Poor people were probably just another case of insanity prompted by dirty tricks and fomentation of hatred employed by divorce lawyers to extract as much money as they can from the couple who earned it, and who are given free reign and a bag of horrible weapons by the family court system. what this poor bastard didnt realize was that the torture was now over, and his long period of recovery would have started, if only he had hung in for a little while.

He would have used any weapon to accomplish this. Quit trying to link it to guns, because guns don't kill - people kill.

It is being linked to a gun because HE USED a gun to kill her. That's right, it was not any weapon, it was a gun. Another husband murders his wife with a gun AFTER a restraining order was issued. how many more have to be killed before the good ole boys start believing the spouse when they claim they were threatened, are afraid and need protection? why wasn't his gun confiscated as a result of the restraining order. Yes, when people threaten to kill, we should believe them...

Why didn"t she have a gun to defend herself?

charger is just an idiot. no reason to even define a sub-category. He shouldn't be able to "run around" at all, as his stupidity creates a dangerous environment for all around him.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

Consenting to marriage does say, "Til death do us part". It's official, Now they can part...

Indie,

Yeah, lets just make it so the words of some angry lover can take away your rights. Sounds like a something that could never be abused. Get over yourself.

Guns don't kill people, People kill people. Which is why we should regulate which people are allowed to own and use guns. And those of you who want armed cops/guards at schools? Some armed cops turn out to be violent and crazy. And for those who say getting a divorce pushed him over the edge? If that pushed him over the edge, that is a temper that would not be acceptable in a spouse. No wonder she wanted a divorce!

indie5962

It is being linked to a gun because HE USED a gun to kill her. That's right, it was not any weapon, it was a gun. Another husband murders his wife with a gun AFTER a restraining order was issued. how many more have to be killed before the good ole boys start believing the spouse when they claim they were threatened, are afraid and need protection? why wasn't his gun confiscated as a result of the restraining order. Yes, when people threaten to kill, we should believe them...

You can thank all those "people" who go get protective orders as a weapon in family court for the harder time in getting and maintaining orders of protection. Orders of protection will also not stop someone bent on murder suicide as those people do not fear being put in jail because they know they will be dead anyway.

It is hard to believe every one who goes for a protection order now because it has been so badly abused that judges are starting to put their foot down.

Clearly a firearms safety training problem. I'm sure that more training would have prevented this tragedy...

Yes, any weapon could have been used if this guy didn't have a firearm. But, firearms are designed for the purpose of being able to kill at distance. Lethality is their core purpose

Singletermlimits for everyone,

It's interesting that would come right out and blame divorce lawyers when the facts of the case appear to land a lot of the blame on this policeman, his aggression, and the failure of the department to hold him accountable for his acts of domestic abuse. You're defending this monster and blaming the lawyers. You're probably as much of a dirt bag as he was. They need to do a better job of psychologically weeding out who should be doing the job of policing these days because my experience with policeman is that they are the most unstable and aggressive people out there. One substantiated claim of domestic abuse should be enough to have their license to carry a weapon taken away.

lilmschargerfan

Sad story. These crazy idiots with guns are just outta control!

You mean "cops".

especially cops

Almost exclusively MEN! When a woman gets dumped, she goes out and buys five cartons of Ben & Jerry's. When a man gets dumped, he gets a gun. Men, are your egos really that fragile that being given the gate by a women (often for her own protection) is not only a reason to kill yourself, but requires you to take the ex with you...??? This happened in Texas, so there's a strong possibility that the man was a Fundamentalist Protestant. That means he knew that either offense - murder or suicide - signed him up for an eternity of torment in Hell. And he STILL thought it was worth it...? How many seconds of "satisfaction" did he enjoy before turning the gun on himself? Why can't you just get a cheap hooker instead?

jockmama-1543705

He was an ex-cop, that'll tell you more than his gender or location would.

Not exactly what the terms of the decree have in conjunction with the crime. I would hope the implication is not that there could be any justification & that I'm simply reading the wrong inference....

Actually, I'm inclined to agree. Add more details to the actual story here.

Lets conjecture here... Let's say the woman cheats on the husband and finds someone she 'loves' more. She files for divorce but gets ready for the divorce with some lies about 'pushing' and possible domestic violence, to which there is no proof.

Anyways, the woman, in all her feminist power, gets alimony, child support, the house, and half of the ex-cop's retirement. He loses custody of his daughter and is ordered to stay away.

