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/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/report-navy-officer-who-fired-on-islamist-during-chattanooga-terror-attack-will-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/2015/8/2/305368/We-Fight-For-Lieutenant-Commander-White.aspx

http://iotwreport.com/the-us-navy-is-bringing-charges-against-lt-cmdr-timothy-white-for-shooting-back-at-chattanooga-terrorist/

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

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

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/843/315/146/pardon-lt-cmdr-timothy-white/

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/chattanooga-navy-commander-now-facing-this-after-shooting-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.

[Lonegun1894]

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.

When I was in, I was ALWAYS armed, and so were many in my unit, but it was with the understanding that it may have repercussions if things went bad. The repercussions, as explained to us, were that this specific DOD reg was unconstitutional, so our punishment if caught would be to spend three days in the brig for getting caught, at the end of which, we would be given our weapon back and instructed to not get caught again. Seems to me like either I was really lucky with the command I was with, or things have changed A LOT and I am glad to have gotten out before they went this far down hill.

[azrednek]

I didn't read the entire thread to save my nerves as it is getting close to bedtime. I'm hoping the charges against the Navy officer is an internet hoax. If discharging a firearm on federal property is a crime how is it that thousands of deer and elk hunters discharge their rifles in National Forests??

[Bad Water Bill]

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.

IIRC starting with Ike every president was a part of our military up till SLICK Willie (who fled to Canada then England) took office,and our FEAR less one who apologizes to the rest of the world because we even exist.

[Artful]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_militar y_service
Barak Obama
NONE

Bill Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton)
None. Signed agreement to join Reserve Officer Training Corps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Officer_Training_Corps) atUniversity of Arkansas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Arkansas) during Vietnam War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_militar y_service#cite_note-2) Subsequently withdrew and entered draft, but received high draft number and was not drafted.
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_militar y_service#cite_note-3)

Franklin D. Roosevelt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt)
None; Assistant Secretary of the Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_the_Navy) in World War I. Attempted to resign in order to enter uniformed service, but resignation not accepted. Visited France as part of Navy Department duties to observe military activities first hand.


Herbert Hoover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover)
None; helped guide US Marines in 1900 during the
Boxer Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion).

Calvin Coolidge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge)
NONE

Warren G. Harding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding)
NONE

Woodrow Wilson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson)
NONE

Grover Cleveland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland)
Paid George Benninsky $150 to take his place after Cleveland was drafted during
Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) under Conscription Act of 1863 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Act_of_1863).

Martin Van
Buren (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Van_Buren)
None; as State Senator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Senate) during War of 1812 worked to pass war measures, including bills to expand New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York) militia and increase soldier pay. Special Judge Advocate appointed to aid in prosecutingWilliam Hull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hull) at Hull's court-martial after surrender of
Detroit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit,_Michigan).


John Quincy Adams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams)
None; however he was a witness to Battle of Bunker Hill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill) in 1775 and reportedly was a non-participant in a Naval Battle between a British ship and a US ship he was on with his father during the American Revolution.

John Adams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams)
Adams served as chairman of the Continental Congress's Board of War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_War) (1776–1777), making him the simultaneous equivalent of today's Secretary of Defense and Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee; was a semi-participant in a naval engagement between a British and US ship during the American Revolution.

[quilbilly]

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.
When I saw the story the day of the story, I knew his career was over under this regime. The good news is that as a LCDR he can stay till 20 years and get his retirement.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It would be strange if the major print and broadcasting news media aren't soon quotable on such a charge, in which you would expect both the commander's supporters and enemies to be interested. But suppose it did happen the way it is described...

The man figured in no terrorist database, had been arrested but apparently not convicted for drinking and driving like any on this board, was a US citizen and had fired at windows. There was plenty of evidence to support recent clinical depression. It seems he was coming from his car, and was fired at by the commander, from inside with a personally owned gun he wasn't entitled to have there.

There exists the possibility that the commander saw a hairy Arab, possibly glimpsed a gun for which the man could have had a permit, and isn't obliged to conceal in Tennessee, and started shooting. There is no question that if he knew the man was going to kill several people, that would be the least of all evils. But a back door, a high security front door or someone officially armed on the premises, aren't any more hypothetical than some things we have heard.

Equally though, he could have been left with a wounded man who might have said "I'm deeply ashamed of what I did fifteen minutes before. It's such a relief to know I escaped committing manslaughter! But then he started shooting, and I panicked... I don't know what came over me."

Never mind the possibility, surely very slim, that he actually was as innocent and misunderstood as his lawyer would make him out to be. He could have been everything anyone on this board thinks he is, and yet been handed the opportunity to get out when he said "Thanks to all this wonderful therapy I feel a lot better now."

I still think it would be more appropriate for the commander to be taken aside and told "Only luck got you out of big trouble." But on the real evidence so far, may be that is all that happened.

[nicholst55]

Rather than merely wringing our hands about this situation, DO SOMETHING about it! I just called my US senator's office and insisted that he STOP this foolishness. While I have my doubts if my one phone call will result in anything positive happening, at least I made it.

[DCP]

UPDATE: Navy Spokesman Denies ANY Charges Against Navy Lt. Commander #Chattanooga


http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/08/02/update-navy-spokesman-denies-any-charges-against-navy-lt-commander-chattanooga/

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2015/8/2/305393/Roy-Exum-Navy-Denies-Any-Changes.aspx

Several news outlets, including this one, jumped on a report by national columnist Allen West on Saturday that stated he was enraged after he had confirmed that LTC White, who drew his personal sidearm in the July 16 terrorist attack on a Navy Reserve Center in Chattanooga, would face a reprimand and could possibly be court marshaled.

[gray wolf]

IMHO I think someone realized the Dung storm this would create and backed down.

[Anschutz]

He'll Probably have a great JAG on his side. Hopefully nothing comes off it since most trials have a panel of other officers who hopefully would have done the same thing.

[AnthonyB]

It would be strange if the major print and broadcasting news media aren't soon quotable on such a charge, in which you would expect both the commander's supporters and enemies to be interested. But suppose it did happen the way it is described...

The man figured in no terrorist database, had been arrested but apparently not convicted for drinking and driving like any on this board, was a US citizen and had fired at windows. There was plenty of evidence to support recent clinical depression. It seems he was coming from his car, and was fired at by the commander, from inside with a personally owned gun he wasn't entitled to have there.

There exists the possibility that the commander saw a hairy Arab, possibly glimpsed a gun for which the man could have had a permit, and isn't obliged to conceal in Tennessee, and started shooting. There is no question that if he knew the man was going to kill several people, that would be the least of all evils. But a back door, a high security front door or someone officially armed on the premises, aren't any more hypothetical than some things we have heard.

Equally though, he could have been left with a wounded man who might have said "I'm deeply ashamed of what I did fifteen minutes before. It's such a relief to know I escaped committing manslaughter! But then he started shooting, and I panicked... I don't know what came over me."

Never mind the possibility, surely very slim, that he actually was as innocent and misunderstood as his lawyer would make him out to be. He could have been everything anyone on this board thinks he is, and yet been handed the opportunity to get out when he said "Thanks to all this wonderful therapy I feel a lot better now."

I still think it would be more appropriate for the commander to be taken aside and told "Only luck got you out of big trouble." But on the real evidence so far, may be that is all that happened.

Can someone help me with how the ignore function works?
Tony

[AnthonyB]

When I was in, I was ALWAYS armed, and so were many in my unit, but it was with the understanding that it may have repercussions if things went bad. The repercussions, as explained to us, were that this specific DOD reg was unconstitutional, so our punishment if caught would be to spend three days in the brig for getting caught, at the end of which, we would be given our weapon back and instructed to not get caught again. Seems to me like either I was really lucky with the command I was with, or things have changed A LOT and I am glad to have gotten out before they went this far down hill.

I have to call bull**** on this as well. Can you provide unit designations and service periods?
Tony

[Rick Hodges]

I have to call bull**** on this as well. Can you provide unit designations and service periods?
Tony

Anthony B.....I can't speak for anyone else but I served in the US Army Reserves from 71-77. We were a MP POW Camp. I was a working LEO as were a lot of the unit members. We all (LEO's) carried during drills and meetings that were held in our state and also in other states that had reciprocal concealed carry laws with Michigan. My unit's commander had full knowledge of this and carried himself. (He was a Detroit PD ofc.)
I have no idea what the army regs. were regarding this but since my General didn't mind, neither did I.

[popper]

Use of personal gun. Never had trouble carrying a locked & loaded carbine on the pier, fed property. Actually given a L&L carbine with orders to shoot anyone entering the building on mid-watch. Normally we had to 'challenge' suspect persons.

[GabbyM]

Anyone know how much trouble this Commander is actually in?
Back in the 1970's. My brother was busted for having a hand gun in the trunk of his car while on an East Coast Navy base.
He stood Captains Mast. Captain ask him how much the pistol was worth. Then ruled that to be the fine and confiscated the hand gun as payment. Brother was promoted one enlisted grade not to long after. President at that time would of been Nixon or Ford.

[AnthonyB]

Rick Hodges:
71-77 in Army Reserves I can understand. Not so much the post 9-11 years when everyone went bat*** security crazy.
Tony

[AnthonyB]

Rick Hodges:
LEOs also have different rules on federal posts than enlisted/officers.
Tony

[Rick Hodges]

True, but as reservists we were both...civilian pd and army ofcs. and enlisted. In the "Old Days" when off duty we were required to carry...as LEO's. It was also very difficult for non Leo's to get a carry permit. I have no idea what the rules are in Tenn. but my understanding was that the center that was attacked was a reserve training center. In either case I am glad that someone was able to at least mount an armed resistance the the Jihadist.

[Omega]

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.
The UCMJ, which is law for the military does make his having a personal weapon illegal. Though using a weapon in self defense may help him because I don't think you can be charged for having the gun in that situation, but that is State law, the other Federal.


I have to call bull**** on this as well. Can you provide unit designations and service periods?
Tony
I won't provide specifics, but Ready Reaction Forces (RRF) have been around for some time, I can personally verify they existed back in the 80's and today. But its the rest of us with a CCP that should also be allowed to carry, along with those troops that are not located within a base.

[M-Tecs]

It would be strange if the major print and broadcasting news media aren't soon quotable on such a charge, in which you would expect both the commander's supporters and enemies to be interested. But suppose it did happen the way it is described...

The man figured in no terrorist database, had been arrested but apparently not convicted for drinking and driving like any on this board, was a US citizen and had fired at windows. There was plenty of evidence to support recent clinical depression. It seems he was coming from his car, and was fired at by the commander, from inside with a personally owned gun he wasn't entitled to have there.

There exists the possibility that the commander saw a hairy Arab, possibly glimpsed a gun for which the man could have had a permit, and isn't obliged to conceal in Tennessee, and started shooting. There is no question that if he knew the man was going to kill several people, that would be the least of all evils. But a back door, a high security front door or someone officially armed on the premises, aren't any more hypothetical than some things we have heard.

Equally though, he could have been left with a wounded man who might have said "I'm deeply ashamed of what I did fifteen minutes before. It's such a relief to know I escaped committing manslaughter! But then he started shooting, and I panicked... I don't know what came over me."

Never mind the possibility, surely very slim, that he actually was as innocent and misunderstood as his lawyer would make him out to be. He could have been everything anyone on this board thinks he is, and yet been handed the opportunity to get out when he said "Thanks to all this wonderful therapy I feel a lot better now."

I still think it would be more appropriate for the commander to be taken aside and told "Only luck got you out of big trouble." But on the real evidence so far, may be that is all that happened.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!

[AnthonyB]

Rick; you are missing my point. I understand LEOs can be armed on federal property; the laws cover that.
Omega; I was armed as part of a duty RFF on many occasions. I am calling BS on someone saying they were always armed and only faced a command sanctioned three days in in the brig if they were caught.
Tony

[Ballistics in Scotland]

UPDATE: Navy Spokesman Denies ANY Charges Against Navy Lt. Commander #Chattanooga


http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/08/02/update-navy-spokesman-denies-any-charges-against-navy-lt-commander-chattanooga/

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2015/8/2/305393/Roy-Exum-Navy-Denies-Any-Changes.aspx

Several news outlets, including this one, jumped on a report by national columnist Allen West on Saturday that stated he was enraged after he had confirmed that LTC White, who drew his personal sidearm in the July 16 terrorist attack on a Navy Reserve Center in Chattanooga, would face a reprimand and could possibly be court marshaled.

This should surprise nobody. What I find rather sinister is that a good many of his "supporters" would find it more satisfying and useful if he really was in that particular jam.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Can someone help me with how the ignore function works?
Tony

Just not making any special effort ought to do it. You might want to ignore falsified news stories while you are about it.

[Lonegun1894]

I have to call bull**** on this as well. Can you provide unit designations and service periods?
Tony


As to the BS call, I could care less. Different branches, bases, and units on those bases do things differently. We were a small, tightly knit unit, and there were a lot of things we did different from most, and a lot of regs were basically ignored. This was a transition period shortly after 9-11 and a lot of things were in the developmental stages. My service period was 00-05, as it says in my signature line. I will not give unit designations due to this may create fallout for people other than me, and I will not put other people's necks on the line. We were armed, with unofficial permission ( CO approved on a personal level and carried along with us, but the official policy was that we had been told that it was against regs for us to carry). All I will give you as to specifics on my unit is this: Does SPMAGTF mean anything to you?

[Love Life]

Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

[Omega]

This should surprise nobody. What I find rather sinister is that a good many of his "supporters" would find it more satisfying and useful if he really was in that particular jam.
I don't think anyone here, me included, wants anything like this to happen to this guy. No good can come from having any charges brought against him, none! I for one am not surprised something like this surfaced, and am not at all surprised at the backtracking the PTB are doing. Many of the quotes, even in their backtracking leave the possibility open to charging him.


Just not making any special effort ought to do it. You might want to ignore falsified news stories while you are about it.I don't feel this is a made up story, there were a few outlets that picked this up, even though it all seems to originate from Allen West's site; I am not ready to throw the BS flag quite yet on this story, while most everyone can agree that what he did was a good thing; having a personal weapon is against regs and I have no problem believing some bureaucrat wanting to charge him.

[Multigunner]

"There exists the possibility that the commander saw a hairy Arab, possibly glimpsed a gun for which the man could have had a permit, and isn't obliged to conceal in Tennessee, and started shooting."

Well this guy was obviously not some open carry commando testing the law by sporting a hand carried rifle at McDonalds while his friends post the video on youtube.

Open carry may be a right, but if you walk up on someone at the wrong time or place with a gun in your hand you might very well find yourself full of little leaky holes. Common sense says that theres a time and place for any type of behavior, and regardless of intent theres far too much street crime, mass killings and home invasions these days for people to walk around with a gun in their hand with no expectation that they might put someone in fear for their safety or the safety of the family and that person may shoot first and ask questions later.
If carrying a handgun keep it in a holster whether visible or not, if carrying a rifle invest in a gun sleeve or case.
If you walk into someones place of business with a gun in your hand don't go crying foul if they pump a few slugs into you just to be on the safe side.
As noted any non LEO civilian walking onto military property carrying a weapon in their hands has already broken the law.

From the looks of things Alan West got a text message from someone who did not have his facts straight, then the story spread due to many people quoting West's second or third hand information.

Whenever there are multiple shooters, good guys as well as bad guys, involved they will test all weapons involved to be sure just who shot who. Friendly fire incidents are always a possibility.

[Lonegun1894]

Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

I knew you would know, Love Life. :) I was hoping Anthony B would look it up though and learn a bit about how these units operate and why, and how they were/are shaped by post-9/11 events. These are NOT your standard units that do things by the book just because some pencil pusher or desk jockey said so. I was in when 9/11 happened, and we took what we thought best from our previous training, what we thought other branches/units did better, and threw away anything we thought was not to our benefit in this war that the terrorists started but we were going to finish. We were guided by our Oaths and our conscience, and little else because the policies that had gotten us to that point had obviously failed (9/11 happened) and we didn't have the experience to draw on at that time that our military has now almost 15 years later. We made a lot of mistakes, learned a lot of lessons, and inflicted a lot of damage on the enemy, but we were NOT as well polished as the current MARSOC units that were developed from our teams. I don't know how things are in the units now since I have been out of the game for 10 years now, but back then, our focus was on combat efficiency, and little concern was given to what rule said what--and that was true for our entire command.

[MaryB]

Or the navy backed after after this hit the internet and went viral... a LOT of people were pressuring their congress critters to do something to stop it.

[ole 5 hole group]

By all news accounts I have read, the Navy has repeatedly stated they are looking into the incident and no one has been charged yet - never have they stated the Lt. Commander would not be charged or reprimanded. Nothing good will come of this for this particular Warrior. These are strange times we are currently living in.

[Larry Gibson]

A lot of us who were in SF carried most all the time too. Wasn't hard to carry concealed with the old jungle fatigues and especially when loose fitting BDU and DCUs came in. Had company and even battalion commanders who also carried. It was the nature of our business regardless of the stateside regs made by base commanders and DOD officials. Many LEOs also continued to carry concealed in the NG and USAR. Biggest problem was avoiding "health & welfare" checks at the gates. Most of us had the weapons we carried registered on post anyways so a quick unload and lock in a pistol case before hitting the gate/inspection point was easy enough.

Larry Gibson

[dh2]

Why would there be charges against someone using a 50BMG?
Over use of force, the charge did not stick to go to trail, it still did to much damage to the service members career. even though they was fighting for there life at the time, Mainly it did not go over wells with the locals, It was much more than one big gun

[Akheloce]

I've crewed the M2 50 quite a bit and I never heard if such a thing.

[jonp]

This isba myth that continues to roll on. The Geneva Convention does not ban the 50cal. Its only mention of ammunition is against hp or explosive rounds on human targets.

[Lonegun1894]

This isba myth that continues to roll on. The Geneva Convention does not ban the 50cal. Its only mention of ammunition is against hp or explosive rounds on human targets.

Even the above is partially correct. It doesn't say anything against HP ammo, but rather expanding ammo designed to inflict unnecessary suffering. If HP ammo was unlawful, then our snipers wouldn't be allowed to use HPBT match rounds. But this ammo has been approved because they said that while it is HP, it is NOT expanding, and the HP aids in accuracy. I guess this is the govts way of saying that not all HPs are the same.

“The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.” Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899.

[Lonegun1894]

It wouldn't let me edit:

I meant to add that the description can be taken to include HP, SP, and even jacketed where the nose is fully covered but the base is exposed, but all that aside, it is HOW the bullet is intended to function on/after impact and not so much what it looks like. The whole letter of the law vs the intent of the law thing, if that makes sense.

[white eagle]

this is a disgrace, a slap in the face
since when has it been a crime to defend yourself and fellow soldiers?
is that not what you are trained to do?
I know orders are orders and rules are rules but use your head,if possible..

[Love Life]

People would be amazed at the amount of people who pack heat on gubmint installations.

[montana_charlie]

By all news accounts I have read, the Navy has repeatedly stated they are looking into the incident and no one has been charged yet - never have they stated the Lt. Commander would not be charged or reprimanded. Nothing good will come of this for this particular Warrior. These are strange times we are currently living in.
When this story initially appeared, it came from Allen West.
He said that Ltcdr. White (pr someone representing him) asked West if White 'could reach out to him' ... and West said yes.

There had to be something said (by somebody) that led White to think he might need some high-profile help.
Even if no charges have been filed as of this time, it is conceivable that White was told that on the matter of him being charged the question was one of 'when', not 'if'.


Now, the Navy has two bones to pick with White.
He had an unauthorized weapon in his possession ... and he got everybody mad at the Navy.

The Navy doesn't like for people to make waves.

