[HTML1]

“The suspect, believed to be the lone gunman, is in police custody. KUSA reports that the suspect kicked down an emergency door at the theater, threw in some type of a smoke bomb and when moviegoers started to run, he began shooting,” foxnews.com reports. “Witnesses say they heard a series of explosions and up to 20 gunshots after the scene grew chaotic. About 100 witnesses were taken to a local high school to be questioned by police. Police, ambulances and emergency crews swarmed on the [Aurora Century 16] theater after frantic 911 calls around 12:30 a.m. local time, officials said. The suspect reportedly fired shots inside the theater and fled to the parking lot and was confronted by police already at the theater for crowd control.” [click here for live streaming coverage from KUSA)

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

90 COMMENTS

  1. Honestly, when I hear about things like this, I can’t help but wonder if it’s a gun grabber taking one for the team to justify infringing on our rights.

    • Honestly. Seriously.

      You think your political opponents would risk their own death, spend the rest of their life in jail, and KILL FOURTEEN PEOPLE just to take away your guns?

      That’s one of the most self-centered and foolish comments I have EVER read. And I’ve seen a lot of silly stuff.

      You’re not that important.

      (And before you call me a “gungrabber”, I own 8 guns, I’ve had a CCW for 16 years, and I worked with the NVCDL to pass “shall issue” in Virginia in the 90’s.)

      • Risk their own death, probably not. However, as Fast & Furious should illustrate, they have no problem with the slaughter of innocents– the only thing that could have come of that travesty– to further their agenda.

        Never underestimate a deranged mind, especially when it thinks it knows better than you.

        • Seriously?

          You guys are off your rocker. Such self-importance (“THIS IS ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEEEEEE and what’s important to MEEEEEEEEE!”!) is bordering on pathological.

          That kind of comment is indefensible.

      • You think your political opponents would risk their own death, spend the rest of their life in jail, and KILL FOURTEEN PEOPLE just to take away your guns?

        Absolutely. And also why I said “take one for the team”. These people are rabid fanatics who willingly armed known murderers in Mexico to justify going after gun owners in the US, is it really so hard to think that one of them might do something like this to promote their cause? How is a gun grabber going on a shooting spree to further the gun control agenda any less plausible than a Muslim fanatic going on a shooting (or suicide bombing) spree to push further their religious agenda?

    • You’re expressing your fear and insecurity. F&F approved by Obama and Holder probably had increased domestic and international gun control as an additional goal to arming the cartels. This Colorado shooting was most likely not done by a gun control nut.

      If an armed citizen shot and stopped a violent lunatic and thus saved innocent people, and then a gun control nut claimed that it was all a setup by the pro gunners what would you say about such a claim?

  2. This is why i deal with redbox, i get my movie for $1 go home and enjoy. In PA movie theaters prohibit firearms. This guy was hardcore he had tear gas and everything smh…

    • Yea, the firearms ban in movie theaters seems to be working out fine for them. Not a single law abiding citizen in that place was able to step up and stop this guy….or even at the very least, defend their own life.

      • That’s what I always lament after something like this. Why couldn’t there have been just one righteous armed citizen in that movie theater?

        • 9-11, countless school shootings, and other tragedies could all be stopped short of the massacres they were if this nation hasn’t turned into the herd of sheep that it is.

    • There is no law in Pennsylvania that prohibits carrying in a movie theater.

      Of course businesses are free to make their own rules, and as TTAG has reported Cinemark (who owns hundreds of theaters nationwide) is one of those businesses that has chosen to designate themselves a “gun free zone”.

      I go to a local independently-owned theatre that has no signage prohibiting firearms, and I always carry concealed.

  3. Please look to theis forum for all the predictable responses from gun nuts.:
    1. I bet it was a gun grabber.
    2. Now Obama will try to take our guns away.
    3. If everyone had been carrying, this wouldn’t have happened.

    Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

    1. You can argue that not all gun nuts are violent, but you can’t argue that every gun nut is nonviolent. That dog won’t hunt.
    2. Obama isn’t going to take away your guns. Get over it.
    3. In Colorado, you can carry guns into movies unless they have a metal detector. Odds are that dozens of people in the movie were packing. No one got a shot off.

    This is how guns work. No one had a clean shot at the guy except for people in his line of fire. Anyone else who had drawn their gun would have become a suspect.

    These types of crimes are part of the American landscape, and always will be. You can try to shift the blame to other people, but the fact of the matter is that gun owners need to be policed just as much as non-gun owners.