Guy loses it and decided that if he has no family, no daughter, and no money, that life sucks. Kill the money grubbing w40r3 that started the whole thing, take life.

Personally, if it worked out that way at all... I'm in agreement that it was justified. She should have just walked away from the marriage and left the guy alone.

"There are none more free to do what they wish, than those that have no reason to live"

@ bob ~ divorce decrees ARE available. You can stick your nose into someone else's business for about 25 cents a page. @ Colorado ~ REALLY? Losing in court justifies murder? Here in the USA you are guaranteed your day in court, but you don't get to shoot the other party if you don't get what you want. Colorado, if you are married I hope your wife reads this and walks away before you blame her for all of your problems and break into her house and shoot her.

colorado

You seem to have had some personal experience along these lines. Bitter much?

We have examples like my ex (a former cop) and Drew Peterson (who my ex scaringly resembles too much) .. cops have huge egos and some have problems with looking bad. I'd say that was a big factor in this sad incident. My ex continues to stalk me 15 years later because he just can't admit defeat...and no Colorado, I did not fall for another guy as my ex actually claims .. it was all truly him

Colorado's argument was hypothetical and should be taken as such. Coincidentally, he described exactly what happened to me 10 years ago, only I did not go postal and kill my ex ( would not dream of it ). She did however take everything. The kids, the money, you name it and then she started moving in rapid succession all over the eastern US without informing me. I have not seen 3 of my kids in 10 years and god only knows what she had made me out to be to them in those 10 years.

For me, there has been no help from the state, no one cares as long as I do not slip from my responsibility to pay and just going to court dose not really help. Apparently finding my ex in contempt for violating my rights and the courts own orders is not in the best interest of the children.

Most men who get a divorce know that they have a high probability to be treated exactly the way I have been and while it is not an excuse, could you imagine the suffering of anyone ordered to stay away from all they love and to lose everything? I do not have to imagine and I CAN see where living this pain day in and day out ( even the threat of living this way ) would send someone over the edge.

Can't you see that he wasn't crazy until the divorce came through. Before that he was a cop, and my guess is he collected a whole arsenal of weapons purchased legally with a thorough background check.

None of us know what emotional/psychological buttons, when pushed intentionally or by accident, will send someone else postal. Given that it can happen at any moment, I'd really, really wish that that person wasn't a former "responsible gun owner."

QE137, it sure sounds like your ex keeps on the move because she's scared to death of you.

And that kind of "suffering" is no excuse for murder. THAT'S why the exes try to disappear. Nearly every DAY I see in the newspaper, TV news, or the Internet, that some garbanzo murdered his ex-wife or ex-girlfriend. It has become a veritable epidemic, and an awful lot of women are scared witless.

jockmama... You're right-on in your responses. The whole 'law abiding/responsible gun owners' are just that, until they aren't. Our society has somehow changed away from the idea that violence is not the way to resolve conflict. Conflict is inevitable. Most, or all, of us see 'red' from time to time. Many of us are not able to constructively manage our responses to emotional stress/anger/jealosy..etc. The presence of so many guns in our society increases the chances that conflict leads to death. Because, guns are, by their nature, tools that can deliver instant and efficient lethality.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

What does one have to do with the other? I'm assuming she could have easily passed a background check and wouldn't have needed a large ammunition clip if she had chosen to do so. She had plenty of time since filing the restraining order. I can't understand why a person who is accused of violence and/or has a restraining order is allowed to keep their weapons. The weapons should at least be taken away until the problem has been resolved. This has happened several times recently, and those are only the ones I've read about. I am sure there are more examples.

I so agree when it come down to it you're the only one who's going to be able to save you, had she had a weapon the out come would have been different. Once again guns do not kill people people kill people.

@ onepoker, sam and kelly - so she should carry a loaded gun at all times? Take it in the shower with her? Have it in one hand while she brushes her teeth? Drive with it? Makes tying your shoes a bit difficult, doesn't it? And of course she has to stay awake all night because she might lose her grip while sleeping. Please do your homework. You'd learn that the most dangerous times for a woman are when she ends a relationship and when a divorce is finalized. The group most prone to domestic violence? Police officers. Protection orders and no-contact orders are not handed out like sandwiches at a picnic. If she had one, then he was dangerous.

women these days like to beat on guys then turn around and get protection orders. keep the kids away from the father. and if the guy is dumb enough to get married well the women gets it all during the divorce. guy goes crazy cause he has nothing left. women is happy cause she has the law the house the car the kids and whatever else the guy once had. happens more than most people realize. sad.