[Larry Gibson]

No it is not "against the Geneva Convention" (actually it would be the Hague Accords) nor has it ever been "illegal" as such to use the 50 caliber against personnel. However, there have been "rules of engagement" in Iraq and Afghanistan regarding the use of heavy weapons. The use of other than personal weapons, unless authorized at a certain level (usually battalion or higher), by combat troops on patrol for self defense was prohibited in some area's of Iraq and in Afghanistan. The reason was we were paying too much for the damage caused from the use of such weapons; grenade launchers and crew served GPMGs including the M2. BTW; the use of hand grenades, mortars, heavy guns on armored vehicles and artillery were also severely restricted. The more and more we restricted our military in "presence patrols" and "peace keeping" the more and more the enemy ceased to fear us and the more our own Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and civilians were killed, maimed and wounded........for absolutely nothing once again just as in Viet Nam, will we never learn?

Larry Gibson

[jonp]

Even the above is partially correct. It doesn't say anything against HP ammo, but rather expanding ammo designed to inflict unnecessary suffering. If HP ammo was unlawful, then our snipers wouldn't be allowed to use HPBT match rounds. But this ammo has been approved because they said that while it is HP, it is NOT expanding, and the HP aids in accuracy. I guess this is the govts way of saying that not all HPs are the same.

“The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.” Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899.

Your kinda splitting hairs here. Pretty much everyone here and that I know considers an HP to be an expanding bullet. That's the whole point behind HP. Our snipers are currently using Sierra Match King's which, while HP, are designed to not expand. Expansion was the point not whether they are HP or not. I should have been clearer.

[Lonegun1894]

Jonp,
You're right, but this is one of those things where the devil is in the details, and while you and I know what we mean, there are many who have never looked into the rules our military has to live and fight by, so it is important that we make this clear enough that someone who doesn't understand this gets educated enough that they don't go off creating more confusion because of a simple misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to be argumentative, just adding what is actually in there instead of leaving room for confusion. Hope you understand cause it wasn't intended as any form of attack. Personally, I think we should use expanding ammo, but I'm a bit prejudiced.

Now if you want to really confuse people, maybe we should tell everyone that the US never signed the Hague Accords or Geneva Convention, as many mistakenly call it.

[Akheloce]

We signed the Geneva Conventions, but not The Hague accords- ;) I predict 2 more pages of thread drift :)

Coincidentally, I was issued HP's in my M9- unique circumstances.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

By all news accounts I have read, the Navy has repeatedly stated they are looking into the incident and no one has been charged yet - never have they stated the Lt. Commander would not be charged or reprimanded. Nothing good will come of this for this particular Warrior. These are strange times we are currently living in.

The only alternative to looking into the incident would be not looking into the incident. The whole charges story seems to have originated not in a bona fide news organization but in a politically motivated blog which doesn't accept standard journalistic requirements for verification. Snopes describes the West site as "oft-unreliable", which is a bit like saying someone is a midget every time you look at him. But their account seems pretty sound on how things stand, and charges seem very unlikely.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/08/02/navy-commander-charged/

The decision to carry was made long before the attack, in an environment where I believe less than a hundred Americans have died by terrorism since 9/11. As to whether there is no way the Navy could feel severely aggrieved at that decision by some hypothetical officer, of course they could. Suppose they were sitting on witnesses who had heard him sounding off about carrying a gun in case he got a crack at a Muslim someday, and weren't sure if they were willing to stay sat on? We have seen the like on the boards, and although we have no reason to think Commander White had planted such a minefield under his employers, we can hardly expect them to keep a blogging midget's idea of the right schedule for looking into it.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Jonp,
You're right, but this is one of those things where the devil is in the details, and while you and I know what we mean, there are many who have never looked into the rules our military has to live and fight by, so it is important that we make this clear enough that someone who doesn't understand this gets educated enough that they don't go off creating more confusion because of a simple misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to be argumentative, just adding what is actually in there instead of leaving room for confusion. Hope you understand cause it wasn't intended as any form of attack. Personally, I think we should use expanding ammo, but I'm a bit prejudiced.

Now if you want to really confuse people, maybe we should tell everyone that the US never signed the Hague Accords or Geneva Convention, as many mistakenly call it.