    Is this an argument to confiscate guns? Absolutely not.

    Is this an argument to regulate guns? Absolutely.

      • Q is correct, if we pass enough useless gun laws then the criminals may obey them. Anyone who believes that any silly gun ban will ever stop a criminal doesn’t have a clue.

        • We can’t ever ban guns in the U.S, but we can certainly make them a lot harder to get. We can crack down on 30-round magazines pretty easily.

          Or, alternatively, we can just let every half-wit in America carry around a glock with 50 rounds. That way, every time a car backfires, 20 or 30 people will get killed in the crossfire.

    • I completely disagree with “3. In Colorado, you can carry guns into movies unless they have a metal detector. Odds are that dozens of people in the movie were packing. No one got a shot off.”. Law abiding citizens will respect a theatre’s wishes for them to not carry in their establishment. Thus making victims out of would be spree stoppers.

      “This is how guns work. No one had a clean shot at the guy except for people in his line of fire.”

      In a theatre, at least all that I have been in, the seats are arranged where everyone can see to the front row/exits. Everyone in that place could get a clean shot since only a loon would run toward the assailant.

      “Anyone else who had drawn their gun would have become a suspect.”

      This may be true, but when the smoke settles, ballistics would clear the confusion. If I were in this situation, and an officer has drawn on me, I would follow instructions that the officer gives, and allow the process to take it’s course. The BG in this situation, if caught in the act, probably wouldn’t and would be perforated for his non-compliance.

    • “Is this an argument to regulate guns? Absolutely.”
      ——
      Because we all know that criminals will follow regulations. That’s just what they do; they always respect regulations, rules, and laws.

      The sad fact is this: there is no law you could make that would disarm criminals. If you can think of one, please post it here.

    • Thanks for signing up, Low budget Dave, and preaching to us about gun regulations. One thing is for certain, unarmed defenseless people get killed no matter where they are. Armed people have the means to defend themselves. I am not going to live in a country where I depend on the system for protection when there are so many dangerous people the system can’t deal with.

    • @ low budget:
      That’s quite a bit of armcharing on your part. But until more information comes out, you and the “gun nuts” are neither right nor wrong. I’ll say this though: The man with the gun decides whether to give death or mercy to the unarmed. I would rather have a gun so that I may have the say in the matter, instead of hoping for mercy from the gunman.

    • “Odds are that dozens of people in the movie were packing. No one got a shot off. ”

      I’d be surprised if anyone in the theater were carrying. Those of us who carry ourselves tend to overestimate just how common such a thing is and assume that we’re surrounded by people “packing heat”, but the reality is that it’s pretty rare.

      Even most people who do posses a carry license don’t carry most of the time.

    • Hey Dave, this theater had a “no guns” policy. It was a utopian gun-free zone.

      Comment?

      Didn’t think so.

      • However, we can certainly argue that most every gun-grabber is projecting their own violent nature. Just look at all the fears, outlandish claims, and horrifying imagery they perceive everyone else to do if they had guns. Classic psychological projection. I feel safer at a gun show than I ever would in the company of Brady loons and their cult members.

        I also love his argument that Obama won’t take away our guns because…”He won’t, get over it.” Classic gun-grabber “because I say so” mentality.

    • it’s my understanding that he had retreated to the parking lot before the first cop got there. when they showed up he gave up. this goblin wanted to live to get his 15 minutes with cnn. given his desire to live even return fire from a mouse gun may have driven him out. we’ll never know for sure. how effective the response could have been, i don’t know. but some of us have actually trained to fight in tear gas and low lifgt, courtesy of our rich uncle sam. unfortunately the very definition of a law abiding citizen is that we follow the rules, even the stupid check your guns at the door rules.

      • “but some of us have actually trained to fight in tear gas and low lifgt, courtesy of our rich uncle sam.”

        Really, what training course teaches you to shoot under the effects of tear gas? I thought they just went in to a tent full of it, to learn how to don and clear a gas mask?

        • that’s what they do to all recruits to show them their equipment works. there’s more advanced levels of training to include gas and flashbangs for some people.you would be amazed at how well you can function with just a little training and experience. and as i said, i believe this man wanted to survive to getr out his twisted message. even haphazard return fire might have been enough to drive him out.

        • Also pepper spray and mace, I actually have developed a good resistance to CS from years of exposure to that crap.

