we can debate until the cows come home whether they are in fact "nutters", or bad people, or good people who do bad things etc, etc and then how to prevent all that.

But given, they we won't find the answer to your million dollar question tomorrow, or even next week, I think it would be wise for the "nutters" to not have easy access to guns, assault rifles, grenades etc.

It's very simple. America has too many people with too many guns.

A thousand years ago, some guy in a village somewhere probably went crazy and started shooting at the people around the fire with his slingshot. I'd prefer to take my chances against, a sling shot, or a knife than a guy with assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo.

btw, I'm a supporter of the US in most things, but when it comes to gun laws, it's like you guys have a massive blindspot.

I will say that the way the community came together and the way the police, ambulances, bomb disposal guys etc responded so quickly and efficiently was simply incredible. The simple question is - would the US be better or worse with less guns?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

It's very simple. America has too many people with too many guns.

Nail on the head.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Yasukuni, you made a very good point and I agree, however the point I think you missed is that there's also too many Americans who need guns to defend their freedums.

Also, something many Americans seem to have forgotten is that the Constitution was written at a time when the frontier needed defending.

Ain't no frontier now except the frontier of blind support of the Second Amendment that is getting broader if the stats are to be believed.

No, I don't think this gum problem is going to be solved.

The horse has bolted. The entire nation is like an armed militia and there's too many armed mutters who are only too willing to open fire at other armed nutters.

You've really got to ask questions when even ordinary folk can't go to a movie without coming out in a box. Some armed guy shot a parishioner in a church in COL earlier this month.

In church.....!

Unreal.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

In Norway they look at these kids of incidents as a win for the people. Sure they lost 90 members of their society to a deranged killer, but the fact that they didn't execute him means that society has somehow won. I hope the US doesn't have such a self-deceiving mentality in this case.

Killing him won't do anyone any good.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's time for Americans to admit that they gun laws are utterly outdated and they have utterly failed. You don't have anyone in Japan wishing that they had access to guns to protect themselves.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Americans who need guns to defend their freedums.

Freedom from what? We've already got one.

Also, something many Americans seem to have forgotten is that the Constitution was written at a time when the frontier needed defending.

Our founding fathers were very careful when they were writing the constitution. Please read the Federalist journals. It does not give any rights to own automatic assault weapon owners to kill people for no reasons. I am including one of the most recent gun laws decided by the US Supreme Court.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. . Since the massacres of Columbine HS, Virginia Tech, former congress woman Gabby Gifford and this Batman shooting, a majority of Americans want to ban Automatic Assualt Weapons entirely from society today. This is not a solution to the problem, but we can start from here.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No matter how people try to rationalize it GUNS are just as much as a problem as the nuts who use them. Yes this guy was a wacko who wanted to kill as many people as possible and the easy access to guns gave him that. Could he have been more creative and used some other means to kill people that is a possiblity BUT an automatic weapon is the quickest and easiest means possible to kill people without accidentally killing yourself in the process. The police in any situation would respond in a matter or minutes and nothing aside from a gun can give u instant results. Gun Laws have to be addressed in the US.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Does he have some kind of Asperger syndrome, I wonder?

Has he been on medication, and has he recently been taken off, I wonder?

These two factors alone might go some way to explaining the why.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Oh, and talking about numbers of attempted murder, if he bought 6,300 rounds of ammunition, I guess we can conclude that he was hoping to kill at least 6,300 people.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

He should have been erased from the moment he was caught. Now the media circus has glorified this mess and made him a martyr. Just sad for the victims and their families.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Yasukuni

Great. So what's your answer?

Don't have one. But a complete respect for private property and a non-intrusive government would be a good start.

I know that saying "make all guns illegal!" makes people feel good, and makes it feel like it's a quick and easy solution, it's much more complicated than that.

More and more gun laws have been piling on for years, and they haven't had much effect. Besides, the NRA has a huge influence, and nobody has much political will to campaign on more gun laws. That would be political suicide. So calling for more gun laws is both naive, and impractical.

Also, seeing is how the majority of gun related crimes is in poor areas where there's plenty of gang activity, that would be a good place to start.