Almost everybody in fact, including the International Commission of the Red Cross, the United Nations, Wikipedia, any Americans arguing that their captors should adhere to it, and last but not least, the Geneva Conventions. The preamble to each of the 1949 Conventions runs something like this:

The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Geneva Convention for the Relief of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field of July 27, 1929, have agreed as follows:

The use of expanding bullets is permitted for domestic law enforcement, but not the organized forces of a foreign enemy. As America hasn't had an organized secession lately, that grey area remains untested within the US. Another is the frequent classification as unlawful combatants of people much resembling the armed citizens posters on the boards often advance as a reason for Japan not invading the Continental USA.

[SeabeeMan]

No it is not "against the Geneva Convention" (actually it would be the Hague Accords) nor has it ever been "illegal" as such to use the 50 caliber against personnel. However, there have been "rules of engagement" in Iraq and Afghanistan regarding the use of heavy weapons. The use of other than personal weapons, unless authorized at a certain level (usually battalion or higher), by combat troops on patrol for self defense was prohibited in some area's of Iraq and in Afghanistan. The reason was we were paying too much for the damage caused from the use of such weapons; grenade launchers and crew served GPMGs including the M2. BTW; the use of hand grenades, mortars, heavy guns on armored vehicles and artillery were also severely restricted. The more and more we restricted our military in "presence patrols" and "peace keeping" the more and more the enemy ceased to fear us and the more our own Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and civilians were killed, maimed and wounded........for absolutely nothing once again just as in Viet Nam, will we never learn?

Larry Gibson

This, as well as the statement regarding escalation of force, are absolutely true. The ROE when I was there from 05-06 involved a very clear escalation of force the ranged from spotlights and pointing the crew served to firing star clusters, warning shots, disabling shots, and eventually shooting to kill. There was a sliding scale involving distance to the threat, approach speed of the threat, perceived intentions, their response to your last action, etc. Needless to say it was a cluster. As gunners and vehicle commanders, we were very clearly told that the difference between stopping a VBIED from wiping out the back half of the convoy and life in the brig was one wrong decision. Open up on a car full of explosives as it speeds toward you and you might just get a medal. Do so on the exact same car doing the exact same thing, minus the explosives that you can't see, and you go to prison. ROE against small arms, including RPG's, was the "Top Gun" policy: do not fire unless fired upon. If they point it at you, point back. Once they pull the trigger, THEN you can return.

So yes, utilizing the heavy weapons in a way that is not in keeping with the ROE and escalation of force dictated could result in trouble, but you could get yourself into that situation with your fists as well.

[Love Life]

The ROE in 05 in Fallujah were ridiculous.

They took our clusters from us when a Marine hit a woman with one and kinda sorta burned her up in F.

We used to chuck flashbangs at oncoming cars and people, but the big steel bodies of the grenades caused a bit of damage.

PIDLIT=Congruent witness statements.

Yes, you could engage personnel and vehicles with the 50 and the 40mm, but had better danged have no less than 87 witnesses to verify that you waved your cute little orange flag when the car was X amount of distance away, used your arm signals when X amount away, yelled at them when they were X amount closer, pointed your weapon at them when they were X distance, and then finally fired.

Heck even when they got in firing range on the stupid sliding scale you still had to escalate with tires, grill, kill. The only way it could have gotten any stupider was if we had been required to send written correspondence to oncoming vehicles as another tier in our escalation of force.

The ROE in Ramadi in 06-07 were awesome. The ROE in Afghanistan in 2009-2010 were pretty legit as well.

[SeabeeMan]

Fallujah 05...that's where I was, running convoys all over but mainly to BIAP and TQ. I think I still have the PowerPoint I made in 06 to train the incoming battalion on ROE and escalation, and it's just as stupid as all of this sounds.

[Love Life]

We started in March 2005 in the apartments on the west side of the railroad bridge. We built up ECP 3, then moved over and built up the train station on the northern edge of Fallujah on the other side of April across the street from the city . Our AO covered the western flank, south down to Elizabeth, and east over to Isaac.

We had an OP in the western flank known as the Alamo, and another OP by the water treatment facility called Ed's Exit where we took count of incoming/outgoing people. We were foot mobile 90% of the time with the average patrol being 3 miles or so apiece winding in and around the city.

