Despite this repulsive human being, every American citizen is guaranteed the right to a fair trial.

I think the "defense" at this point can only ask for mercy, on the grounds he is clearly insane.

I never understood why insanity is a defense. Anyone who could commit a crime like this would have to be, by definition, insane.

The problem I see with rehab of a mentally ill person is that you can never tell if he is truly changed. Spending his life in prison or a mental hospital at taxpayer expense is more of a reward than he deserves. No matter what he may do in the future, look at what he did in the past.

so far a very big unanswered question, was he being treated by the psychiatrist at the time, and what meds was he on, did the psychiatrist have a duty to warn authority's of his behavior; , there is a lot more to come out in this disaster.

Scubasteve, insanity is a defense because it makes the lawyers more money.

You know.....I read the history on this guy. I can say he DID have a "break". He was a good student and people liked him, then something happened and he changed 10 fold. I am not saying what he did was excusable because there is NO WAY it is. But I do think he suffers from mental illness, but that STILL doesn't make it right. I am SO sorry for everyone involved.

hey i'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill, just be careful how we proceed, ever had a fight with your wife or girlfriend and things get said or happens. you might be the nicest person but you lost it for a moment, well congrats you would be considered unstable and once classified your screwed. jobs, wont hire you , drivers license suspended now you might have road rage.

once you get classified it goes in a database and now your hanibal lecter! slow and easy, these lawmakers want to make you happy and pass crap without reading it and always a loophole or something stupid !

It's the Pax...the G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the...

The methodical nature he used to collect gear, guns, and supplies indicates to me that despite some disturbing tendencies, he was a sane person who had carefully thought about and planned out his attack.

Despite an apparent lack of emotion, I don't think he's insane. I think he's an attention craving piece of sh!t that is getting exactly what he wanted - national headlines.

El_Duderino, I agree. Knowing right from wrong is enough in a situation like this.

His actions show premeditation. Not Insanity. Insanity can only apply if the person temporarilly goes insane and commits the acts within a short period of time. Like a week or month. His photos of the theatre, the booby trapped apartment, and then lying on federal forms about the intended use of the firearms were all premeditated. An insane person does not meticulously plan an attack of this nature.

His lawyers are public defenders. Their pay is not based on the insanity defense. They are paid by the taxpayers of Colorado.

This guy is nothing but a huge coward. Why didn't he just shoot himself like all the other mass murderers? At least the others were considerate enough to save us the expense of caging & feeding them for the rest of their lives. This monster just couldn't resist the allure of seeing himself in headlines.

I wish this guy would have offed himself so that we do not have to listen to this and re-live it every day now in the media. It's torture and agonizing especially for the families and friends of this scumbag's actions.

Keep pushing these photos as new so you can keep up the anti gun agenda great work.

JohnBrowning,

I'm sure only the barest handful get your reference.

Brooke,

I don't recall seeing anything stating, "everyone liked him." I believe most of them said he was friendly enough, but most thought he was a little off. No one thought he was dangerous...that's the problem here. There were indications he was mentally unstable, but no one had concern over whether he was psychotic.

There is no doubt he is insane, but "diminished capacity"? I don't think so. I think he knew exactly what he was doing, AND, I think it was a VERY long time in manifesting. He intentionally kept what he was doing on the down low. He collected all the tools he used over time, and the plan was really intracate. If he was diminished capacity, there would NOT have been so many layers to what he did. It would have been messy and immediate.

I don't think it's a clear case that he's insane. He might be crazy... like a fox. But not insane. He knows what he's doing. He carefully planned all of this. And he deserves no mercy. Wasting time and money on his trial is an insult to everyone he murdered. Human beings know right from wrong. And when they kill, they deserve less than a dog that has snapped and bitten someone. Take him out back and shoot him.

Scubasteve: Oh, I don't know. There are quite a few of us "who" step out of our Tardis long enough to check the newsvine.

so he is a reaver..Johnbrowning?

Did he understand the difference between right from wrong? I think he did.