  4. 3 Things

    1) It would have been very difficult for any one that was armed to take action against the shooter with all of the chaos and in the dark, unless the shooter was standing right in front of you. I know there are many who read this site that will say what they would have done, but no one knows what they will really do until they are in the situation.

    2) My prayers and condolences go out to those affected.

    3) I know we are all waiting to see the profile on the person who did this. Whatever the case is, he is sick!

  5. I have been attempting to watch the national news organizations. I have heard “AK” type shotgun on two different channels. What happened is terrible, but the last thing I need to see is Michael Moore make another movie about boycotting K-Mart because they sell ammo. It will be interesting to see when the dust settles how many people will ask what might have happened if some of the movie goers were armed.

  6. “3. If everyone had been carrying, this wouldn’t have happened, , , , wrong”

    That true. I can’t say I would have drawn, with mass of panic people and gas in the bldg.

    I is reported he may have had a bullet proof vest, making the whole self-defense thing most likely a suicide mission.

    Then again, I carry a gun for self defense and have no obligation to risk my life.

    Without being in the situation myself, can’t ever say what I would do, but making it to the nearest exit is certainly a viable option.

  8. Since this is the Truth About Guns we should not shy away from truths that we don’t like.

    First Truth: If the antis had their way events like this would not happen on a regular basis.
    Second Amendment advocates should be honest and admit this. Demented individuals usually don’t know how to get in touch with gun traffickers. In a black market sellers are more reticent to deal with people who “nobody sent.” While these kinds of mass shootings make the headlines they account for maybe 1% of the murders that happen in the US every year. The real question how many more murders, rapes, assaults and violent home invasions would we have if we banned private citizens from owning guns? The small number of high visibility crimes should not drive public policy. I think we can safely argue that in a free society bad things will always happen but on the margin guns save more live than they take lives.

    Second truth: Concealed or open carry would not have prevented this from happening. The incident took place in a darkened theater. The shooter had body armor. An armed citizen would not have stopped him. Having a gun is a solution to many if not most self defense situation but it is not a solution to every situation.

    I am not advocating any restrictions on gun ownership. The bad guys will still get their guns from entrenched trans-national criminal organizations while regular citizens will just become easier targets.

    • I think you’re probably right. To your first truth, I would add this: The greatest mass-murders in history have usually been committed by governments against their own people. Private gun ownership is the bulwark agains that. “If it saves just 100 million lives…”

      • First point: there was a shooting spree in Britain where a taxi driver went nuts with a shotgun. **** happens in countries with strict gun controls. Breivik in Norway comes to mind, too.

        As to your second truth: of course it wouldn’t have been prevented. Prophets don’t exist. But an armed response to armed aggression is better than being a sitting duck. A fighting chance better than no chance. And there’s the possibility that such a response either would’ve injured him, sent him running, or distracted him enough to save some lives and prevent more injuries.

        • It would not have been prevented, but he is right. Crazy spree killings would be less frequently because, unlike criminals, the wackos are far less savvy and would have a harder time getting the guns they would need to do this.

          That being said, I would not change our current purchase laws, other than to force all sales to go through an instant background check.

    • If the antis had their way events like this would not happen on a regular basis.

      In fact, it would happen more frequently. There are millions of illegal guns on the black market. They are not going away any time soon. And if a significant number of them did, more illegal guns would be moved across the borders to replace them by criminals who really don’t give a fig that doing so is illegal.

      If there is profit in it, which there always is when it comes to prohibited items, someone is going to facilitate that need. Period.

      Getting an illegal firearm is really not anywhere near as difficult as you seem to think it is.

      Ultimately, I agree with the overall point you’re trying to make, but to suggest that a complete ban on private ownership of firearms, which is ultimately what the antis want, will in any way prevent this sort of thing from happening is just entirely false.

      • If you read my post more carefully, I did not advocate a ban private gun ownership. I merely said that we have far fewer of these kinds of spree shooters if we did.

        Spree shooters are great for anti-gun propaganda but the number of lives lost is the noise relative to total murders. We will be better in countering the emotional argument if we continue to point out that marginal lives saved in a gun ban will be less than the number of live lost due to increased violent crime.

        • I merely said that we have far fewer of these kinds of spree shooters if we did.

          I’m well aware. I disagree with your premise. Spree shooters are typically not people who suddenly decided to tool up and shoot some people. They are methodical, and quite insane. If they decide to go murder a bunch of people, they are going to spend no small amount of time and thought on exactly who, where, and how. Increasing regulation on law abiding people will not affect these nutcases one bit.

          It is virtually impossible to keep an implement of harm from the hands of someone who has gone of their rocker in this fashion.

    • Your argument’s: “First Truth: If the antis had their way events like this would not happen on a regular basis.” “Demented individuals usually don’t know how to get in touch with gun traffickers. In a black market sellers are more reticent to deal with people who “nobody sent.””

      Perhaps you havent heard of the internet, or straw purchases, or any other method people use to get illicit firearms. If the crazies want them, they’ll get them. For example, an article on a shady internet site called “The Armory”, where for enough money any weapon can be yours, no questions asked.

      Link: http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything

      Your argument is very muddled, as you begin by asserting that the Anti’s are right, but then go on to say, “The small number of high visibility crimes should not drive public policy. I think we can safely argue that in a free society bad things will always happen but on the margin guns save more live than they take lives.” What are you, a politician?

      Take home point, in this particular instance would having a private citizen with a gun have defused the situation? Who knows, the theatre had a ban on weapons on the premises, and CCW permit holders by and large abide by the rules of the land. If a well armed and trained (many of us are) CCW permit holder had been there, maybe it would have been different, maybe it wouldnt have been. I can see myself exiting the theatre if a safe option to escape was there. If not, at least I would have had a CHANCE to defend myself, rather than get slaughtered like a sheep.

      • In the course of my career I have made the aquaintence of a grey market gun seller. He holds an FFL but only as a cover for running guns for CIA covert operations. He or any illicit gun traficker does not deal with unvetted people. Your typical spree shooter will not pass vetting. What that means is that if you are dealing with a true black market dealer you just may never be heard from again. In a guns are illegal world there are no internet sales or straw purchasers.

        Now for ROEs. The spree shooters ROE is to shoot anything in sight. Yours is to shoot the bad guy and only the bad guy. Good luck doing that in a dark theater in a chaotic situation.
        Also when you the hero walk out theater with your gun the cops will you because all they will see is a guy with a gun.

  9. There are reports that some of the patrons thought it was part of the movie, i.e. a stunt for the premier. I try to imagine myself in that situation. What happens if I drew and fired — and it was just a stunt?

    • Indeed. I had this same thought. In the theater that I saw the movie in there were at least 10 guys with masks and tactical vests ala Bane.

  10. It’s a good thing that theater has a no-guns policy, otherwise, they might have been exposed to all sorts of terrible crimes.

  11. How the hell did he kick in an emergency door??????????????/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By law emergency doors MUST open out! Why(?) so people can get the hell out?!!!!!!!! Lie number one. How many other lies are the commie crats going to reveal? This is all staged folks! They want our guns, and they don’t care how many die. Just so it isn’t one of theirs. This admin has had a whole rash of shootings. How is it these mass shootings occur more frequently with commi- crats in power?

    • sorry dude. but if he planned this, and it certainly looks like he did it would have been simple for him to scout the theatre and include a simple pry bar in his bag of tricks. holy crap, you can buy a prybar without a background check or waiting period. let’s get the senate right on that.

      • jwm: Yeah, I got hooked by the “kicked in the door” thing too, which was jumping the gun a bit. Now it appears someone else may have opened the door (for him or for their own friends/reasons), or maybe he exited through that door and wedged it to reenter. Given time, I’m sure the truth will out.

  12. As Paul said, I’m curious about how he “kicked down an emergency door,” since those are usually steel, and open out.

    In the dark, with smoke, and the likelihood that it was some sort of movie stunt… this is just a messy situation.

    • Were there alarms in the emergency exit doors? It isn’t outside the realm of possibility that the door was unlocked or tampered with before the incident. With midnight showings like this many theaters would have started to seat moviegoers hours in advance, so there would have been plenty of time for someone to let in a buddy or just pop out for a smoke.

      • There was a shooting in Vancouver (just one guy, it was a deliberate hit – during a screening of Donnie Brasco, for irony’s sake) where the shooter bought a ticket, sat down, confirmed the presence of the target, then exited through an emergency exit (not alarmed because they use it to empty the theater after showings), which he wedged open so that he could use it to re-enter once he retrieved his piece from the car.

      • There probably would have been an alarm, so people couldn’t leave them open for others to sneak in.

  13. Just some thoughts here. If you’re offended easily, click the Back button now.

    There is no reliable prediction for loony behavior. Mark Orrin Barton , a day trader with a wife and two kids, decided after losing $100,000 in the market that he was going to take out some day traders.After shooting up the first office, he walked across the street past building security to shoot up a different brokerage house. How many of us would pick a family man as a likely spree shooter? Until the man lost it he would have passed any and every background check system in the nation.

