County Police Will Not Assign Officers To Theaters

Spokeswoman says department is monitoring the Colorado shooting but "have no information to indicate that theater-goers in Baltimore County are at any risk."

UPDATE (3:16 p.m.)—The Baltimore County Police Department will not assign police to movie theaters this weekend in the wake of the shooting at the opening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, CO.

Elise Armacost, in an email statement, said the department "is monitoring the developing case in Colorado and will continue to assess the likelihood of problems here in Baltimore County.

"We are not assigning officers to movie theaters, but we will increase patrols around malls and movie theaters to alleviate community fears and address any potential threats that may occur," Armacost wrote in the statement. "In addition, theaters often employ off duty police officers, so law enforcement may already be present."

In other jurisdictions such as and , police are being assigned to theaters in the aftermath of the shooting.

Armacost called the Colorado shooting a "random horrible crime." Local police in Aurora have been clear that "this is not a terrorist attack or that anyone else is involved," she said.

Armacost said county police "have no information to indicate that theater-goers in Baltimore County are at any risk."

Law enforcement is regularly present around AMC Loews White Marsh 16, according to Capt. Michael Balog of the White Marsh precinct.

In addition to on-duty patrol officers who cover area streets The Avenue at White Marsh shopping center and movie theater employ uniformed police officers who provide additional part-time security, Balog said.


Emily Kimball, local editor for Perry Hall Patch, contributed to this story.