This was a premeditated event. He also carried out actions that would have harmed and/or killed others at his apartment. I believe he is counting on everyone saying only an insane person could have done this. My opinion he deserves the death penalty, if Colorado has it.

being insane has NOTHING to do with premeditation or knowing right from wrong....this guy is a NUT case and should be locked away for eternity....

Scubasteve58001

I never understood why insanity is a defense. Anyone who could commit a crime like this would have to be, by definition, insane.

Exactly. A person who commits such a crime is obviously, at least in some way, insane. No one in their right mind would do such a thing. He is a danger to others, and should be locked away for life (and I am being nice), period.

that pesky little thing called the constitution protects the insane from being excacuted. people love the document when it fits their needs but hate it when it does'nt.

Toxicology report please. Also history of medication from grade school forward should be made available. Does no one wonder what the long term effects are on children who have been doped up since grade school because they're "hyperactive"? Rialin anyone, Zoloft, Paxil and on and on? I just ran across an astounding list of drugs that were administered to about a 3 page list of violent killers including the ones and Columbine...all on one med or another.

Maybe we should be looking somewhere else for the cause of these killings instead of just demonizing the easy firearm scapegoat.

VincentBlackShadow

Did he understand the difference between right from wrong? I think he did.

Of course he did. That's why he didn't just get in the theatre through the front door like everyone else, with all his guns and weapons, as if there was nothing wrong with it.

The cops could have shot him on the spot with his hot blue barrels in his hands, I just don't understand why they don't nip it in a bud instead of putting these kind on a pedestal..

Aurora was satged just like Newtown!

This man is pure evil... the Devil incarnate! Strap him down and shoot him up! Of Course we will need to spend close to $1m on him for 10 years of appeals. This @!$%# needs to change in this country!

G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate or "Pax" (Latin for "Peace") was a chemical compound added to the air processors in order to pacify the populace, by the Union of Allied Planets. An Alliance research team on Miranda discovered that the Pax was effective with 99.9% of people. It was such an effective means of pacifying that the people stopped doing anything, they simply waited for death. However, a thousandth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction. They became highly aggressive, committing unspeakable acts including cannibalism, rape and self-mutilation. These people would come to be known as Reavers

Keep pushing these photos as new so you can keep up the anti gun agenda great work.

Yea how dare they make public the evidence admitted in a court case! (sarcasm)

rightwing blames gravity and his acne on 'libtards'' (among other personal problems). Enough already, kneejerk.

Insanity is not a defence, it is nothing more than and excuse to get away with "murder"!!!!!!! You never heard of this B&^LS#$T 20 years ago, and back then we were held accountable for our actions.

thanks to death penalties protesters hardly anybody gets the sentence handed out !

This case should :

1) trial

2) convicted 1st degree , pre-meditated murder

3) death penatly (firing squad)

4) let family members be allowed to pull trigger themselves.

5) no hood or mask, make him watch gun aimed at him and then fire guns !

6) wont happen because our society has gone soft !

7) $37k a year to be on death row for life 50 + years !

Don't forget the 1st Amendment too... Pro gun folks love to quote the 2nd Amendment while simultaneously trying to deny anyone who disagrees with them of the 1st Amendment.

The real amendment we should protect is the 21st and our right to bare brew. Samuel Adams showed us true patriotism.

Cameron,

The anti gun folks are trying to do what you say the Pro 2nd Amendment folks are doing to them. I have no problem if someone doesn't want to own a fire. That is their right to make the decision to purchase a firearm or not, but it's not their right to force their beliefs on the masses. Those of us that support the 2nd are defending a Constitutional right, that was given to us by people who knew what an oppressive govt was, and wanted to ensure that AMERICA would never experience that again. The 2nd is this Nation's only defense against a corrupt govt. It may never happen, but would you rather live in comfort knowing that we can defend ourselves if the stuff hits the fan, or would you rather risk ending up like Russia, China, or Cuba? I hear in Cuba they were just allowed to own cell phones, and are now allowed to own a small business after 50 something years of the govt controlling who worked where, and what food you were provided.