Perhaps removing the minimum wage (which would promote full employment) reducing welfare (so those who don't need it would be forced to work) and completely legalizing and regulating drugs (so that criminals would shoot each other down over drug turf) could be a step in the right direction.

Besides, the VAST majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are with handguns, not automatic rifles.Actually, knives are the second weapon of choice over guns other than handguns. So chasing after automatic weapons is a waste of time.

But taking away people's guns is really not possible, nor will it solve the underlying problem of poverty and gang related crime.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Why try and understand this guy?

"He's totally nuts," is about as technical as you need to get.

I still cannot understand why it is so easy to obtain weapons like these in a country that bills itself as being an advanced nation.

And I still cannot understand why every second American movie - even cartoons - includes mass slaughter and huge damage to property.

Does no one connect the two?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The Founders also saw fit to include an amendment process, which BTW has been employed numerous times.

Let's say, just for argument's sake, that all guns were one day banned. What would that mean? OR even that all legally-owned guns were required to be kept in the state-funded armory (yet another tax boondoggle). What would the result be? A. Law-abiding people would comply. B. Those who refused to comply would then become criminals. C. Criminals, who are already banned from gun possession, would still be armed, and would still continue to use them and perhaps more so knowing that the compliant would now be even less able to defend themselves.

Sounds like a good idea to you?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Two excellent posts today!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The federal government can't even , won't even secure the borders. And hundreds of illegal immigrants stream across it every day. Many of them come armed. There are millions of guns in the country. The non-Americans here have no idea.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sorry, my post was for

gaijinfo

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let me quote Eduardo B in the Economist:

*One natural right that comes easily to conservatives in America is an utter lack of intellectual context and honesty when they refer to natural rights. In their self-absorbed worship of American "exceptionalism" they mistake their fabricated ideology for meaningful intellectual rigor. It is nothing of the kind, of course.

Having misread the second amendment and then created an elaborate justification for the obsession with firearms that denotes right-wing fanaticism, they claim all sorts of ludicrous justification for the carrying and use of guns in a variety of public places. Their greatest fantasy is impromptu gunfights in which miscreants are made harmless by citizens with firearms. That identifying the so-called "good" guys from "bad" guys is essentially impossible in such circumstances seems outside their conceptual abilities.

The right to bear arms seems a psychological anxiety without satiation. America has become the most dangerous democracy in the world for ordinary citizens to live in, with many thousands dying each year from firearms.*

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@gaijininfo and sushisake.

I totally agree that people have to ask why this happens. And I agree with the dismay that things that were unthinkable before are now happening - violence and theft in churches etc.

While a lot of people can't wait for the shooter to be killed, I'm interested in finding out as much about what was going on in his head, and whether anyone had any idea that he was planning this.

What amazes me is how Alex Jones and people can start up weird conspiracy theories about this.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Why try and understand this guy? "He's totally nuts," is about as technical as you need to get.

But when did he go "nuts" and how do you identify people around you like him?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

One natural right that comes easily to conservatives in America is an utter lack of intellectual context and honesty when they refer to natural rights.

Their greatest fantasy is impromptu gunfights in which miscreants are made harmless by citizens with firearms. That identifying the so-called "good" guys from "bad" guys is essentially impossible in such circumstances seems outside their conceptual abilities.

This English Edward B fellow might want to look up the words "Lexington and Concord" before offering his elite opinion on the subject of taking away citizens arms in a conservative "intellectual context".

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The cops should have just shot him.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Not a whole lot of respect for the "rule of law" in this thread. Don't worry, guys. He won't get off. Let the system do what it is intended to do.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@sailwind,

What militia did James Holmes belong to, or the shooters in the thousand of homicides each year?

Why must this slaughter continue to be within US society's acceptable levels of violence? Why must life be so cheap? Why must the unarmed majority of US citizens have to live in fear of a minority's gun fetish?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Tom Webb, Quote: The cops should have just shot him.

The bullets would have bounced off.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Time to open the doors of Arkham Asylum and put this Joker away. This seems to be his comic book dream.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What militia did James Holmes belong to, or the shooters in the thousand of homicides each year?