Actually, the moral of this story is that, statistically, guns are used by their owners in domestic disputes far more often than they are used for self-defense during a home invasion. Doesn't matter who "started it" or who did what to whom to provoke the attack, the guns are used to "end it", either by threat or bullet.

Statistically you are dead wrong Martha. Don't worry, I know liberalism has destroyed your mind. Seek help.

Bob what makes you think everyone can afford a gun?

Richard what makes you think everyone can afford to buy a gun? Bob you think it's ok to kill someone if you don't like the divorce settlement?For your wife sake I hope you are both a happy couple if your lucky enough to have a wife with your attude.

something got messed up "Bob what makes you think everyone can afford agun"should not be in the reply

It always amazes me how some people think that the outcome would be different if the victim had a gun. You cannot say what would have happened. You just DON"T KNOW!

Onepoker

It might surprise you to learn that there are other effective ways to defend yourself other then having a gun. For instance, I have a strobe system facing my doors and windows that would have been instantly activated the second this guy came through my door. His eyes would have instinctively shut and he would have had to either back out or try to power through the strobes ( not easy when you can't open your eyes). I also have a weapon that fires something vary close to a rubber round and in many cases I will have a chance to use it BEFORE the purp can see again.

I have mobile versions of both systems for on the go use and they are effective without raising the risk of stray rounds going where they might hit someone or someones home. It is estimated that with my training with these systems that I am no more or less safe then someone with a firearm.

The moral is that guns are not the only or even the most effective choice for everyone.

I don't understand a gun nut's logic. They keep telling me that guns do not kill because they are inanimate objects. Then how is an inanimate object supposed to stop a bullet? Oh, it stops it by killing the person attacking with the gun? So guns do kill, then. So what you've been saying is a lie. If we take away the guns, less people will get killed, just like all the other countries with gun control. After all, they have the same pissed off people getting divorced, right? They have the same violent movies, the same violent video games... what is the difference? They don't have guns!

Till death do we part.

Totally inappropriate. And I do get that you were trying to be funny.

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR! And yes, it was funny. Don't get married if you don't really mean it. That's what vows are about. Being serious. Don't like what I said, eh, shoot me...ha!

No, his inability to deal with life's stressors is what pushed him over the top. His ego as a man and cop and the concept of possession in a marriage is what gave him the idea he could behave this way. There's no guarantee that being employed is a safety net from domestic violence.

Everyone is posting from their point of view of either their own experience or point of view. We are limited to the few facts posted in the article - the story probably runs deeper and longer than just the past year's few events.

@djdx

How can you make the assertion that it was his ego as a man or trouble dealing with stresses and then give a nod to the fact that we have vary little information and that it probably runs deeper then just the past few years?

You would have done well if you cut out the conjecture part and just listed the last bit of what you said. The last bit was about as dead on as anyone could ever have been with regards to this story.

Anyone who get's angry from time to time shouldn't have a gun

Haha very funny father mucker! No then she could have killed him so her little daughter wouldn't have to be left an orphan. '

Yeah, Louie, then she could feel the hatred of her daughter when she becomes a teen-ager and realizes her mom gunned down her Dad. Then she might wish her daughter was an orphan.

My point is, just having more guns around isn't going to prevent tragedies from occurring.

Joe Calbear

WTF???? is that supposed to mean???

Please explain....

Joe Calbear thinks he's being funny, he's an idiot

I agree with your sentiments, Meg, but I hope your therapy doesn't depend on God's Almighty hands to effect a cure, because the immediate question arises about where that almighty hand was when these tragic events were happening. Oh, yeah, the "free will" excuse; I forgot.

Ron D.-571483

You can do a lot with faith. Even while you are asking where god's hand was at the time of this event. Just as much as you can argue that free will is an excuse, you can also argue that if man can not stay his own hand then maybe we deserve what we make for ourselves.

As a parent, your job is not to keep your hand over your child waiting to keep him from doing wrong. You job is to teach him what he needs to know to do right. If your child grows up to disregard what you taught him, do you stand over him as an adult and stay his hand, or do you let him go to his punishment?

You are free to question god we all do sometime, but inaction can not be taken as a sign of none existent or none caring god.

