Navy Commander to be charged for shooting at Chattanooga terrorist

[gray wolf]

Navy Commander to be charged for shooting at Chattanooga terrorist

More disrespect and contempt shown to the American military by the Obama Administration.
Secretary of the Navy Mabus is beneath contempt.
'Commander White may be charged for discharging a firearm on federal property.'
SS

'
REPORT: Navy to Charge Officer Who Fired on Islamist During Chattanooga Terror Attack

Jim Hoft Aug 1st, 2015 10:01 am 45 Comments

Navy Lt. Commander will reportedly be charged for shooting at Chattanooga terrorist
white chattanooga

A report at The Navy Times in July confirmed that one of the Marines shot during the Chattanooga terrorist attack exchanged fire with the terrorist. Navy Lt. Cmdr Timothy White also shot back at the terrorist.

But rather than being celebrated as a hero, Lt. Commander White may be charged for discharging a firearm on federal property.
Allen West reported this week that Lt. Commander Timothy White

Ladies and gents, resulting from the text message I received yesterday, I can confirm that the United States Navy is bringing charges against Lt. Cmdr Timothy White for illegally discharging a firearm on federal property.

The text message asked if it would be possible for Lt.Cmdr White to reach out to me. To wit I replied, affirmative.

What kind of freaking idiots are in charge of our Armed Forces — pardon me, our “unArmed Forces”? What would they prefer that Abdulazeez had been able to kill all the Marines and Sailors at the Naval Support Reserve Center? Let me draw an interesting contrast: Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is more concerned about lifting the ban on transgendered Sailors. Mabus has a problem in that for the first time since 2007 the US Navy will not have a Carrier Battle Group operating in the Persian Gulf. But this knucklehead{Mabus} has no problem with the Navy seeking to destroy the career of a Sailor, a commander of an installation, returning fire against an Islamic jihadist attack. I do not care if it was his personal weapon, he deserves a medal for facing the enemy.

Folks, this has become the Obama military that will not implement policies for our men and women in uniform to be protected — but will punish them if they do protect themselves. What ever happened to the Navy of John Paul Jones, Farragut, Halsey, and Nimitz? What has happened in our America where we believe that our men and women in uniform — especially the commanders — are just targets for these damn Islamic jihadists?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...ll-be-charged/

[osteodoc08]

Wow. This is just beyond comprehension for me.

As an aside, and pardon my ignorance, but what presidents HAVE NOT been in the military?

War is war, domestic or abroad. This soldier should be touted as a hero, not a criminal.

[DCP]

This is so sad what is happening to this nation. He broke the law a law that is BS.
His career is gone. I sure hope a Patriot gives him a job.

[dh2]

I have seen many that was sent back from war zones to be charged with crimes, like using a 50BMG to shoot a guy in a brick building that was shooting at them in the open. the charge did not get to court marshal but our men and woman fighting for there lives should not have to worry about after they have fought for there lives that some liberal SOB will try to put them in prison for coming out alive.

[Akheloce]

I have seen many that was sent back from war zones to be charged with crimes, like using a 50BMG to shoot a guy in a brick building that was shooting at them in the open. the charge did not get to court marshal but our men and woman fighting for there lives should not have to worry about after they have fought for there lives that some liberal SOB will try to put them in prison for coming out alive.

Why would there be charges against someone using a 50BMG?

[hutch18414]

I just read a couple of days ago that they are having recruiting problems. Gee, I wonder why !

[SeabeeMan]

Yeah, that is a bad deal. And like DCP said, his career is most likely toast. No amount of public uproar is going to undo that fact.

Why would there be charges against someone using a 50BMG?

The whole .50 BMG is against the laws of war to use on personnel is a myth. Why would 50 cal sniper rifles exist, with their accompanying records of longest confirmed kills, if it was illegal to shoot somebody with it.

Not once was NOT returning fire with an M2 covered in mission prep, rules of engagement, or debriefings after 1000's of miles of sitting behind it on top of a HMMWV.

If somebody ever claimed to have been charged (or was going to be) just for using Ma Deuce on enemy personnel, whereas another weapon would have been acceptable, the BS radar would be pinging pretty hard. That's right up there with my neighbor who claims to have been an Air Force sniper and pilot...who was only in for 3 years.

[Akheloce]

Yeah, that is a bad deal. And like DCP said, his career is most likely toast. No amount of public uproar is going to undo that fact.



The whole .50 BMG is against the laws of war to use on personnel is a myth. Why would 50 cal sniper rifles exist, with their accompanying records of longest confirmed kills, if it was illegal to shoot somebody with it.

Not once was NOT returning fire with an M2 covered in mission prep, rules of engagement, or debriefings after 1000's of miles of sitting behind it on top of a HMMWV.