Answer: He did not belong to any militia and the vast majority of shooters that commit homicides each year in the U.S knew their victims beforehand and it is mainly a domestic crime or related to some beef with a co-worker or neighbor.

Why must this slaughter continue to be within US society's acceptable levels of violence?

Answer: The United States was conceived and born with the idea that a well armed civilian force was warranted, encouraged and protected from a Government that would try and take away the means of the populace to defend itself. The battle of Lexington and Concord the very birth of the revolution in America in which the very first blood was shed was because.........General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists' military stores in Concord, some 20 miles west of Boston.

The British wanted to disarm the Colonists and take away their weapons and was met with the birth of a new nation instead. It is America's collective history and to lightly toss that aside from the American cultural, historical perspective with the concept to just ban guns altogether does not fit well with America's historical and cultural heritage or legacy of defending ones individual freedom from a Government that would take that away by disarming a populace.

Why must life be so cheap?

I have no good answer for that. man is a cruel beast underneath it all and capable of committing genocide on a national scale such as Nazi Germany of Pol Pot in Cambodia and capable on an individual level such as this fool in the article.

Why must the unarmed majority of US citizens have to live in fear of a minority's gun fetish?

Answer: The majority does not live in fear as it understands and has lived the shared American cultural historical experience.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the States (each local police chief decides who gets a license & each gun requires a separate license). Camden, Trenton & Newark have some of the highest crime rates in the Nation. While the papers don't say, I suspect most of the guns used aren't obtained legally or used by licensed individuals. Home invasions (thieves just enter the home when it's occupied) continue to rise- what's the stop them knowing the likliehood of an armed occupant is pretty low?

If you want to enact stricter gun laws, make sure they're tied to stricter penalties for those that violate the laws or commit crimes while armed.

And be prepared for more bombings in the U.S. as deranged individuals look to the Middle East for more creative ways to kill lots of people....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sailwind

Great post, very eloquently written.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I wonder if there are any statistics out there? For the 8000 or so people killed in the US by guns in the last year, what %age were illegally murdered and what% were as a result of legal "self-defence"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too bad the good police of Colorado did not just shoot and kill this evil bastard, instead of wasting time, $$, taxes on this piece of dog crap with a bad fashion sense for coloring his color like something out of The Wizard of Oz, oh and his parentso are just finding out the COLORADO does have THE DEATH PENALTY, oh cry me a river of tears! Let this bastard hang ASAP! I want to see his idiotic parents try and ask for forgiveness from the victims and all of their families. If this idiot fool thinks he can get away with pleading insanity, good luck, he can not be that crazy, he planned all of these crimes, and booby trapped the hell out of his apartment to kill police etc..so he is just sick, twisted but he knows what he did and needs to pay with his life ASAP!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Besides, the VAST majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are with handguns, not automatic rifles.Actually, knives are the second weapon of choice over guns other than handguns. So chasing after automatic weapons is a waste of time.

No, we still do not need Automatic Assault Weapons regardless. We can ban this proactively. We need to think ahead of game before these guns are sold to suicide bombers in US.

Also you should know a majority of Automatic Assault Weapons are coming from China and Russia to US. They are laughing to the banks while we are struggling with this problem. They are secretly and intentionally destroying US society. They love it.. It is time to wake up to learn their secret motives behind it. . It takes our government to make them illegal to export into US. Please wake up, America!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Real men don't need guns to make them think they are "powerful". Only weak cowards like this licensed gun nut.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Yasukuni:

I will say that the way the community came together and the way the police, ambulances, bomb disposal guys etc responded so quickly and efficiently was simply incredible.

I agree. Unfortunately, it's probably because there have been so many other chances to practice and get the response right.

I won't add any comments to the "debate" about America & guns. It's all been said before. Nothing will change and the killing will go on. Not just in sudden, insane, sprees like this current one, but in the everyday lives of average people in cities and towns all over the United States. It's sad and sick, and a disgrace that our politicians and people seem to have no will to change.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Our challenge is not the laws, our challenge is people who, obviously, are distracted from reality....

