BTW, a good example is the pastor's statement just now on LKL, that the second service was over and there were "only" a few hundred people left on the campus. That doesn't change the basic story of almost any of the discussion so far, but most people have been talking, on these threads, as if it were a fact that there were 7,000 people on site. Just another little point about waiting for real facts to emerge.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5363716.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU4ax39rFCnqHnipVp5TCGP6TKqgD8TESGQO1
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1926872007
http://www.denverpost.com/money/ci_7679696
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-12-11T011025Z_01_N09332256_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SHOOTING-COLORADO-COL.XML&archived=False
BohDa, you might want to reconsider your post. I did a search on Google, using only "7,000 people". I used no mention of anything else in my search box.
The result was 4,367 articles. All the ones I posted above stated 7,000 people were in the church at the time. (In fact, the last one, the Reuters article is only one hour old!)
If 4,367 have published news articles today stating there were 7,000 people in the church at the time of the shootings, how much longer do you expect us to wait for the "REAL FACTS TO EMERGE"?
May I suggest you don't read any posts here until the news is three days old?
This makes more sense, actually. I was wondering why the casualty count was so low if he had an assault gun a supposedly packed parking lot and thousands of people exiting the church.