If somebody ever claimed to have been charged (or was going to be) just for using Ma Deuce on enemy personnel, whereas another weapon would have been acceptable, the BS radar would be pinging pretty hard. That's right up there with my neighbor who claims to have been an Air Force sniper and pilot...who was only in for 3 years.

hence my question.

I'd like to hear the "story" behind someone supposedly being charged for using a 50BMG against personnel.

[JSnover]

Rules are rules. Some office pogue probably decided charges had to filed in order to address/resolve the incident but that doesn't necessarily mean his career is over. I won't predict the outcome but there is a pretty good chance (IMO) that extenuating circumstances will dictate little to no punitive action against him.

[Akheloce]

Rules are rules. Some office pogue probably decided charges had to filed in order to address/resolve the incident but that doesn't necessarily mean his career is over. I won't predict the outcome but there is a pretty good chance (IMO) that extenuating circumstances will dictate little to no punitive action against him.

I see your point, but the Navy has a history of hanging their officers out to dry for little cause.

I bet the guy will get a lot of drinks bought for him, but won't get promoted past O-5 if at all.

[Plate plinker]

DONT act boldly boys. What a great message to send. this is friggin nuts.

[JSnover]

Personally I'm fine with what he did but the rules were most likely written by someone who has never been under fire.

[Mytmousemalibu]

Absolute BS that those whom serve our nation against enemies foreign & domestic have to face absolute BS like this. So tired of this ****. Having problems getting new recruits, hmm, that is a real mystery isn't it. You couldn't force me to serve under that worthless scumbag of a pres.

[DougGuy]

It's a damned SAD state of affairs that any legally armed civilian would have been under NO RESTRICTIONS to prevent his or her use of lethal force in defense of those US service men, and they want to throw the book at a member of the US armed forces for doing the same thing.

They need to STFU and pretend it never happened.

[MaryB]

Al I can say is ***... this is so wrong that it is hard to even find words I can use in the forum...

[Multigunner]

Story sounds fishy to me.
I found only one story on the Navy Times site and it stated "It's also unclear why they were armed, as it is against Defense Department policy for anyone other than military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property."
It doesn't say it was a crime, only that it was against policy.
Theres nothing on the site about charges being filed against Lt Commander White.

There were Marines and Navy Corpsmen there checking in equipment from a training exercise. Perhaps the handguns had been used in the exercise.

The story seems to originate from a text message, not a very reliable source.

[NVcurmudgeon]

What will LCDR White be charged with, saving lives without asking "Mother may I?" Not the Navy I served in. Hope he gets a good civilian job, his Navy career is over.

[M-Tecs]

Story sounds fishy to me.
I found only one story on the Navy Times site and it stated "It's also unclear why they were armed, as it is against Defense Department policy for anyone other than military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property."
It doesn't say it was a crime, only that it was against policy.
Theres nothing on the site about charges being filed against Lt Commander White.

There were Marines and Navy Corpsmen there checking in equipment from a training exercise. Perhaps the handguns had been used in the exercise.

The story seems to originate from a text message, not a very reliable source.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2015/8/2...der-White.aspx

http://iotwreport.com/the-us-navy-is...oga-terrorist/

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/lt-commander-tim-white/

http://freedomoutpost.com/tag/lt-com...-timothy-whie/#!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/843/3...timothy-white/

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...ting-terrorist

[Lonegun1894]

Why would there be charges against someone using a 50BMG?

As per "supposed" regs when I was in, the .50 is perfectly ok for use against enemy equipment, but not personell. Unfortunately for the enemy, my unit always considered a uniform to be equipment, and the weapon being held by the enemy to be equipment, and sometimes, the weapon was accidentally missed, or the uniform failed to stop the bullet from perforating the enemy wearing it, etc...

We never got so much as lectured about doing it, much less charged for doing it. And we did plenty of other things that they would have had a much easier time charging us for than using a .50 BMG. I always just chalked it up to being a BS rumor that just wouldn't die for some reason.

[Akheloce]

As per "supposed" regs when I was in, the .50 is perfectly ok for use against enemy equipment, but not personell. Unfortunately for the enemy, my unit always considered a uniform to be equipment, and the weapon being held by the enemy to be equipment, and sometimes, the weapon was accidentally missed, or the uniform failed to stop the bullet from perforating the enemy wearing it, etc...

We never got so much as lectured about doing it, much less charged for doing it. And we did plenty of other things that they would have had a much easier time charging us for than using a .50 BMG. I always just chalked it up to being a BS rumor that just wouldn't die for some reason.

Any "supposed" regs were absolute BS.

Never, in the history of warfare, was the 50 BMG illegal in any way, shape, or form to use against any enemy, in any situation.

It is a common misconception based in an unknown (origin) urban myth.