People distracted from reality... That's about 95% of people in 1st World countries.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The majority does not live in fear as it understands and has lived the shared American cultural historical experience.

Sorry to disagree. Most of the Americans I have met have been quite nice. However, they tend to be much more paranoid about safety or the lack of it than I have experienced among citizens of other countries. I don't think they even notice they are doing it, it is so ingrained.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Great, I am please to make an announcement that Mr. Bloomberg is now playing a front role crusading a gun control. If Romney is smart, he needs to consider Mr. Bloomberg as a VP running mate. If republicans and Tea Party are moving away from NRA, many undecided voters ill shift to republicans. Some backward thinkers with NRA need to do a lot of growing up to catch up with other forward thinkers.They are nothing but a "Red Neck".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" If Romney is smart, he needs to consider Mr. Bloomberg as a VP running mate."

Romney was for gun control as Gov. of Massachusetts.

Recently at a speech to the NRA he's against it.

Same as ever.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Not every citizen of the US has the desire or need to own a gun. As someone brought up earlier, if there were so many gun happy folk in the US then why didn't anyone shoot back during this incident? Because there are a lot of people that don't desire to purchase a weapon (myself included).

Gaijeninfo's post hit the nail on the head though, as the suspect (hard to call him that...) has shown he does have the same capability to create a sophisticated bomb (with ammunition shrapnel to boot) and could have made it so more people would have been harmed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's quite obvious this tragedy would inspire a debate like this. A number of facts here. 1-7% of homicides are caused by assault weapons, 3-4% for rifles in general. The vast majority of gun-related homicides are committed with handguns . In 2005, handguns made up about 75% of homicides. Gun crimes are actually decreasing, which may be a shock to some of you. A huge number of these gun-related homicides and crimes in general involve gangs. Gangs are responsible for an average of 48% of violent crime, and 90% in certain jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Texas.

The problem here isn't rifles, or assault rifles. The main problem is gangs that use handguns. If you want to severely reduce gun crime, get rid of gangs that use handguns (even though it's not easy, knowing the real problem is the first step). I spent a lot of time gathering these statistics to convince you people who are generally intelligent, not to be irrational when it comes to guns, and to approach this issue with an open mind. I have never fired a gun, or even held one, nor do I live in the United States in case you were wondering.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tuntematon Sotilas Jul. 25, 2012 - 05:25AM JST Gangs are responsible for an average of 48% of violent crime, The problem here isn't rifles, or assault rifles. The main problem is gangs that use handguns. If you want to severely reduce gun crime, get rid of gangs that use handguns (even though it's not easy, knowing the real problem is the first step).

The term should be "gun related violence" because people, not guns, for one reasons or another, have motives which motivate them to use guns as problem solving tools. If guns did not exist - another tool would be used. If we could "magically" get rid of all of the guns, like in Japan, people would probably use knives over one another. Would we then call it "knife violence" and outlaw knives? Problem in the U.S. is the lucrative price of drugs results in enormous drug profits which motivate users to commit crimes, often using guns, in order to get money for drugs. These drug profits also motivate drug dealers to kill one another over drug sales territories or "turf" and other drug related business disputes as well. In a Legal business disputes are settled in courts of law and illegal business disputes are settled with guns, tools of the trade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sfjp330

I agree completely. Guns are useful for gangs, but if they were suddenly erased, there would still be plenty of murders with knives. In 2005, about 2800 were killed with guns other handguns and about 2100 were killed with knives. And even if as you said the guns were gone, these knife crimes would surge exponentially. The only thing that would be more difficult to do is these mass shootings such as this one. I seriously doubt homicides or crime in general would decrease, evidence points to higher crime when there are tighter gun laws.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Most of the Americans I have met have been quite nice. However, they tend to be much more paranoid about safety or the lack of it than I have experienced among citizens of other countries

Have to agree. Went to Thailand a few years back with a bunch of people, including a bloke from California. I'll never forget his plaintive "They're going to kill us!!!" when we got in a minor dispute with the management over a bar tab. Hysterical and paranoid.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites