Disturbed Frontman Slams Parents At Batman Massacre

David Draiman is outraged that parents brought young children to the ill-fated "Dark Knight Rises" midnight screening which ended in a massacre.

Ultimate Guitar

Disturbed frontman David Draiman has slammed the parents who took their 6-year-old daughter to the ill-fated "The Dark Knight Rises" which ended in a massacre.

The girl was one of 12 who were killed in the attack. Another 58 people were injured by the lone gunman, who opened fire during the screening, including a three-month-old baby.

Draiman took to Twitter to air his opinion, resulting in a backlash from some who felt his comments were in bad taste given the circumstances.

"All you parents out there that think it's OK to take your infants out on the town with you, to a movie theater or otherwise, do the world a favor. Give your children up for adoption to parents who know what it is to be a responsible parent, and sacrifice on behalf of their children. Get a damn babysitter."

He added: "This is why only certain people should be allowed the gift of a child. Too many simply aren't ready for the responsibility."

Despite making a reasonable point, his message prompted some negative comments. Responding to them, Draiman said he has nothing but the deepest condolences for the victims and their families, but stands by his statement:

"The notion that somehow it is alright to take a three-month old infant to a showing of any movie is preposterous... the effect that movie theatre sound often at dangerous levels of [decibels] can do permanent damage to a three-month-old infant's still-developing hearing.

"It is and will remain my opinion that those who would subject a three-month-old child to it are not only irresponsible, sh-tty parents, but they should also be charged with child endagerment."

