Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Reports of shooting at Batman Premier.

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Reports of shooting at Batman Premier. (Page 8)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 17 18

Author

Topic: Reports of shooting at Batman Premier.

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 07-26-2012 12:37 PM

Don't beat yourself up about it Mike. You did fine. If she thinks it's going happen at any or all theatres she's a nut case herself. But I admit your building security talk may have been better. However, I wonder if that would have made her think you are concerned about it happening at your place.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-26-2012 12:52 PM

Advances in weapons technology are irrelevant to the Second Amendment. The founders had the most advanced weapons known at the time and could not conceive of what weapons would become. The type of weapon, whether it be a sharp stick or an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, has no bearing on the intent or meaning of the Second Amendment.

In the time leading up to the Revolution, the King of England tried to restrict free speech in the colonies and, in order to further that goal, tried to confiscate their weapons. It is this second act which tipped the colonies into revolution.

The Second Amendment was written specifically to put our collective feet down and say, "Government, butt out! We mean it!"

If the colonists had breech loading, semi-automatic, cartridge rifles that could shoot out a pig's eyeball at 1,000 yards they would have included those in the meaning of the Second Amendment, too.

Again, I will say that this kid, Holmes, was acting out a fantasy and the type of weapon was irrelevant to that fantasy. He had gas bombs and incendiary devices and he used them and he booby trapped his home with them. If he could have had a "death ray" he would have used it.

People who are afraid to go out in public places because they fear crazy people with guns are, themselves, acting crazy. The danger of being killed remains the same whether you are at home or at the movies. You could be run over by a truck on your way to the movies. You could be struck by lightning. Your car could fall into a sinkhole... OR you could simply keel over and die for no externally apparent reason.

All of these things and many more happen all over the world, thousands and thousands of times per day. Few news crews hover over the scenes of these accidents. Headlines don't scream "Death and Desctuction!"

This was an individual act committed by a single disturbed individual. It has little or no relationship to any acts that came before or after. It is a fallacy to think it does.

That does not mean that people shouldn't be on guard in case bad things happen or in case bad people do bad things. We should. A little bit of fear is healthy. It makes people want to be more aware of their surroundings.

However, government restrictions on people's lives is NOT going to solve anything. I propose that it's actually HARMFUL to the government in that it uses up scarce resources that should be devoted to other things.

So, in a roundabout way, the Bill of Rights not only protects the people from the government, it also protects the government from itself.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-26-2012 01:02 PM

Yeah, I think the guy was simply bound and determined to kill a bunch of people. If he hadn't used firearms he might have resorted to another tactic. It's possible for someone to poison a lot of people if he gains access to the food and drink supply. He could have driven a truck bomb into the theater auditorium and maybe even do so via remote control. Even if armed with just a knife or sword he could have killed numerous people if adept with such weapons.

Basically there's no way to absolutely prevent such things like this from happening. We try to do things to cut down the odds from it happening. But there's only so much that can be done without all of us living out our lives at home in a cocoon.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 07-26-2012 01:04 PM

Well put Randy! The second amendment is clear and you can't separate the home protection from the rest. The Japanese did not invade the main land of America because and this a not exact but from memory and very close anyway "there would be a gun pointed at them from behind every tree in addition to the military.

Bobby with his knowledge of chemicals it could have been a gas strike just as easy Killing is Killing and that was what he wanted. Apparently the 100 round clip jammed on so he switched to the shot gun. 100 round barrel clips are prone to that. They look cool and that is about all.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-26-2012 01:19 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Basically there's no way to absolutely prevent such things like this from happening. We try to do things to cut down the odds from it happening. But there's only so much that can be done without all of us living out our lives at home in a cocoon.

But, then, a meteor could fall out of the sky and crush you to death as you hide in your cocoon!

[Wink]

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 07-26-2012 02:04 PM

For Oklahoma right now the danger is a massive earth quake. :-) no kiddin a massive earth quake.

| IP: Logged

Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 07-26-2012 08:50 PM

The one thing I have been curious about is I wonder what the third part of his plan was? He rigged up his apartment and left his front door ajar connected to a trip wire. He had a timer on his stereo to go off 20 minutes before his attack so that extremely loud Techno music would start playing with the expectation that someone would open up his front door triggering an explosion. The point of which, beyond killing a bunch of people at his apartment complex, was to distract police so that he could shoot up the theater. But I am wondering if later we are going to find out that he also had a third target in mind after the theater since he did not expect the police to show up so fast and he didn't plan on his rife jamming.