    Two, spree shooters are a fact of human society. This is not an “American” problem. Do not be decieved by talking heads and anti-gun numbskulls who dare to categorize murderous sprees as an American Gun Culture problem. The Sello Prisma shootings in Finland , and the Tim Kretschmer incident in Germany prove that even in nations with so called “strong gun laws” bad guys still find a way to get guns and commit serial murder.

    Three,as armed citizens we don’t get to pick which kind of bad guy we face down. Its possible the person we face in lethal combat could have body armor , a long arm, and have the experience to use it. That’s why we must be absolutely confident in our equipment’s reliability and accuracy, regardless of caliber or brand name.Don’t assume that you live in a crime free city and thus are immune to this type of threat.If Detroit Police Headquarters got shot up by a spree shooter on live camera, anyplace can be hit.

    For my last point, just because someone has body armor doesn’t make them invincible. Multiple shots to pistol-grade body armor will degrade its effectiveness.Sadly, if a spree shooter’s done their target selection well an armed citizen stuck in the site faces certain death doing nothing or certain death doing something. Id rather go down shooting and at the minimum buy time for the other unfortunates stuck in the room. Every round the bad guy wastes shooting at me is one bullet which wont kill a kid , a dad, or a mom. Heck, even if the scumbag gets no hits and I don’t either he’ll be pinned down or stuck behind cover, which buys time for the cavalry to get there and for the targets to get out.

    Before I sign off, one more thought id be remiss in leaving out. Its a very different psychological process to face down someone fair and square in a gunfight compared to merely massacreing people one sided. It doesn’t take much constitution of mind to mow down innocent people knowing they have the upper hand, but its a very different story mentally to lock and load knowing armed opposition awaits. Someone who loads 300 rounds of ammo to kill everyone they see isn’t necessarily prepared to be shot dead by someone else with a gun. Hence the post incident suicides at VT and Columbine , and the Appalachian School of Law incident where the bad guy surrendered to two armed students despite being armed himself.

    • Damn, ST. You got me all excited about getting offended, but all you delivered was dispassionate, well-reasoned discourse. I kinda feel cheated. 😉

  14. One thought. He was wearing bulletproof armor. He did not want to die, this wasn’t a suicide mission and he didn’t do anything to make the cops shoot him.
    If an armed citizen would have fired on him, there is a chance he would have turned tail and ran like the coward he is. Just a thought

  15. This was a tragic event. It should not change our gun laws at all.

    If there were any warning signs that the shooter was mentally ill, and should not have legally purchased firearms then we need to get the existing laws to function as intended.

    • “we need to get the existing laws to function as intended.”
      ——
      Agreed. Unfortunately, this is not possible due to the law of unintended consequences.

      • I agree in general, but too many States are lagging behind with their duty to record the mental health status of prohibited persons. I do not know if that happened in this case, but it is a weakness in the current system of safeguards.

        • The logical problem of laws being used to prevent crimes like this is that they are powerless to.

          A gun law intended to prevent a spree shooting has as much force as a law enacted to prevent the sunrise. The Earths rotation doesn’t care about background checks and neither do people who conceive of mass murder. Were strict gun laws factually effective at preventing gun related violence , we would observe logically in European nations with very strict gun laws that such tragedies don’t happen . The historical record shows despite invasive background checks ,police inspections of private property, and governments without the “shackles” of a Bill of Rights recognizing the RKBA , crooks still finds ways to get weapons to murder people with. Raoul Moat got a shotgun 72 hours after being released from a UK prison. Given the historical background , stronger gun laws (or zealous enforcement of what’s on the books) won’t do a damn thing but waste time and money better spent elsewhere.

        • ST – Not prevent. No. I know that is not possible.

          However, if we were better at identifying the mentally ill, like Loughner or Cho, who were clearly a danger to themselves and others before they pulled a trigger, then there would have been a greater probability that neither of those shootings would have happened.

          My point is this: if the law states that certain classes of mental illness mark a person as prohibited from purchasing a gun, then the data needs to be in the system and up-to-date.

          I have no idea if that would have made a difference in this case, but it is a sensible safeguard that should be as robust as possible.

        • I wonder what we’re going to hear about mental illness in this case over the coming days. From the ABC News article:

          A San Diego woman identifying herself as James Holmes’s mother spoke briefly with ABC News this morning.