251 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Disturbed Frontman Slams Parents
    You know, to someone addicted to porn, this can be a very disturbing headline...
    Shooting or no shooting, little kids shouldn't be brought out to a theater showing anyway (unless it's a kid movie)How many of you have been distracted by a crying baby or a toddler who won't keep it down? I know I have. When I was little, my parents just got a babysitter.
    Slamming the parents or blaming them for their kids death is a bit far but I was wondering the same thing - who takes a 3-month old child or even a 6 year old to a midnight showing of a PG-13 movie as dark as Batman? Especially since this is the third movie - it's not like the tone of the movie is a surprise. Nowhere near reason enough for their child to end up murdered but still not the brightest idea.
    I dont think its a horrible idea to bring a child to a theatre. You should be able to expect a safe gun-free environment. But bringing your 3-month-old to a midnight showing???
    iommi600 wrote: Disturbed Frontman Slams Parents You know, to someone addicted to porn, this can be a very disturbing headline...
    I see what you did there..
    Agree with half, disagree with the other half. Yes you're stupid if you take very young children out to inner city theaters at midnight to watch adult-oriented films, but bringing adoption into this is just a bit puerile as far as I'm concerned.
    I agree, although his comments were in bad taste... No infant should have been at a movie, ESPECIALLY a midnight showing.
    As bad as the timing is, he really does have a valid point. He probably could've worded it a little differently though and I think that's where the issue is.
    Though it was stated in poor taste, at least Draiman made a decent point instead of being one of the millions of people to air their support of the availability of guns when 12 people were killed with, you guessed it, guns. I am a goddamn redneck who loves to hunt, and even I think we need stricter regulations on our firearms. The mere fact that he was able to legally buy some (if not all) of these weapons absolutely sickens me, and to have all that ammo shipped to him with no questions asked? Give me a ****ing break. People's lives are more important than your guns. Figured I'd just throw that out there. On another note, no movie matters so much that you absolutely have to take your children to a midnight showing. Jesus Christ, people. I'm sorry, but if you have kids one of your new responsibilities is putting the child to sleep at a decent time and that also involves foregoing your preferred bedtime because the kid will be up between 6 and 7, in all likelihood.
    jms736 wrote: I get what he's saying, but why criticize the people who got shot at, and not the person who did the shooting
    His point is that children should not have even been there allowing the opportunity to be shot in the first place. He probably could have handled this with a bit more tact, but he's absolutely right in what he said.
    chud123 wrote: for all the people saying "oh these parents are awful they should have got a babysitter" you do realize that this was a midnight showing and the movie played until about 2:30am. goodluck findin a babysitter for those hours
    yea, theres a thing called sacrifice...you have an infant or a young child requiring supervision...guess what?? you need to sacrifice going to a midnight showing of this movie and wait until you can get a babysitter...idiot
    bmarlatt1685 wrote: I'll probably get crap for this, but Draiman's a dumb ass. No one going to this movie could forsee what was going to happen later on. Whenever I attend a movie, I normally don't expect a bat shit crazy shooter coming in with fireworks and a gun and shooting the theater to hell and back.
    regardless he's right a ****ing 3 year old shouldn't have been there in the first place and thats the point
    Mikethespud wrote: I agree with him, who the hell brings a 3 month old to a midnight viewing?
    Let alone a 6 year old. Its PG13 for a reason. Theres no morality in the world anymore
    Jasonbts wrote: I agree, although his comments were in bad taste... No infant should have been at a movie, ESPECIALLY a midnight showing.
    Some couple took a 3 year old to the movie "Predators". It was screeching it's head off and I thought "Those are some stupid parents."
    Guys stop insulting David Draiman. You don't know him. He loves kids. Seriously, there are videos of him on YouTube, pulling kids on stage and introducing them to the audience, and then telling them to cover their ears when an obscenity is coming up, (it's freaking adorable!)He has been trying to have kids for a long time, too. He has posted other things, talking about how irresponsible parents should give their kids to more responsible, loving parents. I may be over analyzing but I think it's because he knows he will make a good dad. It breaks his heart when stuff like this happens, and I honestly think this is a gut reaction for him. Plus, he isn't blaming the parents, he obviously said, he
    Draiman said he has nothing but the deepest condolences for the victims and their families
    Yes, this was a little harsh, but he is a good person, a very good person, actually. He's realistic, and he's aware that that offends some people. DON'T take his words out of context. Yes, a little brash, but understand WHY he says this, rather than just judging.
    I saw the first Batman, with Michael Keaton, in theaters, maybe not a midnight showing, but probably a 9/10 p.m., when I was FOUR YEARS OLD... I mean, wtf, society is so ****ing ridiculous anymore. It's not like they were taken to a midnight showing of the new Saw movie, which probably happens ALL THE TIME but due to the fact there hasn't been shootings at Saw movies YOU HAVE NO IDEA. What time a child is awake and what superheroes he might like should be of no ****ing concern to absolutely anybody. The only goddamn concern, should be that a crazy ***** broke into a movie theater with automatic weapons and killed people. And I think people should be way more concerned that anyone can buy automatic weapons legally and go run around to places killing everyone, than a kid watching a Batman movie at midnight on a thursday.
    I think the problem a lot of you are having with what he said is that you're missing the damn point. He's not saying the parents should have known about some crazy mother****er with a gun and not brought their children, he's saying that the parents put their children in an environment not suited to children in the first place. THAT was the irresponsible part. Movie theater showing something with subject matter like The Dark Knight was already poor form for the parents, but at midnight just made it worse. Call him an ***** for saying this while people are in mourning, but keep in mind that he's not wrong.
    Anarchojoe wrote: He didn't even mention the shooting.....
    He did in his "apology" and I quote: "I HAVE NOTHING BUT THE DEEPEST CONDOLENCES FOR THE FAMILIES OF THE DENVER BATMAN MASSACRE. IT IS SHOCKING BEYOND BELIEF, AND MAY THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME BE FORCED TO TOSS HITLERS SALAD IN HELL FOR ETERNITY." And then he goes right back into why a 3 month old baby shouldn't be in a movie theater which is obviously MUCH more important than 12 people getting massacred...
    He didn't say ANYTHING about being responsible for the shooting, foreseeing the future or the unfortunate shooting. That was NOT his point at all. A parent should not be taking their 3 month old to a movie. His point was NOT 'it's the parents fault the kid got shot.' Shooting or no, don't take your infant child to a movie theater.
