On 1 August 2015, the oft-unreliable web site of conservative commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbaiting headline “What’s happening to this heroic Navy officer from the Chattanooga shooting will make your blood BOIL.” That post claimed that Navy Lt. Cmdr Timothy White, who is believed to have used a personal weapon to return fire against the shooter who killed four Marines and one sailor during a 16 July 2015 attack at Chattanooga-area military facilities, was going to be brought up on charges of illegally discharging a firearm on federal property by the Navy:
That post was largely cribbed from a thinly-sourced Western Journal article that in turn referenced a Navy Times article that discussed the Navy’s investigation into the shooting but made no mention of White’s being brought up on charges:
However, as of 2 August 2015, U.S. Navy representatives responding to Facebook inquiries about the matter have been stating that the incident is still under review and no charges have yet been brought against any Navy personnel:
Stories of Navy personnel being charged with an offense are not true. There is still a long way to go in reviewing the facts of this tragic incident, but at this time we can confirm no service member has been charged with an offense.
"A Navy official told Fox News that punishing a lieutenant commander who used an unauthorized weapon to fire back at the Chattanooga gunman who shot and killed five service members could not be “completely ruled out,” and two high-profile former military officers, including presidential candidate Jim Webb, say the Navy is at least seriously considering charging the man."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/03/navy-official-not-ruling-out-charging-service-member-who-fired-on-chattanooga/
That's a little different than what West wrote, isn't it?
Delete"That's a little different than what West wrote, isn't it?"
DeleteWhat a difference a couple of days can make when it comes to responding to media questions. If you'll pardon my language, this has turned into a PR shitstorm and they only have themselves to blame.
When training soldiers, I've often told them that at some point in their deployment, someone back in some operations center is going to tell them to do something stupid. I tell them that the first thing they should do is to repeat back in your own words to them what they want you to do. Lets try it here,
During a terrorist attack on a military base, in which resulted in the deaths of five service members, Lt. Cmdr. White engaged the terrorist engaged the terrorist with a personally owned firearm. You want me to investigate and possibly charge Lt. Cmdr. White for illegal discharge of his personally owned firearm as he was fighting the terrorist who was attempting to kill military members on the base he commanded.
IMHO, the first part of that sounds like a good first draft narrative for an award citation for Lt. Cmdr. White. But that's just me.
BTW, did you notice the statement in regards to his being charged made use of the always decisive, "at this time"? That's the term they used when they said they weren't going to ban M855 ammo.
As you know Mike, there are many ways in the military to make a corrective action. Unless it turns out that he shot some friendlies, he should be given a very public pat on the back, and a field grade ass chewing in private.
SS, you left out the fact that he was not suppose to have that gun on him, but again, you have proven you support law breakers.
DeleteAnon, here is a comment in this thread that explains things, but you seem to have skipped over it,
Delete"If he is the base commander and has the authority to allow people to carry, then it's logical to believe he can carry if he wishes. Of course he's answerable to his superiors. However, if he hasn't gotten guidance telling him he can't authorize others to carry, he falls back on written regulations which do give him the authority.
If his boss doesn't approve, he can relieve him, but it would be tough to charge him if he is following regulations."
Thanks for making yourself perfectly clear-the military man who should not have had a gun on him (breaking the gun rules) is a hero to you. You support criminals.
DeleteWhat happens to soldiers who don't follow orders/the law?
ReplyDeleteThis case will be an interesting one Anon. In this case, the law states that you need to have the permission of the base commander to carry. In this case, the person carrying IS the base commander, which would suggest that it's ok for him.
ReplyDeleteAs for the dead Marine, I'm sure he made the decision before hand that if he was caught, he'd take his medicine. I wonder how the administration, is going to extra ate themselves out of this political minefield. These two military men acted with bravery under fire to protect their comrades. Something expected and revered in the military.
The Army has a Soldier's Creed that has some applicable parts,
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I imagine the other services hold similar values. It took them a while to pull themselves together and do the right thing with the debacle of declaring the Ft. Hood shooting workplace violence. I hope they do better this time.