Also, looking at it another way. If god is not there and it is all just at the whim of the universe, then it is just that much more important that we learn to control ourselves, but never underestimate the power of faith, even if nothing is actually there for it to be tied to.

I've had good friends experience the very same humiliation and beat down. The attorney presses the woman to hint at any sort of inappropriate behavior towards the children. That sets things up, puts him on the defensive. She gets the money, the house and the kids and the court just beats him down. So maybe look a bit more objectively at what caused him to snap. True, no excuse, but when someone feels victimized by an ex-spouse, her attorney and the whole legal system it's not a shock this keeps happening over and over again.

Kal Albert

Thanks for a sensible post...

Sounds like you all are only talking about one side of the divorce. I know a number of women who take on all responsibilities - the children, the bills, financial support, etc., while ex-husbands run off with young women.

Never a good idea to paint a picture of only one side. Don't for a minute think only men are hurt in divorce. Why do you think there are so many single moms in our country? It isn't because they are living in the lap of luxury, you know!

WELL SAID AllPeople

True dat! How do you people blaming her know that the guy wasn't a jealous, hot head, wife beater and that's the reason she decided to divorce him to try to save her life which unfortunately in the end it didn't work, how sad if that was the case.

I agree with most of what you said, All People, but I believe a huge segment of the single moms in our country are women who had kids with boyfriends, and are not just divorced women.

I gave up too much when I got a divorce, though I didn't have to, but I did it for the sake of my sons, and because I was the one who requested the divorce (and I didn't have any girlfriend waiting in the wings) and probably felt more guilt than I really had to.

I have heard, however, of many ex-husbands skipping out on their kids and not paying anything on the child-support they should have been paying. We can all recite cases where one sex took advantage of another in divorce settlements. But a divorce, for most of us who don't get married or divorced on an impulse, is a traumatic affair and can lead to many psychological challenges that have to be overcome.

But many women today are not bothering about marriage before having children, and with some of them, at least, it becomes a habit, and they wind up having children from various fathers. But I don't claim these are the majority of single moms. It's just that I feel we have to look at the single moms who have never been married when we speak of this segment of our population. All sides have to be considered.

We don't know the particulars of this personal tragedy of murder-suicide, so it's pointless to speculate too much.

Every unhappy relationship is different. No one should blame the courts, judges, therapists or mediators for their problems. If you don't like the ruling... go back to court. As any kindergartner can tell you, "Life isn't fair!" Sometimes the court will rule in your favor and sometimes they won't. A breakup can focus on the children and everyone moving forward productively or it can focus on blame and retaliation. How awful that one person gets to make a life or death decision for the other party. We will never know what went on in that marriage, but we do know how it ended and who is to blame for that tragedy.

If the woman was how the first 2 posters posted, I dont blame the guy at all for what he had to do.

My ex was dangerous before the divorce. My lawyer, knowing my ex, actually advised me to walk away as amicably as possible - which I wholeheartedly wanted to do anyway. So, he left with what he brought into the marriage and I kept what I brought into the marriage. We didn't have any shared assets so it was easy.

So, please, explain to me why the idiot continues to stalk me 15 years later? Why oh why can he not move on? Oh, yeah, because his ego continues to be hurt over it and he has a point to prove.

I dated a guy who allowed himself to be screwed by his ex out of guilt .. his self imposed guilt. So, I just don't support the idea that it's all the lawyers, judges, ex-wives out to get the man. Sometimes the man just wants it all to be over and will make emotional decisions/signatures believing that he has no rights anyway - largely due to opinions as seen on this post being rampant. If more men controlled their testosterone driven reactions and used their intelligent brains, they would realize that all things are negotiable. But it's too easy to stress some men and push them to a point of giving in simply because he's more reactive than proactive to his own benefit. And that's the game that is played .. so stop being threatening and be smarter about the game.

The guy I dated, of his own volition, lived on $300 a month. His fault. I showed him how he could change the decision and he finally spoke with a lawyer and got a fairer deal. But it was after a long struggle to get him to stop responding emotionally and start thinking logically ..

Oh, and don't get married if you don't want to experience divorce.

Not true at all! There is no more maintenance payments - only child support and it is pretty minimal. Women are left with rearing the kids by themselves, etc. Don't think you are looking at both sides.

Tiger Woods has nothing to do with normal folks. You use a celebrity making ridiculous amounts of money to make your point?