As an aside, initial reports where that we was cooperating with the police by telling them that his apartment was booby trapped. I am going to bet that he wasn't cooperating but instead he bragged something to the effect "You know that apartment that blew up, that was mine" and thus inadvertently tipped off police that his apartment was wired.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-26-2012 10:05 PM

He was trying to kill all the people in the apartment complex by playing LOUD TECHNO MUSIC, which no one could disarm because the apartment was booby trapped.

| IP: Logged

Peter Howard
Film Handler

Posts: 44
From: Forster, NSW, Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 07-27-2012 01:07 AM

quote: Ron Funderburg
Well put Randy! The second amendment is clear and you can't separate the home protection from the rest.

Why? Seems to me it's readily seperate-able.
The law in Australia is that if someone's invading your home and threatening you and/or your family THEN you have a form of legal protection to use appropriate force. But if you're just being carjacked, you dont have the right to pull a gun and blow them away..... just give up the car dammit, and let the cops handle it.

quote: Ron Funderburg
The Japanese did not invade the main land of America because and this a not exact but from memory and very close anyway "there would be a gun pointed at them from behind every tree in addition to the military

Off topic:

The Japanese didnt invade the mainland because the supply lines would have been impossible to maintain! To ever consider doing so, they had to knock out Hawaii and Midway first.

The overall tactic was to try and remove America's ability to wage a naval war against them whilst Japan was busy scooping up what resources they could. If Japan had a full year of free reign in the Pacific, they may have been able to build a perimeter strong enough to repel the Allies. As it is, they only ended up with about 5 months of time before the Battle Of The Coral Sea.

Failing to sink the US carriers sunk the plan, pardon the pun.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-27-2012 01:53 AM

Any law abiding citizen in the U.S. has the right to use whatever reasonable force is necessary to stop another person from hurting them, their family or another person in their normal sphere of influence, up to and including the use of deadly force.

You don't have to make the distinction whether it's in your home, in your car or even just walking down the street. You have the right to proceed, safely, in your own lawful business wherever you are. You have the right to do whatever is reasonably necessary to protect yourself as you proceed in your own lawful business. If another person who would harm you has to die in order for you to protect your right to safety, that's an unfortunate consequence of his own actions, not my problem.

This, in no way, means that people can shoot each other without cause. There are some very specific rules as to what constitutes a threat and what are reasonable means to defend against that threat. Some of these rules are codified in law. Some of them are Common Law. (Pennsylvania is a commonwealth.) Some rules are just plain common sense. If you don't consider the "Rules of Engagement," as it were, you could end up in jail or, even if you are eventually cleared of wrongdoing in a court of law, you could be in for a lot of legal scrutiny and headaches.

It doesn't matter whether somebody breaks into your house or tries to steal your car. You may assume that person means to do you harm and you have the right to act accordingly.

This Holmes character is a perfect example. He was an unreasonable person, Hell-bent on destruction. No amount of talking or reasoning would have stopped him from doing what he did. The only thing that would have stopped him was force.

Can you honestly say, "Oh, it's just a movie theater. There's no need to defend yourself in a movie theater."?

This does not mean that shooting him would have been right under all circumstances. I'm only saying that people have the right to do what they believe is necessary to protect themselves.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-27-2012 09:01 AM

quote: Peter Howard
But if you're just being carjacked, you dont have the right to pull a gun and blow them away..... just give up the car dammit, and let the cops handle it.

This is assuming a thief wanting to take your vehicle away from you is going to be polite about it. I can cite car robbery cases right here in Lawton as well as Oklahoma City where the thieves murdered the vehicle owner as part of the plan. A robbery victim is also a potential witness. Certain robbers are more than willing to kill either to eliminate the potential witness or kill just for the thrill of doing so.

Unfortunately the world has many ugly sides to it. I'd much rather have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.

IMHO, the US and its individual states have plenty of gun control laws. I don't think we need new laws; rather, the existing ones just need to be better enforced.

Additionally, personal responsibility plays a huge roll in all areas of life, including the use of firearms. I think anyone who is interested in owning a firearm should well versed in the rules of safety in handling a firearm as well as the rules of self defense.

Oklahoma is one of a number of states that has both "make my day" and "stand your ground" laws. Unfortunately too many citizens in this state think that gives them free license to do whatever when confronted with a threat. Wrong. Regular "Joe Six-pack" citizens are subject to the same rules police have to follow when using deadly force. The language in the Oklahoma Self Defense Act merely better shields a crime victim from criminal and civil prosecution when forced to seriously harm or kill someone trying to commit a harmful criminal act against them.

