'Dark Knight Rises' Aurora shooting: James Holmes charged with murder
Published Jul 30 2012, 18:43 BST | By Kristina Bustos
Holmes is accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 when he opened fire during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora on July 20.
Holmes has been charged with 24 counts of first degree murder - two counts for each of the 12 people dead in the shooting.
The charges include one count of murder and one count of murder in "extreme indifference to the value of human life" for each victim.
Holmes was also charged with 116 counts of attempted murder - two counts for each of the 58 people injured.
The attempted murder charges include one count of attempted premeditated murder and one count of murder with "extreme indifference" for each of the people injured in the shooting.
Holmes first made an appearance in court on Monday, July 23 without speaking at his arraignment hearing.
He could face a death penalty sentence if found guilty of his charges.
Prosecutors previously said that it could take month before a decision on the death penalty is made.
Holmes is expected to appear in court again on August 9.
Watch footage of James Holmes's first appearance in court below:
DEATH PENALTY!
July 31st 2012 at 9:10pm
But keep the outdated gun law right. Shouldn't be your right to bear arms in modern society. Americans will still fight for it. Nutters
July 31st 2012 at 3:29pm
Sideshow Bob
July 31st 2012 at 1:45pm(+1 like)
What about the 2nd shooter? media seems to ignore that part
There's more to this :^)
July 31st 2012 at 1:24pm
I hope he gets the death penalty, then he's no danger to anyone. I also don't believe for a second he's insane (well, any more than any other murder), he's an very intelligent person who could easily fake the symptoms of mental illness.
July 31st 2012 at 10:06am(+1 like)
Or . . . he's just mentally ill.
Here we are, living in the 21st century in what is supposed to be a civilised part of the planet and people still chant "orf wiv 'is 'ead". How on Earth do you gain the moral high ground by demanding that murderers be murdered? Murder is still murder and it is simply wrong no matter who commits it. If a judge sentences him to death then he is no better than the murderer.
And anyway, if he's murdered he doesn't get to live out his punishment of being ostracised by society and regretting what he's done while behind some metal bars, (if he is mentally capable of regret).
July 31st 2012 at 10:28am(+2 likes)
whilst i agree with you that he should live out being ostracised for the rest of his life, i don't agree that murder is still murder....he walked into a theatre age 24 and killed 12 people and injured a further 58, without prejudice and heavily premeditated including children. The state is in every possible way able to take the moral high-ground. I don't particularly agree with the death penalty, but what he did, and what may be done to him do not compare and this is a situation that has played out many times in the past century.
To label a judge, a person who enforces the law for the good of the people, and has them on his side, as no better than a degenerative murderer who slayed people in a cinema out of pure cruelty is a little short sighted, no?
July 31st 2012 at 10:47am
No matter who commits it, murder . . . is murder. That's why they'e both called "murder" no matter who commits it.
I think his behaviour is comparable to the work of the Yorkshire Ripper. Both may have murdered in different ways but they were still both psychos who intended to commit murder. If the state begins murdering people who have broken the law then they become murderers, killing people in far larger numbers than the people they are sentencing.
Anyway, what if the person turns out to be innocent? I know he wasn't in this case, but what if another person who is sentenced and then electrocuted or whatever is innocent? That's exactly what our middle-aged ancestors used to do with totally innocent women who were suspected of being "witches". The year is 2012 and some people's ideas of justice have not advanced past 1573.
July 31st 2012 at 11:00am(+1 like)
Except we know he isn't innocent you moron
July 31st 2012 at 11:01am(+1 like)
And did we murder Peter Sutcliffe? Do you think he should be murdered, as to some people it might seem the state is glorifying it - and places like Tower Hamlets and Bradford certainly don't need that attitude amongst their youths.
July 31st 2012 at 11:02am
Read the third paragraph in my second comment again and you'll realise that there's a small part of the second sentence saying "I know he wasn't in this case".
*Read* things and you'll not end up looking like a fool.
July 31st 2012 at 2:48pm
Why shouldn't it be a life for a life? He killed 12 people but without the death penalty Americans will be paying for him through tax for the rest of his life. With the death penalty, he'd be no-one's problem and it's not like there's any doubt that he's the culprit.
July 31st 2012 at 3:16pm