I am all for the 2nd Amendment, but what good are firearms against the might of our military? It might have worked in 1776, but not today. If the military were to stage a coup, what could any of us do about it? A billion AR-15's are no match against one laser guided bomb dropped from 15,000 feet.

"force their beliefs"?

How, praytell, are they doing that? At gunpoint?

All of you can preach that "Assault weapons" are the root of all evil here, but the traps he set would have caused a boat load more damage than what he caused in the theater, if they had gone off. Most of that were items that are VERY common, so I guess we would need to outlaw Fireworks, and household chemicals too? Right?

Bob,

How many of the US military do you think would actually turn their weapons on US citizens? How many do you think would turn on an administration that orders them to kill US citizens? I'm thinking it would end up like Libya where the citizens were given military grade missles, firearms, and artilery by the enlisted personel that saw the govt had overstepped their authority.

"force their beliefs"?

How, praytell, are they doing that? At gunpoint?

They are trying to force their beliefs by trying to pass legislation that restricts/infringes upon my right to bear arms.

We are a democracy. If legislation is passed (it won't be), it is the will of the people. That is not forcing their beliefs on you.

I am sure that the racists thought that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was forcing other's beliefs on them, but saying it doesn't make it true.

Bob,

If legislation is passed it's because its the will of the people? So 70% of Americans said that they didn't want Obamacare, yet a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President signed it into law. Don't worry if that law violates the religious beliefs of certain groups, it's the will of the people right? All those elected people voted how the citizens of America wanted them to right?

Bob Freebird

I am all for the 2nd Amendment, but what good are firearms against the might of our military? It might have worked in 1776, but not today. If the military were to stage a coup, what could any of us do about it? A billion AR-15's are no match against one laser guided bomb dropped from 15,000 feet.

Bob, tell that to the Russians who fought in Afghanistan as well as the US troops who are still there. Need more examples: Syria? Libya? Vietnam? Perhaps you should read the old favorite of many military leaders.."The Art of War". Sometimes the underdog has the fiecest bite.

Bob, We are a democracy? When did that happen?

A poll taken in June 2012 indicated that most of the opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was because Americans wanted more reform than what Obamacare provided.

There are a lot of laws that "violate the religious beliefs of certain groups". Your point? Laws against polygamy violate the religious beliefs of fundamental mormons. Should we strike down those laws?

Obama was reelected. I guess people liked the law anyway.

Oh, sorry Tom, we are a democratic republic. Is that better?

Bob, so we are a democracy (2.8) or are we not a democracy (most of the opposition)

I am so confused by your logic. It kind of sounds like you like idea of a dictator telling us what is good for us.

The USA is a democratic republic, but it is also a constitutional republic.

The second part is pretty important, and some in our current Government want to forget or ignore that part.

I support the entire Bill of Rights, especially the following:

1st - Exercise your right to not speak (the corollary of the right to speak) and resist gun registration. (Freedom to speak includes the right to not speak, like freedom of religion includes the right to practice a religion as well as to not practice a religion.)(The First Amendment only protects political speech, you say? See the 9th Amendment.)
2nd - The proper version of the amendment is that which was ratified by the states (the version used in official congressional records), with one comma, after the word "state." That makes the independent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is not the source of the right, nor is it the actual bar to government action. If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you will see that the BOR is merely a reflection of the fact that there are powers not granted to government, and among them are powers to break into, deny, disparage, or infringe upon the rights enumerated in the BOR. The authors of the BOR plainly expressed that the right to arms is a natural right that existed before any government existed and that no legitimate government would prevent its exercise. The right to arms does not exist because of the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment exists because of the right to arms. (The “militia” clause is dependent upon the “right to arms” clause, reflecting the real-world situation – a militia depends on its members being armed. As an aside, because there are so many people who don’t understand the amendment, the term “well-regulated” modifies “militia,” not “the right to keep and bear arms.” The term refers to military order and means “well” or “properly" trained.)
4th - Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Senator Feinstein has proclaimed that she would confiscate firearms if she thought she could pass such legislation. NY Governor Cuomo said in a radio interview last week (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50404996/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/)that "confiscation could be an option." Realizing that he had let the cat out of the bag, he hasn't mentioned the "option" since then, but clearly this is a threat to everyone's right to property if government officials think they can declare lawfully-owned property as contraband and then just seize it. (But they have to know where it is first, that's why registration should be resisted. The gun community has said for years that "registration leads to confiscation" and have been called paranoid for it. But there was never a logical, useful reason for registration except as a prelude to confiscation. Canada attempted long gun registration for years and abandoned it after spending billions of dollars; registration there led to the solving of precisely zero crimes. The mere proposal of legislation that would seize lawfully owned arms would create a wonderful proof of the threat posed by registration to the right to arms and could be used in challenges to eliminate registration in those states where it has already been imposed; government will have demonstrated that it is not to be trusted with such information.)
5th - Exercise your right to not bear witness against yourself. You never know when any information you give to the government will be used against you; even without knowing it, you may be implicating yourself in a crime. Because if you’re innocent of any crime, you don't and can't know if you're incriminating yourself, therefore the right allows you to avoid "bearing witness against yourself" and not the right against "self-incrimination." They are two different concepts and the term "self-incrimination" is not found in the amendment, but "bearing witness" is. Resist registration on this principle too.
9th - This amendment prohibits construction/interpretation of the other amendments in such a way that limits to the enumerated rights are implied, or to imply that other rights, not enumerated, do not exist. For instance, if you imply the right to arms is only operative with respect to the existence of a militia because the amendment enumerates no other reasons for the right to arms, you're violating the 9th Amendment. There is nothing in the language or structure of the sentence that infers or implies that the right to arms exists solely to support the militia’s existence. The militia clause gives one reason for the right to arms, the 9th Amendment prohibits an interpretation that would make that reason exclusive simply because others were not enumerated. (Also, the history of the 2nd Amendment’s inclusion in the BOR makes it plain that no such interpretation was intended by its authors – but that doesn’t seem to have any effect on those who would misconstrue the language of the amendment.)

In sum, the Bill of Rights is an organic whole. You cannot do violence to one part without injuring it in its entirety. An assault on one element is usually also an assault on other elements, so closely are they intertwined. Which parts of the BOR does NOT have your support?

DaveGin-a very well thought out and well written articulation of the BOR. However, the question I give you regarding it, is the right to bear arms, which as interpreted by the current supreme court as the right to defend oneself have any limitation if it is a part of the nature of mankind (since this was the context many of the framers wrote in the BOR and other documents.). Basically, do I have the right to have a nuclear weapon to defend myself and my home against say, possible attack by terrorists? Or a surface to air missile against unwanted aerial surveliance of my property? Unlike the first amendement, (pertaining to speech) which is given a very easy limitation ( your freedom of speech ends when it infringes upon mine), the idea of having any weaponry inheritnly does go against anyone else's right. However could society function with individuals guaranteed the right to any weapon created by man to give themselves protection?

Easy answer? There is none. I have postulated this before and some have come back as the 2nd amendment only relates to firearms since that is what is specifically mentioned. But if we have a literal interpretation, then we are back to the "well regulated militia" being the goal of gun owenership. If we take it as the "spirit" of the right to defense, now we are back onto the questionhow do we limit it to allow society to function?

@DaveGinOly

The reason why it is so simple to determine you're a religiously educated conservative, is the fact that you treat an ancient writing of significant value, with reverential eminence.

Writings of books and literary manuscripts appeal to their own times. We read ancient writings for the satisfaction that knowledge and History gives us in relation to how ancient peoples coped with everyday life. It is awesome to compare their feelings and tragedies with our own and see how similar we are in behavior.

The big "BUT" here is that we live in very different times -they do change- and while our feelings and behavior is very similar, our society is very different.

We deal now with mental patients, like the one in the article, who are a product of our present society. Bringing 1791 into modern times is just silly.

How a relatively small group of Bushmaster owners believes they can battle the US military is completely beyond me. At times I'm an idealist too, but I always come back to reality. The days of resisting a malevolent government in this country went out at the beginning of the 20th Century

One name: Timothy McVeigh - you're not being logical or practical here.