A pharmacist from Oklahoma City found out about this the hard way. He's doing time for first degree murder by finishing off one of two men who tried robbing his store. He wounded one man, who was unarmed, in the initial gunfight and chased the other guy who was armed outside the store. The pharmacist came back inside and saw the wounded man on the floor. He walked back to his office, reloaded his pistol, came back to the wounded man and shot him a few more times. All this was caught on the store's security video system. Many people in Oklahoma think the pharmacist should not have been convicted of first degree murder, or even charged in the first place. Like it or not, the pharmacist committed murder.

The Oklahoma Self Defense Act does NOT give anyone the explicit right to actually kill someone who is a threat. The death of a home invader should only be incidental, not intentional. Police are trained to shoot to stop not shoot to kill.

If the intruder is still alive after you neutralized his threat you do not have any right to finish him off. If you wanted to kill him you should have shot with better accuracy in the first place. At least the Oklahoma Self Defense Act would provide some protection from the intruder's lawyers bankrupting you in a civil action.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-27-2012 09:43 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The Oklahoma Self Defense Act does NOT give anyone the explicit right to actually kill someone who is a threat. The death of a home invader should only be incidental, not intentional.

Pennsylvania was formerly known as a "Make My Day" state but the new law is called the "Castle Doctrine." It basically says that when you are faced with an intruder in your home, you have the right to assume that the person intends to do you harm.

This does not mean that you have the right to shoot anybody who comes into your house. For instance, what if your neighbor went out drinking one night, came home drunk and walked into your house by mistake? The homeowner has the right to defend his home but he has the responsibility to take reasonable steps to determine what that threat is before acting.

Some of the questions that will be asked in the aftermath of any home defense shooting will be tough to answer:
How did the person get in?
Did you try to tell him to leave?
Did you have a means of escape?
Did you warn the person?
Was the intruder trying to flee?

There will be questions about disparity of size. A 250 lb. male intruder vs. a 125 lb. female homeowner will be looked on with a more favorable eye than if the roles were reversed.

There will be questions regarding escalation of force. Was there a physical confrontation or did you simply blow the guy away in cold blood?

There will be questions about the weapon used. Was it an AK-47 or was it Grandfather's shotgun?

These questions are oversimplified but they shed light on what might happen if the unfortunate situation ever occurs. The Castle Doctrine was never meant to be construed as permission to kill. It was only meant to lay out general conditions under which defense of life and property may be carried out.

People who think that the Castle Doctrine or other Self Defense Acts give people the "right to kill" are sorely mistaken.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-28-2012 01:30 AM

I'm a little shocked to see a comedian has joked about the shooting already.

Warning - easily offended people, don't click on this link.

Skip to 0:15 if you want to bypass the annoying intro.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 07-28-2012 04:37 AM

The quickest way to get back in the spotlight after you've been out of it for a very long time is to be "tasteless" about a recent tragedy in a very public place. I think I had actually forgotten about Dane Cook before today.

As for the Second Amendment, we're never going to solve this thing for the same reason we have so many other issues in this country. Money. The makers of the AR-15/M16 service rifle and their buddies in the NRA don't care about the damage their rifles can cause in non-military/non-law enforcement situations. They only care about making as much money as possible. The people who operate these companies only care about how little these death machines cost to make and how much profit they can make. As long as profit margins and stock prices are the motivating force in business, this will never change. You'll hear BS rhetoric about individual rights, as if an individual really needs a service rifle that can fire up to 800 rounds per minute half a mile per second. Joe Six-Pack doesn't need a rifle with direct impingement firing, but it sure is fun to shoot that f--ker at paper targets at a firing range. And let's not go in to the Culture of Fear perpetuated to keep gun sales a'flowin'.

On the other side, we got people who don't understand how the Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment for modern times, trying to tell the rest of us what a bunch of horse-riding wig-wearing aristocrats were thinking two hundred and thirty-five years ago.

Guns are fun. So are fireworks and Christopher Nolan Batman movies, which have more explosions than any other movies ever made. 99% of average ordinary Americans have no legitimate need for a gun. They aren't hunting for their own food and they aren't defending our country from invading wannabe Saxons. But we'll never have the dialogue we need to have about this topic, since it's too impassioned and too subjective.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-28-2012 05:15 AM

quote: Brad Miller
I'm a little shocked to see a comedian has joked about the shooting already.

Your post confuses me. You say comedian but instead you link us to Dane Cook.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 17 18

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.