    Why is it that nobody here seems to understand that hes not saying they're shitty parents because they took their small children to a movie theater knowing full well that some psycho would come in and shoot the place up.. His comments have almost nothing to do with the shooting at all. He's just saying parents shouldn't bring small children in general.
    I might agree with some of the message (I mean the dark night is really dark, if you get what I mean) but this definitely is not the time for him to get on his high horse about who should be allowed to have a child and how irresponsible the parents are I mean they are already grieving their lost child and now this a**hole has to go and preach to them, please.
    One of 2 things is gonna happen: 1. He'll apologize after the backlash Or 2. Nothing's gonna happen cuz no one cares about Disturbed anymore
    This sounds more like he was upset that babies were crying during the midnight showing he was at. He doesn't even mention the shootings.
    Mike Quall wrote: if everybody had the right to carry weapons the suspect probably would have been dead after the first shot.
    Yeah, in your wet dream. A guy protected from head to toe with a shotgun would have been taken down by a crowd full of gun wielding civilians in a dark, tear-gas filled theater? How could you possibly think that wouldn't have resulted in more deaths rather than fewer? Jesus Christ, I don't want to live in this country anymore.
    Am I the only one that can read? Dave NEVEr said anything about the 6 year old, the crappy author of the article did. Dave only commented about the infant. And he is absolutely right, movie theater sounds can damage their hearing. Especially TDKR which has some very loud scenes.
    most movies here in holland have age restrictions to them, I believe there are no movies that allow 3 years and under to be able to go in such a theater, it's really a shame that some parrents negate those age restrictments. certain things are created for a reason.
    He's completely right, but he's put it too strong too soon. Wait for time to pass and say things a bit more... moderately.
    the people who gave him backlash on his statement are morons he's 100% right and thats the bottom line
    If you actually read what he said you'll realize that he's talking about the infant, not the 6 year old. He doesn't mention the six year old at all. He didn't mention the shooter in his comments at all, so he isn't blaming parents for that. He's concerned for the child's development, especially the hearing and he's absolutely right to slam the parents for taking their 3 month old to that movie.
    I get what he's saying, but why criticize the people who got shot at, and not the person who did the shooting
    LiquidColors18 wrote: This sounds more like he was upset that babies were crying during the midnight showing he was at. He doesn't even mention the shootings.
    I was thinking the exact same thing.
    BrownGibsonDude wrote: God forbid those parents wanted their child to be with them, God forbid that maybe somehow Batman was a integral part of their life and wants their child to experience, God forbid that they leave their child with a sitter who will just end up neglecting their needs and possibly bringing people over (Which they do, they have the same intelligence as some as the posters here so it's practically expected at this point)
    They want their child to be with them? Go to a playground. Batman is an integral part of your life? First, grow up...Batman shouldn't be an integral part of any adult's life. Second, get them into some of the less violent comic books or a cartoon series. The movies were obviously made for adults and aren't appropriate for 6-year-olds. So what...if I'm really into porn, I share it with my toddler? They don't want to leave their kids with sitters? Than don't go places toddlers can't go! Sorry, being a good parent means you give up things like going to a midnight movie made for adults if you can't find a sitter you trust. I get calling Draiman's comments ill-timed or in bad taste, but why the f#ck are there so many posts defending the parents? Bad taste aside, he's completely right...it's almost as if this website is full of sh#tty parents that want to justify their own sh#tty parenting by defending what it quite obviously a case of sh#tty parenting which unfortunately resulted in the sh#tty parent's kid getting shot.
    He's right of course, but holy **** is he a dick for capitalizing on the random slaughter of innocent people to get his message across. Not cool.
    I remember seeing American Gangster and there was a kid there who couldn't have been more than 2 years old. People just don't give a ****. I don't think he's trying to blame them for incident, but he still makes a good point.
    yup its the parents fault for bringing the kid with them, get a babysitter and be responsible!?! ya cuz leaving your child with another person, possibly a stranger, is more responsilbe then spending time with their parents
    why would you take a 6 year old to TDKR anyways? either hes not gonna care or understand or get the crap scared out of him- waste of $
    ya wanna know whats wierd. this is exactly what the killer wanted. Look at society. truly if he hadnt had killed anyone. would this be here on this thread. would this have gained national attention. NO no it wouldnt. This man was no retard. OUt of his mind perhaps but not stupid. He was goin to become a doctor. He saw people die in front of him all the time. from criminals. or from disease. whatever. fact is society upset him because we truly internationally have no securtiy. For example Culumbine blew up to a huge media message when the child that brought a gun to school but didnt kill anyone didnt. fact of the matter is the gun was thier and he had the potential. you see the potential was there. Thats the point to be made. We have no security and the only way society is gonna wake up and realize this is by actions from people like this doc/shooter. I think this crazy man was simply tryin to prove a point...kinda like the joker in batman...
    Franko 316
    iommi600 wrote: Disturbed Frontman Slams Parents You know, to someone addicted to porn, this can be a very disturbing headline...
    222 Thumbs UP
    iommi600 wrote: By the way, my eyes hurt from so much stupidity. A ****ing psychopath showed up shooting at people. What do you expect parents to be, prophets? If properly watched, a 6-year-old can hang out with their parents.
    67 Thumbs DOWN Just thought it was worth pointing out that you are possibly the first person to get the most thumbs up and thumbs down in the same article. haha
    This is kind of missing the point. First of all, its not that big of a deal. Even with a baby (despite it being a PG-13 film and it being very late, and the fact I hate babies in movies) or a little girl, it should've just been a fun night with a very good film in a significant series. Should've been just that. Plus, everybody is in costumes. Should've been a fun party too. I would call it irresponsible still, but not that these parents should give up their kids. Why isn't Draiman attacking a person who THREW SMOKE GRENADES AND OPENED FIRE ON INNOCENT PEOPLE AND SHOT A BABY IN THE FACE??? Where is this guy's priorities?
    Let us all agree that it was a terrible occurrence and my deepest sympathy goes out to the victims and their families.
    Vicryl 2.0
    isnt this movie PG-13? shootings aside, Parents should never bring their infants to theaters. Theyre just gonna put the child in danger. My cousin who is a pediatrician had a patient whose hearings were damaged after the child's parents brought the toddler to watch ironman. It should be strictly implemented that no infants should be brought inside Theaters. i saw the movie last weekend in Philippines, kids as old as 9 years old were not allowed to enter the theater because it was PG-13 and they were very strict about it .