Cameron, you want to take away whatever defense a sane person may have against someone like this. Do you really feel that the bad guys or those like this guy will surrender their guns?

Cameron - Don't forget the child killers in China who use hatchets and knives to go on school killing sprees. Oh, and Hutu mass murders by machete. And Rwandan mass murders by machete. But I understand that you think the USA is the only country where mass murder takes place.

How was Timothy NcVeigh not a "gun nut"? He was a nut who owned several firearms. I agree that he had a right to own those guns, but to say he wasn't a gun nut is absurd.

Linda, who is surrendering guns? Stop going to the far extreme when those options aren't on the table. This guy bought stuff within a week of the killings. If he couldn't purchase a highcap mag it's highly likely the body could would have been lower.

Ryan, we don't know yet what options are on the table. It's rather ridiculous that you can add a handle to a rifle and it becomes an assault weapon. We have to be very careful about what is done here. Take away a little here, a little there and soon you have something totally different from what was covered by the 2nd amendment.

Ryan,

The large magazine he used in this shooting jammed in under 30 rounds fired. That large mag saved lives because they are not reliable at a high rate of fire. The rest of the people killed or wounded were shot with a 12 gauge and a pistol. He would have been better off using ten 10 round mags. I have a few of the large mags, and I know from experience that they are unreliable. I only use them for long sessions of long range target shooting. I shoot competitively and would never use one of the high capacity mags during a competition. Why should we the law abiding give up rights that we believe in because a few people choose to use them in an illegal manner? How about we punish the law breakers instead of the the law abiders?

There is no proof he was a "gun nut". He simply procured deadly weapons to use in his attacks.

There is no proof Obama ever passed a class in college with better than a 1.0, but for some reason idiots think he is smart.

This particular killer drove a car to the crimes, as did the killer at Sandy Hook and the guy in Wyoming who killed a college professor and his girlfriend.

Yet, leftists refuse to link their access to cars to crime.

Jeffery Daumer....knife and fork

Paid that is awesome.

Paid

"There is no proof he was a "gun nut". He simply procured deadly weapons to use in his attacks"

A very good point, well laid out. Its good to have someone who can give a good response ration.....

"There is no proof Obama ever passed a class in college with better than a 1.0, but for some reason idiots think he is smart."

....And you lost me. I am not going to take the time to say what being Presiden of the Harvard Law review is. Don't ruin your perfectly logical retort with a suddenly blatant partisan sound bite attack that has been disproven over and over and over again.

Post a link to ANY article or editorial he actually wrote for the "Harvard Law Review".

Post a link to his college transcripts.

It should be easy to prove me wrong.

All you need it proof.

Use Wikipedia Republicon troll.

Hmmmmm no articles or transcripts.

I'm sure it is Bush's fault.

JoeyJoeJoJunior--Exactly what I was thinking!

They could read any Tom Clancy book for inspiration. Should we outlaw Tom Clancy? Ever hear of the 1st Amendment, specifically the Freedom of the Press clause?

Bob - the point is "Is it wise to include that information in this article." Yes, the press has a right, but what purpose does it serve? And sure, people could go find the info if they went looking, if they read certain books, etc. but why make it so easy and why give anyone any ideas? Again, what's the purpose of including it - just because they can?

In case you haven't noticed, these killers have been copying each other. Does it have anything to do with the fact that our 24/7 media bombards us with the details of each crime? If a person is unbalanced, does the 50th article they read make them think that perhaps doing something like that isn't so crazy afterall? I don't know, but we've had these types of attacks for 100+ years and it is only in today's hyper media world that everyone on the planet knows every little detail whether they want to or not.

In this profit-driven mainstream media world, it's all about the money. You clicking on this article made nbcnews.com money. Why wouldn't they publish this information? People like you and me click on it and advertisers pay them.

I, for one, want to learn everything I can about this case; maybe we can learn something about mental health and perhaps apply that to preventing these types of attacks in the future.