          She had awoken unaware of the news of the shooting and had not been contacted by authorities. She immediately expressed concern that her son may have been involved.

          “You have the right person,” she said.

          “I need to call the police,” she added. “I need to fly out to Colorado.”

  16. And so it begins: CNN’s Piers Morgan is tweeting his little fingers off this morning.

    Horrendous details from this Colorado cinema shooting. America has got to do something about its gun laws. Now is the time.

    More Americans will buy guns after this, to defend themselves, and so the dangerous spiral descends. When/how does it stop? #Colorado

    Lunatics like this will always try and get guns. It should be 100,000 times harder than it is for them to do so. That’s my point. #Colorado

    • Didn’t work out well in Britain, Germany, or Norway. Cabbie with a shotgun, deranged school kid, Anders Breivik who went through all the legal hoops necessary.

      Piers Morgan is an idiot.

      • 100 idiots in front of a camera will trump 1000 smart guys without one.

        Never underestimate a media determined to sell us out to the Brady Gang.The more stories which focus on gun control and legislative controversy, the higher the ratings go ,the more ad revenue gets sold and the faster the station bosses get promoted. At the end of the day, its all about the $$.

    • Thank. You. I have expressed this exact sentiment a million times and I’ll probably have to say it a million more. You don’t get to decide where trouble will catch up to you. You can certainly lower your chances of hitting trouble (3 stupids) but it can still hit any where and at any time.

      My gun is no different than my seat belt, my first responder training, my smoke detector, or a spare tire. They aren’t things that you decide to acquire/keep with you only when you need them because you know ahead of time that you’ll need them. They’re things you use every. single. time just in case because you don’t know when or where you’ll need them. [/rant] 😆

      “We’re just going to a movie. Why do you need a gun?” 🙄

  18. It’s a tragedy. The logical thing to do is say, “These things happen. It’s part of the human condition and living in modern society.” And further, “Whether these things would happen less with stricter gun laws (they wouldn’t) is not important. Freedom is sometimes dangerous or inconvenient. Full firearms liberty is a fact and right of American citizens. Period.” Or even, “14 people died. By the time it takes me finish typing this sentence, more than that number of people will die from other unnatural causes. And far more than that number will die yearly thanks to gun control.”

    But we can’t rely on logic from the American public anymore, now, can we? Especially not the blood dancing media and depraved gun-grabbing lunatics whose efforts would result in hundreds of innocent deaths per year.

    Quite simply, if you can’t stand people having guns, leave the country. If you can’t stand the responsibility and unintended consequences of firearms freedom, you shouldn’t be an American anyway. Go to the UK or such, where violence no longer exists.

    • +1

      I hate the bastards that want to use the law and the armed goons of the government as a weapon against innocent people in the aftermath of these terrible events. Yes, let’s punish all those millions of people who didn’t kill anyone or commit any crimes with their guns today because of one psycho.

  19. The most anti-gun nuts ie gun confiscation of private citizens were the MOST violent people. Ever hear of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?

    • Mark: I don’t think it’s an “UPDATE” if it’s a link to a page with no new information that only contains a bunch of circular links back to the same site to drive pageviews.

    • That article never links him to OWS, it just shows a bunch of generic pics of OWS. Also Black Bloc isnt a organization, its a tactic, look it up on wikipedia.

      The first two pics are from the Washington DC OWS, the third is from the Seattle OWS, none are from a California or Colorado OWS, further demonstrating that James Holms was in none of them…

      • Mark,

        Thanks for both your posts with links. It is possible Black Bloc is both an overall tactic and also for some a dedicated group within the OWS crowd. Media stories are sometimes on target, off target, and sometimes mixed, especially right after an event such as this one. I wonder if the shooter is with the OWS crowd how much will the mass media report it or ignore it?

        • . I wonder if the shooter is with the OWS crowd how much will the mass media report it or ignore it?

          What evidence was there linking him to OWS? You apparently didnt read the article mark linked, because it never linked James Holmes to OWS, it just showed pictures of OWS. The only mention of OWS in that article was:

          I would first look at the possibility that James Holmes, DOB 12/13/1987, was caught up in the OWS movement took it upon himself to strike back against

          Really, thats the first thing that guy would look at? It sounds like he has an axe to grind with OWS. There isnt any need for speculation, because the shooter decided to surrender to police, likely to get his 15 minutes of fame, and in a few days we will all be told why he decided to shoot up the theater.

Comments are closed.