Arbutus Town Crier July 22, 2012 at 02:55 AM
defend freedom- if the country that's why freedom of speech is #1 right to Freedom of speech (vote) if that don't work #2 “keep and bear Arms” if for the people are under control of the government Vs. the people control the government. The education process today do not know the laws of nature and Common sense were the Generation of WW2 knew. So we went from common sense to it all depends how you define what is is? the debates I find on the patch seems its common sense Vs. define what is is? mentality We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (common Sense) everyone prides themselves of being better than the other thru Education. I hate to tell you we all have the same color blood running thru our veins, And the level that we are to agree on is based on unalienable Rights that makes us equal. Some refuse to use what all of us are born with, but rather use another opinion or teaching of a man.
Steve July 22, 2012 at 03:13 AM
Keep drinking Pops!
Tim July 22, 2012 at 04:29 AM
Tim July 22, 2012 at 04:30 AM
Riiight. He was in FULL body armor. None of the movie going, gun toting schlubs would have had a chance. They'd have just added to the body count.
Arlow July 22, 2012 at 04:38 AM
They check your ID to get into a movie? And yet not to vote?
Tim July 22, 2012 at 04:39 AM
The second amendment only called for citizens to be 'armed' for the specific purpose of a militia. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" It amazes me how this has turned into 'anyone can own a gun'. Nowhere does it say that we all have a Constitutional right to bear arms. Really, what the Constitution says is that (in today's context)anyone actively in the national guard or active military duty can be armed. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, conceivably, any male at any time could be called into service, i.e. the term militia. However, this is grossly taken out of context as applied today. There isn't even a draft. Although the one qualifier I'll make to this statement, I am alright with folks having a firearm in their home. I am a big believer in the Castle Doctrine. Taking it outside of your home? No.
Arlow July 22, 2012 at 04:44 AM
For crying out loud, this guy was covered in FULL BODY ARMOR! Got it? FULL BODY ARMOR! Even if the whole frikking audience had been packing heat, they would not have stood a chance because he was wearing FULL BODY ARMOR. Unless one had a permit to carry a bazooka. Geez-us.
Arbutus Town Crier July 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Arlow Good point FULL BODY ARMOR! ! Its not about gun control, laws, its an individuals actions, preventive actions? Dennis Gilpin makes another good point. Percentage of purchased legally for criminal use Vs. everyday crime stolen guns has to be greater percentage. Human beings are very adaptable and have a mind to over come obstacles (drugs, cell phones in prison). That is one thing no one has control of a persons mind, Face it ! their is no rational reason for this tragic meaningless action.
Evets July 22, 2012 at 01:14 PM
He did not have an automatic weapon. He had an AR-15, usually described (pejoratively) as a semi-automatic assault weapon. You can legally buy one in most states in the USA, assuming you are not a convicted felon or have been certified as mentally ill. There are many other and cheaper semi-automatic rifles also available. Many people buy the AR-15 because of its looks (it is cosmetically similar to the M-16 the military uses). The handguns that the shooter in Colorado had can also be termed as semi-automatic. BTW, I am neither advocating nor criticizing these weapons nor their availability.
Evets July 22, 2012 at 01:16 PM
You are correct. And, ironically, in most states you are free to own an AR-15 but not the type of body armor that the shooter had.
Buck Harmon July 22, 2012 at 01:59 PM
I consider the right to bear arms as personal security... necessary security in order to assist in the maintenance and control of government at various times thru history, and also to the future if necessary. Without this ability , the government functions the opposite of the intended purpose ...to serve the people. The government controls the people....that's a very dangerous and bad thing...
Buck Harmon July 22, 2012 at 02:01 PM
I agree with that...!
Buck Harmon July 22, 2012 at 02:04 PM
That is very ironic....what if your occupation is a knight in shining armor...your out of business...
Other Tim July 22, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Tim, the Supreme Court seems to differ with most of your argument. Don't get me wrong. Just because the Supreme Court says something does not mean everyone must agree. See their latest ruling concerning Omamacare.
BFD21234 July 22, 2012 at 05:18 PM
to Tim: I disagree with your interpertation on the right to bear arms. The right to 'bear arms' is not limited to only National Guard and Reserve soldiers. You are combining the two clauses. They are separate.
Stephen July 22, 2012 at 08:07 PM
I think all theater chains can wait until morning DAYLIGHT to premiere movies! Say start at 8 or 9am. I feel the premiere's at 12:o1 am are over soon!
Eastsider July 22, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Why Stephen if a nut bag is going to kill people he will kill at 12, 10, 8 or anytime of the day.
JD1 July 23, 2012 at 03:17 PM
As long as the "bad guys" have access to weapons, we need to be sure that law abiding citizens can purchase and carry fire arms. Failed gun policy has gotten us to this point, now we need to do the right thing to protect the public and when perps know that someone may be packing they will think twice before acting. Impossible to tell how it would have played out in this case - my guess is they guy would have done it regardless. I think it could eliminate some of the crimes committed by small time spineless dirt bags that feel like they can get away with 50 bucks every time they wave a gun in someone's face.
funnyguy July 23, 2012 at 03:20 PM
for crying out loud BODY ARMOR!! FULL BODY ARMOR!!!! lol! Actually, the FACTS say the shooter had a simple bullet resistant vest and tactical leggings. Tactical clothing does not mean bullet proof, tactical bodywear is cheap-o made in china accessories with a lot of pockets and gun holsters. Made for people who like police gear, not any more dangerous or bullet resistant then any other pants, helmet, throat protector. I dont care what a person is wearing, even a bullet proof vest, if that person catches a .45 they are badly hurt There are tons and tons of anti-gun people having a field day behind this case. I can not wait until this story blows over, and all the political cry baby's go back to spewing their mis-information onto the next big news event.
Tim July 23, 2012 at 03:50 PM
Oh, I'm completely aware that the Supreme Court disagrees. Then again, the NRA is, outside of AARP, probably the msot powerful lobbying group in the country. You don't get justices on the Court if they don't agree with the NRA. Remember, they all get vetted by Congress.
Tim July 23, 2012 at 03:54 PM
BFD: That's fine. I personally don't agree they are seperate. Given the context of the law at the time (post Revolution) it's clear - at least to me - that they are not independent. If they were truly to be considered independent of each other, they'd have been seperate amendments - or at least properly seperated. In the end, it doesn't matter what I think. If I were an actual justice, my career would go nowhere with this kind of view. Even if I had proof from the founding fathers via time travel that I was right. I didn't think most folks would agree with me. There are some solid arguments to be made on both sides of this.
Tim July 23, 2012 at 05:42 PM
Buck: Your personal security is not going to prevent the government from doing anything it wants, at any point in time. Again though, I completely agree and support gun ownership for home self defense. A dead burglar is fine by me.
Evets July 23, 2012 at 05:48 PM
Bart - the shooter did not have an automatic weapon. The law that was allowed to lapse (by Congress, BTW) would have banned the type of magazine he had.
ZIG July 23, 2012 at 07:41 PM
Agree. Grow up. This statement shows no regard for the victims and a lck of class.
Buck Harmon July 23, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Government control of guns has a clear and parallel history to genocide throughout the world...fact.
kevin July 24, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Fact are the gun jammed which probably saved many lives. So all you blaming the guns are smarter than the FBI profilers who have consistently repeated,he was a time bomb that planned this for over four months.If guns were unavailable to him he had access to chemicals and knowledge to make bombs and gases that would have wiped out the theater.His money from the FBI sources "He was receiving $21,000.00 from the DHS (FEDERAL GOVERMENT) which he spent approximately $8,000 on guns,ammo chemicals and bomb componets. He also had legal access to Chemicals in the research labs that would have been used if guns were unavailable.He was going to go off,not sure if it was over a break up with a women.Also he was caught by two alert responders that realized his gas mask wasn't regulation. it was Great police work. Finally he didn't do this alone Obama's Educational system gave him the Grant to build his arsenal. This time I guess Obama was right.
Tim July 24, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Eastsider: Yeah. This had more to do with being the 'first' showing of the movie. It could have been 7pm and he'd still do it. This guy wanted to be a spectacle, doing it at a premier showing gave him maximum possible exposure.
Steve July 24, 2012 at 07:28 PM
Nope, Not a fact. Government didn't control the guns in Rwanda, Bosnia or Sudan.
Buck Harmon July 24, 2012 at 09:19 PM
Take the time to watch this Steve...I think you just make comments with no point sometimes...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Buck Harmon July 24, 2012 at 09:22 PM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something