Do you really think Adam Lanza terrorized an elementary school because he heard of this case? Do you think he wouldn't have done it had the media not reported on facts pertaining to the case?

With the cult followings these shooters generate, I think a little discretion would be nice. They could have done without naming the specific chemicals. As jayinflorida said, the information is out there for the people who want to go looking for it. I just don't like that the media spoonfed it to them.

In these days where any type of information is available at any time by accessing the internet, do you really think that there are people waiting for an nbcnews article for information on high explosives?

Do you think that glycerine, potassium permanganate, firweworks, napalm, and thermite were unknown before this article? Wouldn't it be easier to do a google search on "The Anarchist Cookbook"? OH NO! Now they know about "The Anarchist Cookbook"! Sorry about that.

Do a google search and you can find how to make just about anything. Even Youtube.

Becuase, like it or not, everyone deserves a fair trial ..EVERYONE

Justice is really, and literally blind (especially in this country). It doesn't make it fair (especially with lots of money).

The judge isn't allowing the media in the courtroom. I know it's annoying for you and me, but it's probably better for the victims and their families.

I want to live in a country with lots of insane asylums.

That's odd, looks like it would be better to live in a country where none are needed.

"He is guilty."

Not according to the laws of our land. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You want instant justice? Move to North Korea or Iran.

You don't support the right to due process but I'd bet money you support the second amendment.

Hell, give him his fair trail. I have no problem with that, but what he's got is not curable. The death penalty is specifically reserved for Psychotics. I don't want my tax money to be used as life support to someone like this.

Anything less than a date with a needle would be a travesty to the memory of those 26 little chlidren, and others that lost their lives. Period.

I would give as much money as I could to make sure that date is expedited ASAP!

That would be justice.

If the punishment fits the crime sure instant justice would be fine. I believe you may find if it had been one of your children you would want instant justice too, nevermind North Korea, or Iran.

Insane people can't make plans or follow them? Interesting theory.

He clearly knows right from wrong and was aware of his actions. That's all that matters here.

I seriously doubt he'll be found not guilty by reason of insanity. I mean, Jared Loughner really was insane and they drugged him up to make him temporarily just sane enough to be found guilty. Personally, I think they should both be found insane and so should damn near everyone who commits a premeditated violent crime. Being found insane is not getting off the hook... Mental hospitals for the criminally insane are often worse than prison, and people who are there for murder rarely ever get out. The point is that we could use valuable resources to try to understand these people, not to justify what they did but to learn how to spot warning signs in the future and treat people before they ever get to that point. We're way too concerned with revenge and not concerned enough with prevention. Hate the guy and hate everything he did but he's still a valuable tool for study.

Bob,

What he did was too intricate. There were too many layers and the relationships between the chemicals he used, in addition to the different traps and accumulating the weapons and equipment he used, were too complicated for someone with "Diminished Capacity".

Yes, he is insane, that much is obvious, but he's a Psychotic. Look it up.

Military Man, if you were the jury, you have just spared James Holmes' life. See Ford v. Wainwright.

Comment reminded me of A Clockwork Orange for some odd reason...

“But brothers, this biting of their toe-nails over what is the cause of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don't go into what is the cause of goodness, so why of the other shop? If lewdies are good that's because they like it, and I wouldn't ever interfere with their pleasures, and so of the other shop. And I was patronizing the other shop. More, badness is of the self, the one, the you or me on our oddy knockies, and that self is made by old Bog or God and is his great pride and radosty. But the not-self cannot have the bad, meaning they of the government and the judges and the schools cannot allow the bad because they cannot allow the self. And is not our modern history, my brothers, the story of brave malenky selves fighting these big machines? I am serious with you, brothers, over this. But what I do I do because I like to do.” ~Alex

No Bob,

I didn't. Psychosis may be treatable, but a psychotic who hid his actions and admitted to his knowledge that this would land him in prison, that's called pre-meditated. I explained that everything he did was premeditated. It was too intricate NOT to be.

No Bob, never said or implied anything of the sort. You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension.

