TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:There is something strange behind this story. A guy in his 60s just doesn't murder another guy in his 60s over some trivial argument.

- Jim

Really? I would think just the opposite might be true....that some people, when reaching 60, might not care about the consequences anymore, particularly if they felt like they didn't have all that long to live, or that much to live for, anyhow.

I'm sure you're an outstanding judge of human nature.

- Jim

VMI77 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:There is something strange behind this story. A guy in his 60s just doesn't murder another guy in his 60s over some trivial argument.

- Jim

Really? I would think just the opposite might be true....that some people, when reaching 60, might not care about the consequences anymore, particularly if they felt like they didn't have all that long to live, or that much to live for, anyhow.

Amazing, simply amazing....

seamusTX wrote:I'm sure you're an outstanding judge of human nature.

- Jim

And you're right, so thank you, and congratulations.

VMI77 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:There is something strange behind this story. A guy in his 60s just doesn't murder another guy in his 60s over some trivial argument.

- Jim

Really? I would think just the opposite might be true....that some people, when reaching 60, might not care about the consequences anymore, particularly if they felt like they didn't have all that long to live, or that much to live for, anyhow.

Not sure what the longevity is in your family, but feel sorry for you if it is only around 60 years. My Mom is 92 and while she has slowed down a lot she is still going.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:There is something strange behind this story. A guy in his 60s just doesn't murder another guy in his 60s over some trivial argument.

- Jim

Really? I would think just the opposite might be true....that some people, when reaching 60, might not care about the consequences anymore, particularly if they felt like they didn't have all that long to live, or that much to live for, anyhow.

Not sure what the longevity is in your family, but feel sorry for you if it is only around 60 years. My Mom is 92 and while she has slowed down a lot she is still going.

No need to feel sorry.....my father died at 86 and my mother is still alive at 91, and probably in better shape than I am. However, I have known a couple of people just past 60 who seemed to feel like they'd lived the majority of their lives, and certain tradeoffs were more acceptable to them when balanced against their expected future at 60 than the balance/tradeoff they would have made at 30 or 40. In one case, the kids had left the nest and that may have been a factor...he was less risk averse because the kids were grown and doing well on their own. So, in some situations, he might have taken an action at 62 he wouldn't have taken at 40. This hardly constitutes a sample for generalization though, which I why I said "some" people might feel that way --I highly doubt the two I know are the only people like this in the entire world.

I have to wonder why my statement seems so controversial given that I've seen a similar expression here many times to the effect of being careful when you attack an old man because he just might kill you. Maybe I confused the issue by alluding more to quality of life than I intended.

VMI77 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:There is something strange behind this story. A guy in his 60s just doesn't murder another guy in his 60s over some trivial argument.

- Jim

Really? I would think just the opposite might be true....that some people, when reaching 60, might not care about the consequences anymore, particularly if they felt like they didn't have all that long to live, or that much to live for, anyhow.

Not sure what the longevity is in your family, but feel sorry for you if it is only around 60 years. My Mom is 92 and while she has slowed down a lot she is still going.

No need to feel sorry.....my father died at 86 and my mother is still alive at 91, and probably in better shape than I am. However, I have known a couple of people just past 60 who seemed to feel like they'd lived the majority of their lives, and certain tradeoffs were more acceptable to them when balanced against their expected future at 60 than the balance/tradeoff they would have made at 30 or 40. In one case, the kids had left the nest and that may have been a factor...he was less risk averse because the kids were grown and doing well on their own. So, in some situations, he might have taken an action at 62 he wouldn't have taken at 40. This hardly constitutes a sample for generalization though, which I why I said "some" people might feel that way --I highly doubt the two I know are the only people like this in the entire world.

I have to wonder why my statement seems so controversial given that I've seen a similar expression here many times to the effect of being careful when you attack an old man because he just might kill you. Maybe I confused the issue by alluding more to quality of life than I intended.

I have that line in my signature and I'm 65.....but I in no way think that my life is almost over(hopefully anyhow ) and would never think of killing anyone over a disagreement. Now if you attack me physically...all bets are off.

OBTW when I was 30 I was pretty amazed that I was still here.

VMI77 wrote:I have to wonder why my statement seems so controversial given that I've seen a similar expression here many times to the effect of being careful when you attack an old man because he just might kill you.

Let me try to explain it.

Most murders are committed by young men from their teen years through 30s who have never gotten their lives together. Many of them probably are sociopaths, drug abusers, or alcoholics.