Meantime he can be arrested for breaking the rules and listen to the cheers from his jail cell. Commanders are not expected to follow the rules, or rules don't include commanders?
DeleteIf the rules say he can authorize the carry of arms, how is he breaking them?
DeleteIs that how it works in the military Dr. Strangelove? Typical of you to say a commander is not answerable to his superiors, he can do whatever he wants. Laughable.
DeleteIf he is the base commander and has the authority to allow people to carry, then it's logical to believe he can carry if he wishes. Of course he's answerable to his superiors. However, if he hasn't gotten guidance telling him he can't authorize others to carry, he falls back on written regulations which do give him the authority.
DeleteIf his boss doesn't approve, he can relieve him, but it would be tough to charge him if he is following regulations.
Of course you support dictator like regimes.
DeleteWell Anon, ultimately, Lt. Cmdr. White works for President Obama. So what dictator like regime were you referring to?
DeleteA gun loon soldier supporting the law breaking of another soldier, bad company keeps bad company.
DeleteYou said he doesn't have to check with higher authority SS, he can make his own dictator like decisions, now you say he is answerable to someone, which one is it SS? Why wouldn't the rule apply to the commander. Trying to have it both ways always makes you look hypocritical, yet, you keep holding on to those hypocritical stances, thank you.
DeleteAnon, I'm guessing you don't have much experience with the military, so I'll try to use small words. It really isn't much different than the civilian side except for the level of control the military can exert over an individual.
DeleteA Commander is expected to command and to use initiative using current regulations and guideline from his superiors. If the regulations say its allowed, then he doesn't have to ask his boss if its ok. That part works the same on the civilian side.
The Base Commander is given authority to allow people on his base to carry firearms at his discretion. If his higher command tells him he needs to inform then he also has to obey that. If they didn't say that, its his call. As it stands though, the Base Commander can authorize anyone on his base to carry, including himself.
If the Commander's boss doesn't like his decision, and he was following regulations, he can counsel him so he doesn't do it again, or he can relieve him of command. Relief of command can be "for cause" such as violating a regulation, or even specific orders from the higher command. Or it can be for a "lack of confidence", which can be for the higher command not liking his decisions. Neither is good for an officer's career.
As for being dictator like, that accurately describes parts of military authority. And the people in the military put up their hands and sign an oath of service to live in that world.
I don't have to guess that you always twist words, I don't have to guess you are a dishonest gun loon, both have been proven about you MANY times. Enjoy your hypocrisy.
DeleteHowdy Anon,
DeleteJust ran across something that clarifies things, though you wont like it because it supports my assertion,
"The military branch earlier this month sent out a letter to its base commanders around the nation reminding them that they can authorize subordinates to carry guns, even while off-duty and out of uniform. It also established three programs to help ensure that armed service members are in a position to protect their bases."
"None of these programs gives the installation commander authorizations they didn't already have the authorization to do," Maj. Keith Quick, the Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense action officer, said in a statement according to Military.com. "We are now formalizing it and telling them how they can use these types of programs more effectively."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/air-force-tells-brass-can-ok-guns-on-base-citing-2015-shooting-that-left-5-dead.html
Howdy Mike,
ReplyDeleteI just came across this which gives me a bit more confidence considering the source,
"Lt. Cmdr. Tim White, the Navy officer who fired a sidearm in defense during the attack on Navy Operational Support Center in Chattanooga, Tenn., will not face charges, an official familiar with the investigation told Stars and Stripes on Wednesday."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/06/navy-no-charges-against-officer-for-weapons-violations-in-attac.html
SS the criminal gun loon cheering a law breaker getting away with breaking the law.
DeleteFirst Anon, you need to explain which law he's breaking since, as I said earlier, he is authorized to allow people to carry on post at his discretion.
DeletePlus, just because he likely wont be prosecuted doesn't mean there wont be repercussions. I'm sure Mike can attest to the ways the military can make their displeasure known that doesn't involve formal charges.
I love the way you support and defend dictator like regimes.
Delete