I said he was sane enough to put together this very intricate plot, including diverting attention away from what he was planning to do (and that was a pretty elaborate setup as well), and he was sane enough to know his premeditated actions were wrong. He knew he'd go to jail for it. He knew if anyone had a weapon and tried to use it to stop him when he got there, he'd need to protect himself, head to toe. He LIKED the idea of what he was about to do. Joked about it.

If he wasn't too insane to plan weeks in advance how he would kill a bunch of moviegoers, he is not too insane now to stand trial and face the consequences.

Thank you, come on...yes, that IS what matters here...he was 100% aware of the difference between right and wrong when he did what he did.

rightwingscrewball, was that really necessary?

Her comments do warrant some merit, whether you agree or not. I'd rather learn something new that might help prevent someone else like him from purchasing guns in the future.

Go on, throw some f-bombs my way now. Add a few assumtions about the kind of person I am or which party I associate with (or not), too.

Insane, I don't think that word means what you think it means, thedeb. Your "logic" is flawed.

"In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill".

Normal perception: He knew what he was planning to do was wrong, he understood that he would be killing people and he took precautions and measures to prevent from getting killed himself, and once he was caught he confessed to the police about the booby-trapped apartment just waiting to kill more

Normal behavior and social interaction: If he was unable to conduct himself with what society deems to be "normal" behavior, how many people do you think would have been willing to sell him guns and ammunition? He needed to fly under the radar in order for his plan to work.

Quite honestly, sane or insane should make no difference. If he was aware of what he was doing then he cannot plead not guilty.

Punishes the taxpayer? Really? How much of Holmes's prison fee do you really think comes out of your personal taxes? I'd be surprised if it was 1/100th of a cent. If you're so concerned about your tax dollars, why not talk to the oil and gas lobbies about getting us out of unnecessary wars. Drone strikes kill innocent people every day just like Holmes did, including children as young as Veronica. Yeah, I know their skin is a little darker and they live far away. That doesn't make it any different.

The 2012 cost of Colorado prisons alone was $606 million. Colorado has 5.1 million people living here. That's $120 of cost for every man, woman, and child in the state. Let's hear your numbers on the oil and gas story.

By the way, the war we're in is with a country known for it's opium growth, not oil.

Now you have to divide $120 by Colorado's prison population. Math is hard!

Steve-One, keeping someone in prison is actually cheaper than exectuting them. Yes i know its due to all the appeals processes, but given how many death row inmates have been found innocent due to the appeals process, I think the cost is worth it to prevent an innocent man being exectuted.

Is that what you really think prison is like? Wow.

New York, New York sounds like a good prospect.

Well that's how Australia originated. lol

JohnBrowning, you have something in common with the 9/11 perpetrators. Well done!

My dad said the same thing for years before he passed away.

I don't know what barbaric country you live in, but we still have something called "due process" here.

Process what? He is guilty by his own admission and the testimony of numerous witnesses. What is there to process or are you one of those moronic liberals that thinks that he should be let off because he hated his mommy.

This POS should be publicly executed as a warning to others.

The due process of law required by the Constitution. What part of this is not clear to you? And he very well may be executed. AFTER due process of law. We don't have mob justice in this country.

Ah, but Joe, mob justice is what these gun toting a**holes WANT. THEY don't like the duly elected government, so they are going to "resist." etc. etc. etc.

Joe speaking of the "process of BS" that involves the money, which is, in the facade of "due process".

Yeah, lovely little system we have. And lawyers wonder why they are punch lines in jokes, and not revered well to many?

bahrrt, is that english you are writing? You sure don't sound like an American.

Did you know that "due process" is in our Constitution and is afforded to all American citizens? Do you not support the Constitution? If you can so easily dismiss the 14th Amendment, than you can't really complain about people wanting to dismiss the 2nd Amendment.

bahrrt is right. The justice system in the US has been perverted to the extreme. Due process my ass. Sure put him before a jury and let the witnesses say what they saw and let his written confession be read. Then hang the little bastard.

Instead we will spend millions on fees and testing to find out if he is crazy. Of course he is crazy. Sane people don't do these things.