Someone who is older (could be anywhere from 40 to upwards of 60) who is looking at a situation of chronic illness, unemployment, bankruptcy, marital failure, or serious legal problems might commit suicide or a murder-suicide involving people that he blames for his problems.

Usually this is a man who kills his wife or estranged romantic partner and himself. Sometimes they kill other family members, lawyers, or someone like that.

A rational person who has made it to age 60 without serious legal problems or other life issues rarely decides to murder someone in cold blood and then spend the next 15 or more years in prison with a bunch of hateful, violent thugs, especially when the shooter was a cop and knows what can happen to former cops in prison.

As for the sig line, it explicitly refers to attacking an old man. This situation had nothing to do with attacking. The victim was in a neutral social situation trying to reconcile with the alleged shooter after some kind of presumably civilized disagreement.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Usually this is a man who kills his wife or estranged romantic partner and himself. Sometimes they kill other family members, lawyers, or someone like that.

I think maybe we're getting warmer.

A murder-suicide perpetrator (a) usually confronts the victim after a long period of isolated obsession and resentment, and (b) usually kills himself or tries and fails to do so.

Neither seems to be the case here.

The love triangle thing usually means A was with B, and then B left A to be with C, and A kills B, C, or both. There also is no suggestion of that here.

- Jim

Do you have a theory that makes more sense?

smoothoperator wrote:Do you have a theory that makes more sense?

I think it has to do with the reason for the "falling out".

The ex-cop and dentist get together with a group of people at the dentist's weekend home.

The weekend was supposed to be a way for them to get together and rekindle that friendship.

The ex-cop happened to have a .380 ACP in his luggage [probably not too strange since he was an ex-cop and a CHL] which he pulled out and allegedly shot the doc.

My question is what was the original "falling out"?

smoothoperator wrote:Do you have a theory that makes more sense?

No, but this isn't a TV show.

You can't solve a mystery by devising a theory to fit non-existent facts. Real-life detectives ask questions. Most of the time, they find out pretty quickly that there was a romantic angle, a business deal gone sour, or a dispute over something like inheritance.

There is no such evidence here.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking it's disrespectful to the living survivors of an innocent victim to speculate about things for which there is no evidence.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:Do you have a theory that makes more sense?

No, but this isn't a TV show.

You can't solve a mystery by devising a theory to fit non-existent facts. Real-life detectives ask questions. Most of the time, they find out pretty quickly that there was a romantic angle, a business deal gone sour, or a dispute over something like inheritance.

There is no such evidence here.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking it's disrespectful to the living survivors of an innocent victim to speculate about things for which there is no evidence.

- Jim

In that light your response mystifies me. Since we don't know what the true relationships are and have very little in the way of facts, you too are speculating. My response wasn't even about this particular incident, but a generalization about "some" people past 60 that was counter to your generalization about all people past 60. My speculation is a based on knowledge of two people past 60 and the assumption that these two people are not the only people in the world with the same attitude. Most of what you said isn't based on knowledge of the killer in this case but a series of assumptions, such as, that an irrational person can't make it to age 60 without serious legal or other problems, or that the absence of a record of serious legal problems means someone hasn't seriously violated the law. This may be true in the aggregate but is merely an expression of probability. I've encountered at least one serious wacko that made it to age 70 without serious legal problems; and I also think it is possible that a cop can express certain kinds of "irrational" behavior --of the kind that might well land one of us proles in jail-- and get away with it without serious legal consequences because he's a cop.

And as far as the reference to "attacking" an old man goes --again, you're speculating, and narrowly defining an "attack" as contemporaneous physical attack.....I don't think the definition can be so narrowly applied. People may perceive being attacked in many different ways and their response even to a physical attack may not be contemporaneous (which is what I'm referring to as speculation --we don't know that these two didn't have a previous physical altercation).

VMI77 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:There is something strange behind this story. A guy in his 60s just doesn't murder another guy in his 60s over some trivial argument.

- Jim

Really? I would think just the opposite might be true....that some people, when reaching 60, might not care about the consequences anymore, particularly if they felt like they didn't have all that long to live, or that much to live for, anyhow.

Thats pretty much what I thought about people in their 30's when I was in my teens. Of course, I was young and stupid then. And of course, people in their 30s still have most of their lives ahead of them. I dont know of anyone in their 60's who thinks "now that I'm in my 60's my life is pretty much over and I dont really have anything to live for".

I would contend that some people when reaching any age could concievably not care about consequences of their actions any more. In fact, the younger you are the less likely you are to understand the effects of your actions fully and therefore not care about consequences.