Give it a rest! Most single moms are struggling financially to take care of their kids. Ex-husbands run off and start new lives with no responsibilities.

I agree with you about Tiger Woods and his ex-wife's divorce settlement. I am also reminded of Paul McCartney's divorce from his short-time wife. Clearly, in both cases the women were using their gender to justify cashing in big-time.

However, I can't go along with the rest of your remarks.

What you said might apply to an ex-wife with no children you sired, but not if she is left with the caretaker and breadwinner burden of supporting your kids. Then it's not responsible of you to just say, "Here, you can have the kids; good-bye and good riddance!"

APR,

Your post means nothing because women get the kids over 80% of the time, then get child support to go with it. The guy still gets jack. He is absolutely correct, and blind women like you only perpetuate the problem.

@Rich - your concept works if women were paid equally in the workplace ..

Otherwise - prenup it for all income levels! As far as child support agreements, only base those payments on items directly used by the child .. for instance, each parent is already supplying housing so prorate utilities, food, school expenses, clothing, daycare etc. while the child is with them but do not include the house payment / rental payment. Better yet, if still living in the same town, have a shared custody agreement of 6 months each and all expenses within that 6 months is paid by the custodial parent of that time - no payment by the non-custodial parent.

Mandatory 50/50 custody will take care of the child support issue. Unless there is a problem with one of the parents, they both should get custody and they both should share costs. Also, please no " but that dose not always work, some people move away". If a parent moves on a 50/50 custody it should be required that they shoulder the responsibility that comes with that move.

You know how that saying goes that if you can lay down, you can pay down? Yeah, that also works when it is time to talk about equal time with the children.

Anywhere I've lived that had school cops they are always from the local town. Morgantown High would have a Morgantown City cop stationed there for example.

Which would be fine if every sicko narcissist wasn't also a gun owner.

When seconds count, your large dog is right by your side. He won't shoot the kids, he won't shoot yourself, he'll bark at an intruder, he'll wake you from your sleep, and he'll scare the hell out of anyone thinking of breaking in. Inanimate guns can't provide that kind of service.

jga6232: LOL. So, you're just ASKING to be attacked with that wing-nut statement..... I look forward to seeing the responses.....

That comment leaves me somewhat speechless. Wow, bud, you must be real fun to be around. I'm sorry you lost your testicles somewhere along the way.

There is no more maintenance payments - only child support and it is pretty minimal. Women are left with rearing the kids by themselves, etc. Don't think you are looking at both sides.

Give it a rest! Most single moms are struggling financially to take care of their kids. Ex-husbands run off and start new lives with no responsibilities. Child support is important - they are his kids too, even though many run from being fathers too.

i know plenty of dads that want to be in their kids life but cant cause women turn on the psycho. i know i know its always the guys fault every single time no possibility that the guy wants a part of his kids life as well. all guys are losers that start over after they give up on being allowed in their kids lives. men should be forced to be in the kids life by law. wait a sec, then we might have more normal adults out there. never mind that's a dumb idea. all a man is is a sperm doner and atm.

Don't feed the trolls.

Why can I imaging APR with her hand out to the guy going gimme gimme?

Yup, another selfish, narcissist - his way or you die. Poor little girl!

What about the wife, and many women who only have, its all my way and the courts will make sure I get everything. Hell, you're an example of the problem APR.

MrBurns

What about the wife, and many women who only have, its all my way and the courts will make sure I get everything. Hell, you're an example of the problem APR.

These people will learn when there is no more free ride in the court and everything is truly 50/50 from the start. Courts are slowly starting to change and so are laws that govern support and custody. It is a slow change but the day is coming when false accusations will be prosecuted, where custody will be 50/50 and where the money you pay for your kids goes to the upkeep of YOUR home because you have a 50/50 and thus no need to be ordered to pay.

At this point in time, the one where you actually see these things happen, you wont have to bother asking about "what about the wife" she will be at work paying her own way with no excuses, no financial incentive and no reason to let lawyers have a dime because there will be no money at all costs anymore.

Also, is it just me or dose it not seem darn odd that people pay so much to lawyers and then bash etch other for not caring about the children. I mean, how much of those thousands of dollars that parents pay to lawyers could actually be used on the kids?

im sure you deserved it. cause she was unhappy. women are supposed to be happy 24/7. once you get that your set. im being sarcastic by the way. except on the happy part. you better make sure they are happy or they will make you unhappy . sorry that you had to find out the hard way guy.