If justice was a little more swift in the US perhaps the crime would be remembered along with the punishment that came with committing the act. Instead we wait 25 year to put down the dog and no one remembers the crime.

Educate yourself and look up "preliminary hearing".

rightwingscrewball, you are an un-American blowhard. I follow this little thing called the Constitution, you probably haven't heard of it, but it is the backbone of our great country. Perhaps you should move to Iran, they like to save taxpayer dollars by limiting the rights of their citizens.

Nothing you have written today has any value whatsoever, and we are all dumber for reading it.

Blame the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically the due process clause.

I must agree with you. This certifiable nutcase should be rotting in prison.

Be careful what you say; otherwise you can expect a visit from the Effa Bee Eye. I hope you are kidding. Truly, I do.

He was barely able to stand when they found him sitting drowsy in his car.

Murdered and not alive anymore! This is serious!

I think you need to educate yourself on how rarely the insanity defense is actually successfull. It's a very small percentage of cases where it is attempted. MOST insanity defenses fail because it is a strict standard that is very hard to meet.

I wish for a billion dollars.

We get it your paranoid of another theoretical stalin coming into power and worried about someone taking your guns away from you....believe me we get it. No one wants to take guns away they just want stricter rules. How can anyone be against that? If you are all just innocent gun owners it should not be a issue.

LOL at the instant knee-jerk response. Pure partisan politics without regard for objectivity or perrsonal honesty. 95% of this fight is about campaign finance, special interest group funding and the perennial red/blue fight for enough votes to control the federal purse.

Contrary to your assumption I don't own any guns and I fully support more controls on gun ownership. I just think we need to be honest about it when we say that many of us fully intend to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of everyone in the interest of public safety; and the extremists fully intend to revoke that particular civil liberty. I'm in favor of the former (within reason) but not the latter.

Jazmin, I think Mao, Stalin and Hitler said something similar to that.

Jazmine,

Vermont initiated a ban on "Assault weapons" already. There are other communities who have started pushing local governments to do the same. Will it happen? I don't know.

The problem here is, they are shooting the horse not the coyote. The issue at hand isn't whether the weapons should be available, it's who should have access to them. Unfortunately, there was no indication of violence in the actions of this slime, because he intentionally hid what he was doing. There was NO psychological trail to follow, because he had not presented a tendency for violence. He IS psychotic.

What he has done required significant planning, preparation and knowledge that someone with "Diminished Capacity" would not have had.

Is there a "fix" to what happened? NO. Because he avoided all the tell tales that would have gotten him help, or prevented him from doing what he did. This wasn't like Harris and Klebold in Littleton, he didn't brag to his "friends" or post his intentions on a web-site (though the dating messages might shoot that down).

Gun regulations, though not perfect are good, as long as communcation is made. If there is SOMETHING in the system that might prevent people like him to have access, he wouldn't have HAD access. Privacy regulations keep mentally unstable people from being reported, preventing them from having access to weapons. But he didn't have a trail.

AS we can see from the content of this story, he used FAR more to cause death and mayhem than an Assault Rifle, he used fireworks, chemicals and household items to create traps. He intended to kill, and it didn't matter if he was able to access the theater to do it. And, the shooter from Newtown used Hand-Guns, not Assault weapons.

As usual, instead of correcting what is wrong with the system, they want to outlaw access to everybody.

Tom-rightwing screw ball. Nailed-Godwin's Law, you just lost your arguments.

Firearms of any kind are a billion dollar industry. And so was smoking. A lot was done of the latter, and not so much of the former. Why? We can save lives by preventing cancer, but can't protect our children from being slaughtered in our own schools where we think they are most safe?

The politics and American people will come around to pressing their "weight" to getting something resolved because, I, for one, am sick and tired of turning on the TV every single day in the major metro area that I live in and hear of a shooting death. Every single day.

I get involved. I sign petitions, back legislation, and support the bans, but something more needs to happen, and hopefully not another shooting death of someone innocent to make it happen. This is a fight that needs to happen.