21
   

MOTIVES For the Colorado Theater Murders ?

 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 01:25 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
That's premeditation, Krumple. He got his weapons from the car with the intention of using them. And we infer his intention from the fact he did use them. You can premeditate an act in a minute, or 30 seconds--it means you form an intention in your mind to do something--then you do it.


Then what you suggest, everything is premeditated then. At what point does something not become premeditated.

If he were having an argument with someone sitting next to him in the theater and they wouldn't listen to him so he went outside and got a rock and came back in and attacked them with it, is that too premeditated?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 01:36 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
If he were having an argument with someone sitting next to him in the theater and they wouldn't listen to him so he went outside and got a rock and came back in and attacked them with it, is that too premeditated?

Yes. That's also premeditated--the use of the rock as a weapon was premeditated.

If you come home and unexpectedly find your spouse in bed with another person, and you just go berserk, suddenly pick up a chair and hit them, that would be considered something done in the heat of passion, rather than premeditated.

If you know you're going to find your spouse in bed with another person, and you take a gun so you can shoot them in the act, and then you do shoot them, that's premeditated.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 01:44 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
If he were having an argument with someone sitting next to him in the theater and they wouldn't listen to him so he went outside and got a rock and came back in and attacked them with it, is that too premeditated?

Yes. That's also premeditated--the use of the rock as a weapon was premeditated.

If you come home and unexpectedly find your spouse in bed with another person, and you just go berserk, suddenly pick up a chair and hit them, that would be considered something done in the heat of passion, rather than premeditated.

If you know you're going to find your spouse in bed with another person, and you take a gun so you can shoot them in the act, and then you do shoot them, that's premeditated.


In other words, there is a time frame involved. Because when you pick up the chair to use it as a weapon the amount of time passing would dictate it.

So in this same case could the crime also be a crime of passion in a sense? It might not be a knee jerk reaction to go out to your car and get a bunch of equipment and return but how is that any different than going into your kitchen to grab a chair since one was not in the bed room?
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 02:07 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
how is that any different than going into your kitchen to grab a chair since one was not in the bed room?

Because you are looking for a weapon--you are premeditating the act, formulating it in your mind.

If you formulate an intention in your mind, and then act on it, that's premeditation. And the timeframe does not have to be long--it can be 30 seconds.

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 02:11 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
how is that any different than going into your kitchen to grab a chair since one was not in the bed room?

Because you are looking for a weapon--you are premeditating the act, formulating it in your mind.

If you formulate an intention in your mind, and then act on it, that's premeditation. And the timeframe does not have to be long--it can be 30 seconds.




Okay but don't you think there is a difference between planning something in a minute vs planning something over several weeks or months? Surely they couldn't be the same. Intent must play a role in there somewhere and the longer the intent the more severe I would suggest it is.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 03:04 pm
@firefly,
The thread asks motivation, not legal defense.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 03:07 pm
@Krumple,
I think they have a good case building re premeditation. Batman paraphernalia at his apartment - though that's certainly not conclusive.

I think the legal definition of insanity must change to reflect reality.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 03:10 pm
@firefly,
Are you SURE about that 30 rule? I think premeditation must prove malice of forethought....planning...not looking for a weapon to bash someone in the heat of passion.

Cold-blooded vs hot-blooded...
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 03:18 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I think they have a good case building re premeditation. Batman paraphernalia at his apartment - though that's certainly not conclusive.


Is this really premeditation? Having batman paraphenalia? To me all this would mean is that he was a fan of the genre, it says nothing about his motivations towards other people. If not then what you are saying is generally anyone who has a fixation on batman items has a potential for violence towards other people. Which in effect says nothing at all.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 03:26 pm
@Krumple,
As I said - it's definitely not conclusive. Let's see what else they find. His hair was dyed red (as the Joker's), and he SAID to COPS, "I'm the Joker."

Hair dying takes time....something those in my circle like to call...."forethought."

A lawyer can wrangle all he wants - but present that to a jury and it's a lock (on premeditation.)
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 03:49 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

As I said - it's definitely not conclusive. Let's see what else they find. His hair was dyed red (as the Joker's), and he SAID to COPS, "I'm the Joker."

Hair dying takes time....something those in my circle like to call...."forethought."

A lawyer can wrangle all he wants - but present that to a jury and it's a lock (on premeditation.)


Well ill admit there are a lot of elements to this story that do require time. But it doesn't take a huge amount of time to dye one's hair orange. I know, I have dyed my hair a lot. You can do it in a few hours. Although there is evidence that he had done it days prior to the incident. There are several pictures of him with various styles with it orange.

The major problem with the hair arugment is that the joker didn't have orange hair. It was green. So if he was really trying to imitate the joker, he would have dyed it green.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:09 pm
@Krumple,
I think he was watching the "real" Batman....the TV Joker (Cesar Romero) had the orange hair.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:10 pm
@Krumple,
"I'm the Joker." the Batman massacre guy
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:14 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I think he was watching the "real" Batman....the TV Joker (Cesar Romero) had the orange hair.


Well in my opinion his is still green. But I will toss you a bone and make a tasteless joke. Perhaps he was going for green and got orange and that is what set him off.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:16 pm
@Krumple,
Maybe this will help you, Krumple.

