Melisa Cowden, whose ex-husband Gordon Cowden was killed in the shooting, called the statement comical and said she was upset that Holmes' parents have not apologized for what happened.

"He's not mentally ill," Cowden said.

What I'm going to say is very likely to be wildly unpopular with everyone, but I'm going to say it anyway.

I can understand how the families of the victims of this shooting feel. If my family member had been killed in that movie theater, I would want James Holmes to be strung up by his thumbs and subjected to the slow torture of the Chinese death of 10,000 cuts.

I can understand how his parents feel. James Holmes is their son, and they love him. I don't know if, as a mother, I could walk off and leave my child to face everything alone, and know that I would likely try to spare his life, despite what he had done. I would hate what he had done, and, knowing me, pray for death myself, just so I don't have to suffer any more over it.

So, we have the moral quandrary: Should we execute someone who is mentally ill?

As far as the plea of "Not guilty by reasons of insanity"-- aren't all mass murderers insane somehow to begin with? I mean, looking at all of those who have killed a lot of people-- they are all insane, to some degree, or they wouldn't have done it.

To me, the courts have an obligation to protect society by removing those people who would do harm to society. If he never sees the light of day as a "free" man, I would be ok with it. He needs to be put in a Hannibal Lector type of institute for the criminally insane, lock the door, and throw away the key.

I have a REAL problem with executing those who are found to be mentally incompetent. As an example, adults with Down's Syndrome, or some other genetic/environmental ailment that impairs their ability to function in society. To me, that is wrong. I feel the same way about the mentally ill, but to a lesser extent.

I guess, in this case, whether or not he was having a psychotic break is the key question. I don't know how to answer that question, nor do I have any idea how anyone could tell... I think the absolute best we could do would be to lock him up for the rest of his life in a place for the criminally insane...

So why have a trial?

Because we in the US, are not yet the ISIS. We are a constitutional republic....not a screaming mass of hysterical zealots.

He's lucky to even have a trial.

Yeah! We need to be more like North Korea here in the U.S.A. . Is that right?

Innocent until charged?

The only one of those Constitutional Amendment we need is NUMBER 2

NUMBER 2!

Let's start skipping those damned pesky trial things and go right to the gallows! Is that the idea?

No rational person is suggesting this guy should not be given the maximum in the way of punishment once convicted in a fair trial. But to go with raw emotion because it feels so good to get it out there, is no way to run a country.

Would you want someone in, say, your family, to be sentenced by a self-appointed judge-jury-and-executioner or lynch mob?

There is no doubt this glob of anal mung is guilty, none! So why have a trial? why waste taxpayer money to determine the obvious?

Why have a trial?

I'll go out on a limb and take a stab at it Because we live in America could that be it?

You should find out the details of an opinion before you make an assclown out of yourself. I know that's a foreign thought to you,

See the reason we need to deliberate things objectively?

I believe there is a case to be made for a verdict of "Guilty by reason of insanity," but conviction and punishment without a trial dangerous idea.

Is this correct - only Holmes has claimed he was insane at the time of the mass killing? His attorneys are saying it was an "emotional episode" and he is calling it insanity.

Have tests been performed to determine his sanity?

...since court filings have been heavily redacted and the findings of two court-ordered sanity evaluations have been sealed from public view.

Paragraph 8 above

Thank ya.

this is the US, home of massive waste.

Yes; so let's improve it by doing away with

Presumption of Innocence

A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.

I mean, we always know who's guilty WTF is this trial and burden of proof crap? Waste of time and money. What could possibly go wrong?

There he is; that's the guy. String his ass up.

Next.

Hey, Pro Bono, no charge 'cept for the rope, the lethal injection, electricity, tips for the firing squad dudes.

When they guy is caught red-handed, when there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, the presumption of innocence just flew out the window. The government doesn't have to prove anything in this case, Holmes provided that proof. So why drag this dog and pony show out years and cost the taxpayers millions to determine what we already know. That is not only inefficiency to the max, it's asinine.

All that I can add to this is..several months ago, one of my Nephews was stabbed to death by a 19 y/o....I can't count the number of things I would like to see done to this punk.

There is no question that he did what he did, and what he did is absolutely worthy of the death penalty. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

No argument.

So let's now have the discussion that should logically follow based on the following

Holmes' defense attorneys stated in a motion that he was a psychiatric patient of the medical director of Anschutz's Student Mental Health Services prior to the Aurora shooting.

The prosecutor disagreed with that claim. ^{[42] [43]} Four days after the release of the defense attorney's motion, the judge required this information to be blacked out. ^[44] CBS News later reported that Holmes met with at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre.