ROE there were so dumb. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the dumbest, I'd have the give the ROE a rating of infinity.

[SeabeeMan]

We ran out to the water treatment plant several times, always daylight missions so never any fun.

We were in the Seabee maintenance camp in the main base and ran convoy escort from there. We had the most ****-tastic collection of HMMWV's ever. Old ones with armor held on by ratchet straps, a few we'd just welded plate steel onto when we could get it, and one brand new tan one we stole from the air force, right off the run way at Ali Al Salem. All of them were the soda can turrets. Someobdy had put it in our LT's head that gunners were getting taken out by garrotes run across the road, so he had us put garrote bars on Victor 1. There were 1 on either side of the turret armor, 5-6' tall off the turret that curved forward with hooks on the end of them.

As soon as we put those on, EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) became the flavor of the day and we figured there was no stopping those.

[Omega]

I was located at BIAP, we were FARP team members responsible for refueling and rearming our helicopters as well as refilling fuel tanks at our outstations. When driving the HEMTTs we didn't bother trying to uparmor, we figured it would just slow us down anyway. When taking fuel to some of the further outstations we had CAS and for the most part got there and back OK. Most times it was the random AK and a couple or RPGs but IEDs were barely making the scene, luckily for us. The ROE was easy enough, just shoot back.

[Love Life]

Rich Kildow-Was your unit involved with the "up armoring" of ECP 3? It was west of the city outside of the apartments.

Our *** HMMWVs had L shaped doors that we had to 550 cord shut. We had blast blankets ratchet strapped to the highback portions. All the turret locks were busted so if you took a turn to sharp then the gunner would do the round and round and round. Kinda funny looking back at it now.

About half way through Fallujah we got the new highbacks with AC and decent armor on the backs.Nothing earth shattering, but good for deflecting small arms and shrapnel. We got 4 total for the Company. One went to the CO and his minions, and the other 3 were put into use by those of us who actually earned our pay.

When we left in September 2005, the highbacks were still in use, but the EFP had made inroads. When we came back to Iraq in 2006 (Ramadi) the highbacks had been banned and we had the fully up armored M1114. The weak point on those were the fuel systems as most survived the blast, but the raging fire is what got most of our Marines who were wounded in HMWWV explosions. The enemy (Al Qaeda in Iraq at the time and reeling from the loss of Zarqawi) had taken to wrapping their IEDs with what looked like 2 ft long strips of cordite. Interesting stuff.

ROE in Ramadi were legit. We had roads which if people were on them, they were fair game. Goat road and Y road are two that come to mind.

[SeabeeMan]

Some of our guys were, but I wasn't directly. Our unit was fairly split up with my team being a SERT (Seabee Engineering Recon Team) that grabbed some extra bodies to run convoys, 2 CST's, a headquarters element, and a camp/base maintenance element. Since we usually ran convoys at night and our Chief was able to keep them from grabbing us between missions to pour concrete or play in the burn pits, we didn't see much of the rest of the unit. I do know that they were involved with some work on one of the ECPs.

That's hilarious about the turret locks. That nice one we stole from the Air Force had the motorized turret that you just leaned against, but I never got to play in that one. The gunner there always complained that you couldn't whip the turret around the same way if the vehicle was stopping fast. The old style you could just pop the lock and the gun and front plate would swing you around. For a while we went through Ramadi on our way to TQ, which we'd run at least once or twice a week, but we always had something happen and ended up stuck on Mobile. We started calling it the Ramadhi Hole and the BIAP Hole, because you couldn't drive by without getting sucked in for some reason or another.

I dug up some pictures of the vehicles. I almost forgot how awesomely crappy they look. It must have been before or after a Fallujah pumphouse run because we were spun up during the day.

http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb389/rich_kildow/DSCN0134_zpsdmufnf8g.jpg (http://s1203.photobucket.com/user/rich_kildow/media/DSCN0134_zpsdmufnf8g.jpg.html)

http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb389/rich_kildow/100_0262_zpsoibjxhty.jpg (http://s1203.photobucket.com/user/rich_kildow/media/100_0262_zpsoibjxhty.jpg.html)