They are going to charge him with Murder in the First Degree--among other things.

Notice, part "a" of the law refers to "deliberation"--that refers to thinking about, giving careful consideration to, the act in advance--note, it doesn't say how far in advance, or how much deliberation has to be engaged in
.
In the case of the defendent we're talking about, he did engage in planning beforehand, he brought with him and changed into defensive gear, and brought along smoke cannisters, beside providing himself with and using his weapons. This was clearly something that was given careful consideration in advance. And the fact that he left the theater, and came back with his weapons and smoke cannisters, and used them, indicates he was carrying out a plan to which he had given considerable thought and for which he was prepared--and his intent was to cause death.

And the deliberation, and the degree of careful planning and preparation this man engaged in, strongly suggests, at least to me, that he was not legally insane at the time of the shooting, and that he was well aware of the nature of his acts, and that he acted with "extreme indifference to the value of human life".

I think they can convict him on both #a and/or #d.

Quote:
Murder in the First Degree (18-3-102)

1.A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if:
(a) After deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person; or
(b) Acting either alone or with one or more persons, he or she commits or attempts to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault as prohibited by section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first or second degree as prohibited by section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as those sections existed prior to July 1, 2000, or a class 3 felony for sexual assault on a child as provided in section 18-3-405 (2), or the crime of escape as provided in section 18-8-208, and, in the course of or in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or of immediate flight therefrom, the death of a person, other than one of the participants, is caused by anyone; or
(c) By perjury or subornation of perjury he procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person; or
(d) Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another; or
(e) He or she commits unlawful distribution, dispensation, or sale of a controlled substance to a person under the age of eighteen years on school grounds as provided in section 18-18-407 (2), and the death of such person is caused by the use of such controlled substance; or
(f) The person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.
http://www.lawinfoboulder.com/colorado_statutes/murder_first_degree.html

And his booby-trapping of his apartment, and his apparently leaving the door unlocked, was another deliberate, premeditated action intended to cause death and destruction.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:22 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
And his booby-trapping of his apartment, and his apparently leaving the door unlocked, was another deliberate, premeditated action intended to cause death and destruction.


You do bring up a good point but at the same time I don't think it is as clear as that and I'll use your last comment to show you what I mean. Playing devil's advocate again.

Yes he did rig a bomb/bombs but remember, he actually told officers it was there. Now if he had intent to cause harm with the bombs, why tell the officers?

I think that he could have "armed" the bomb any time he left. I know that sounds crazy but why is this any more crazy than arming it once and then warning officers that there is a rigged bomb? If he really didn't care about human life he wouldn't have mentioned there was a rigged bomb.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:26 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple - even though I think you're fabulous for trying the devil's advocate role - you are mixing points. The point we were discussing was premeditation.

Rigging booby-traps shows premeditation very clearly. Warning cops - though kind - doesn't negate the malice of forethought required to set bombs. He knew he was going to commit a crime that would lead cops to his apt. Nothing outside - or beside - these basic facts can challenge that he knew what he was going to do in advance.

(btw hello and KISS)
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:27 pm
@Krumple,
then, he would have shot up Loreal...
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:31 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:

Yes he did rig a bomb/bombs but remember, he actually told officers it was there. Now if he had intent to cause harm with the bombs, why tell the officers?

That puzzles me also. Why did he warn them about his apartment? Who knows? But the fact that he did tell them the apartment was booby-trapped suggests he was rational and in contact with reality after the shooting.

The First Degree Murder charge will only pertain to the people he actually killed in the theater--and the deliberation and/or "extreme indifference to human life" associated with those acts.

I don't know exactly how they will charge him for the booby-trapped apartment, we'll find out next week in court.

They will also likely charge him with attempted murder for the 58 people he wounded.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:38 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Krumple - even though I think you're fabulous for trying the devil's advocate role - you are mixing points. The point we were discussing was premeditation.

Rigging booby-traps shows premeditation very clearly. Warning cops - though kind - doesn't negate the malice of forethought required to set bombs. He knew he was going to commit a crime that would lead cops to his apt. Nothing outside - or beside - these basic facts can challenge that he knew what he was going to do in advance.

(btw hello and KISS)


Oh don't confuse me with trying to negate his action by revealing the bombs to the officers. What I mean is. If someone has a motivation in the first place to arm or rig a bomb to denonate, why inform or warn anyone that it is there? Seems counter productive if your motivation is to have it detonate when someone enters.

There is a reason behind why he would warm them even though he rigged it. In fact you could always write it off that rigging the bomb was not intended for law enforcement officers and this is his motivation for revealing it to them. I know another crazy line of reasoning but it doesn't make any sense if he knew he would be caught that night and police would investigate his home, to then turn around and reveal the trap.
 

Related Topics

I saw the girl who isn't there.... - Question by boomerang
Mentally ill. - Discussion by sometime sun
Adulthood Life Questions - Question by inkluv99
Trolls represent human's basic nature - Discussion by omaniac
weird dream - Discussion by void123
Is being too strong a weakness? - Question by ur2cdanger1
Zombies Existence - Discussion by RisingToShine
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:51:06