One of Holmes' psychiatrists suspected, prior to the shooting, that Holmes suffered from mental illness and could be dangerous. A month before the shooting, Dr. Lynne Fenton reported to the campus police that he had made homicidal statements. ^[45] Two weeks prior to the shooting, he sent a text message asking a graduate student if the student had heard of the disorder dysphoric mania , and warning the student to stay away from him "because I am bad news". ^[46]

Actions prior to shooting

On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 pistol at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora . Six days later, on May 28, he bought a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver . ^[48]

On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university, ^[40] he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle from a Gander Mountain in Thornton , with a second Glock 22 pistol at the same Bass Pro Shops in Denver on July 6. ^[49]

All the weapons were bought legally and background checks were performed . ^[50] In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet. ^{[51] [52]}

On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest , two magazine holders and a knife at an online retailer . ^{[51] [53]}

So, what needs to be done to prevent the LEGAL purchase of such weaponry by an individual who has a documented history of mental illness? How does this guy, et al, pass a background check?

Kiss my ass.

I didn't hurl any insults; I asked questions and commented based on your comments.

The "loose canon" comment was tongue-and-cheek, it indicted the irony of your getting pissed off at and insulting people for simply disagreeing with you, while expressing outrage over a fair trial and legal system.

That's a fairly objective recount of how this has evolved/devolved.

Every one of these individuals should have been required to report the information to a database that is considered prior to any gun purchase. Unfortunately, for every Holmes who makes a legitimate threat, there are a thousand angry gun guts who make similar but empty threats in a fit of drunken stupidity, and by golly the NRA will fight to the death to ensure their constitutional right to keep their guns and right to free speech, even if it means theatre patrons and school children are no longer safe.

Yup, yup and yup!

You didn't read the entire thread, did you.

What should I be looking for? The irony I cited is straight forward; you believe some crimes are simply not necessary to adjudicate and that, to save taxpayer dollars, should go right to the conviction and execution phase.

And, you went to name-calling to anger because some disagreed with you. A crazy that kills because of his mental-illness-induced rage is, according to your opinion, an automatic, money-saving "guilty-with-death-penalty" verdict/outcome candidate. Yet you, a sane individual, can't get through a heated debate without inviting me to kiss your ass.

I'm not generally in favor of the death penalty but in cases like this, I almost find it warranted so we sort of agree there. But on suspending the following because you are (justifiably) outraged by a heinous act

The Sixth Amendment ( Amendment VI ) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .

to suspend that and tell me to kiss your ass because we don't agree with trashing that portion of the Constitution

just what should I have read in this thread to make me feel otherwise about some of your respones?

Or, better yet - what if one of your family members had been killed by someone such as Holmes? Would you have the same opinion?

Or, better yet - what if one of your family members had been killed by someone such as Holmes? Or some 19 year old punk..

what if one of your family members had been killed by someone such as Holmes? Would you have the same opinion?

That's one reason why judges recuse themselves from certain cases and potential jurors are rejected.

The concept of "Justice is Blind" addresses that. Convicting based on anger and emotion is a slippery slope (as they say).

you should know that when somebody is an ass to me, (because they happened to disagree with my opinion, wow, talk about irony) i don't sit there and take it. If you look real hard at all the comments you'll see where it all started. I'll even give you a hint, look at all the comments on page one.

Going there again.

Yes the discussion got "aggressive," (if that's part of your objection) the nature of the subject matter made that inevitable. I commented specifically on your comments, not about you personally. And never came close to the "kiss my ass" invitation you offered.

Sarcasm directed at specific comments are not personal insults. They constitutethe use of irony to mock or convey disagreement not to make personal insults.

The comments all got too aggressive and to personal, hence why all the purple. Please tone it down.

What if the killer is clearly sane, and murdered out of greed, jealousy, anger, etc.? The insanity defense tends to frequently come out as a last ditch effort to spare a life. Is there no circumstance that you can see fit to put a bad person down?

You said it yourself "as a last ditch effort."

I'd put War Criminals down

Ok, you looked at all the comments on page one and find me guilty of starting the aggressive comments? If so, you are not nearly as fair and objective as you make yourself out to be. But that's ok, although we do agree on some issues, we never really got along with each other. I'm fine with that.

Why did we never get along? Because we often disagree on particular issues.

you are not nearly as fair and objective as you make yourself out to be.

I'll be happy to apologize when you post an example. I specify always what I object to and my reasons. Anyone is free to rebut point-for-point.

A huge percentage of those incarcerated are minorities who get convicted of the same crimes for which whites who commit the same crimes, are exonerated.

A black man is 30% more likely to be convicted.