As accused Aurora shooter James Holmes sat in court, his brightly colored orange hair stood out against his maroon jumpsuit like a During the proceeding, known as an advisement, he sat quietly, no speaking a word, and barely moving. His eyes at times trailed downward, lip quivering and eyebrows raised. At other times, his eyes looked straight ahead, as though looking through the judge who sat before him on the bench.
His humanity, it seemed, was inwardly battling with hidden demons. For the most part, though, he appeared as if in a trance, not quite fully aware of the severity of what was transpiring as the judge made him aware of his rights under Colorado law.
None of this is any consolation to the families of the victims in the worst shooting in Colorado since Columbine. The fact that Holmes is not cooperating with the investigation certainly doesn't help matters, either, but it is his right to stay silent. Currently, Holmes is being represented by a public defender. During the proceeding, she sat quietly, speaking only when she needed to. There appeared to be little to no communication between the two while they sat together in court. Holmes will be formally charged on July 30, and it's widely expected that prosecutors will ask for the death penalty, since District Attorney Carol Chambers has told the Associated Press that her office is seriously considering it.
Authorities have been stingy with details about the case; a smart move in a case that has the nation on the edge of its seat. All that's been said so far has come from Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates, who said that the evidence points to "calculation and deliberation."
The suspect purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition online with no red flags tripped and purchased four guns in a very short time frame with no waiting period or background checks. The case has reignited the debate about gun laws and whether tighter gun laws should go into effect. Colorado's governor John Hickenlooper said that tighter gun laws are not the answer, but that seems a weak argument when you examine the ease with which James Holmes acquired his arsenal.
Up until 2004, the AR-15 would have been illegal for Holmes to purchase due to a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons. However, the government allowed that ban to expire, bowing to the will of the NRA. Perhaps the Aurora shooting will provide the impetus to make these guns and the bullets they illegal for civilians outside the military and police to own again.
As for the victims, they continue to mourn. The grieving process begins, as they await justice for the man who methodically and brutally killed their loved ones.
©2012 Reno Berkeley for Gather News. Berkeley can be found on Tumblr, Google+, and Facebook.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 38
The NRA represents the will of the people...I just sent them another $100...Got a cap, nifty card and everything...sticker for my truck...
Where do you think they get all that money to buy your congressmen with...this is how democracy works...
If the gun range owner wouldn't let him in, that's enough for me to know he shouldn't have been allowed to purchase these guns. Go ahead, send the NRA your money. I'll be sending money to their opponents. Cheers.
You just hang around with the minority on this one...
Everyone I talk to doesn't trust the Gov't to do anything reasonable...examples to numerous to mention...
And...they don't have any opponents because you liberals are too cheap and disorganized to pit one together...
Will you get a sticker for your car and a nifty cap???
Meh.
I live in Texas. I'm surrounded by gun toting idiots. I don't buy bumper stickers.
Yeah, & I bet you were friends with that smart idiot that poisoned his neighbor...and, got caught!
Read my book..."Murder for Dummies...The Idiot's Guide to Homicide..."
Its posted...
Even if gun control laws are more relaxed, not everyone is going to have a gun, where a mass murder might take place.
And if there is a handgun owner, nearby, it might not be unholstered or cocked in time.
Less strict gun control puts more guns in the hands of people who conceal how crazy or malicious they are, before they purchase firearms.
It doesn't simply put more guns in the hands of private citizens who wish to protect themselves and the innocent public, if need be.
_____________
And, Reno, I think you are accurate about Holmes expecting retaliation (meaning he was going to take the chance, and commit the deed, in any case):
Not only did he wear armor, but he boobie-trapped his apartment, meaning that he was expecting "visitors", quite soon after his crime was completed.
Sometimes, after a horrific crime, the perp takes themselves out so there is no finding out what drove them. In other cases, like Lee Harvey Oswald and Kennedy, they are snuffed before that can spill their thoughts.
How did this guy survive? What of what he says will actually make it into the public spaces?
How does this boy sit before his own kind after what he did and not spin about to those watching and either confess to or curse his fellow humans?
No. You won't see that sort of thing on CNN or Fox.
Point...They will find a way...
Point...a lot less people woud have died if they had assualt rifles to defend themselves with...
Do I still have to bring up the Nazis and the unarmed Jews???
The danger posed by the occasional nut job is outweighed by the inherent danger of an armed government and an unarmed citizenry...
It is not possible to get emotional about the value of being armed because the beneficial result is in what DOESN'T happen...Unless you are able to think a few steps into the asbstract and remember some salient history...
(Insert Beatles tune - 'Get Back)
That would be my ideal punishment for him. To have to face his victims every day for the rest of his life.
The guy is most likely in a meltdown, full psychotic episode, so yea,...he's insane.
Reno? You are pro-causing unnecesary suffering of the mentally ill?
I think private vendetta should be legal, however...
The justice system is not a paragon of correctness...
Bush allowed that ban to expire!
Assuming you were in 7th grade at any time since 1789, you would have learned that CONGRESS passes laws and lets them expire...not the President...
It seems strange to me that you blame Bush for the acts of Congress but are not blaming Obama...Are you just ignorant, illogical or patently biased???
When did I ever express that? For a Mensa member, you're the last person who should be talking about ignorance, you pompous fool!
I have seen many comments by you complaining about the republicans in Congress holding up progress like Obama's (anti) Jobs Bill...
You demonstrate very little understanding of how government works but you are also very outspoken about it...
No, you haven't, as I've never argued that issue & I'm done~I normally don't deal with, or even speak to, ppl I don't like.