ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Military contemplates charging Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White for his unauthorized carrying of a firearm and defending himself and fellow servicemen. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/should-timothy-white-be-prosecuted-for-firing-back-at-the-chattanooga-shooter/ Should Timothy White Be Prosecuted For Firing Back At The Chattanooga Shooter? Jul. 23, 2015 11:43am Scott Morefield - TheBlaze Contributor The aftermath of Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s July 16th massacre of five service members at a Chattanooga Navy facility left some wondering how a lone gunman could survive such a target. Isn’t the military’s primary job, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, “to kill people and break things?” I’m no military expert here, but I would imagine these days one would need at least some sort of metallic object propulsion device to fight even the most primitive modern fighting force, much less one (assumedly) untrained schmuck with a rifle and a handgun … right? Source: Twitter But those of us who didn’t know this already soon learned the ugly truth behind Department of Defense Directive 5210.56, signed by President George H.W. Bush in February 1992, effectively made military areas “gun free” zones. Thanks to the geniuses who adopted and implemented this policy, Nidal Hasan didn’t have to worry about any return fire when he murdered 13 people at Fort Hood and Aaron Alexis was free to slaughter 12 at the Washington Navy Yard unencumbered by pesky bullets coming his way. Doubtless, Muhammad Abdulazeez expected a similar red-carpet experience when he charged Rambo-style into the Chattanooga Navy facility. “Gun-free” zones, after all, have been great to mass-murderers like James Holmes, Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho. If bullets aren’t flying back at ya, it’s apparently like a video game to these nutjobs. Except we learned that Abdulazeez didn’t quite get the warm welcome he was counting on. Instead, he got unexpected return fire from at least one place, and possibly even two. According to special agent Edward Reinhold, “Two service members attempted to provide cover and assist the military personnel getting over the fence and away from the shooter. The shooter continued to fire and killed two additional service members.” “The heroic actions of these service members doubtless saved numerous lives,” he continuted. It seems that, by pulling his weapon, Lt. Cmdr. White put himself at risk in more ways than one. Share: I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that these armed service members weren’t “supposed” to be armed, at least according to the above policy. Just yesterday, the Navy Times reported the name of the surviving service member who engaged the shooter, Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White. The other was a Marine who, unfortunately, was killed. The article states, “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.” We’re told by Reinhold that the military will conduct a separate investigation to determine whether or not those service members were authorized to be armed. If not, are we to presume that charges would be filed? Believe it or not, this presents a problem for liberals and anti-self-defense types. Because of the massive spotlight surrounding this shooting, if they choose to prosecute Lt. Cmdr. White they risk severe public backlash as the veil is torn off to reveal the insidious evil behind this and every other policy that prevents Americans from exercising their right to bear arms and defend themselves. However, if they let this one “pass” in spite of the clearly stated policy, they will create a path for others to disregard it. It seems that, by pulling his weapon, Lt. Cmdr. White put himself at risk in more ways than one. While it would be an utter and absolute tragedy for this brave sailor to have to go through so much as a paid day off, much less an actual, tangible punishment for his actions that day, in the grand scheme of things this certainly presents an interesting challenge. Were this a non-military matter, it would be a great time for a patriotic jury to render a nullifying “not guilty” verdict. But the decision military investigators make here will have repercussions far beyond the life of an extraordinary commander and hero who acted selflessly in defense of his fellow soldiers. Edited July 23, 2015 by ChileRelleno Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 And one wonders when I say "I can take down an entire military base with 50 men." When all the bullets are in the ammo dump, all you do is take the dump, and the base is defenseless. Take whatever you want! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JESS1344 508 Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) GUYS, BETWEEN THE MUSLIM COWARD-IN-CHIEF IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND HIS BUTT-LICKERS IN THE PENTAGON, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED TO SEE THEM TRY TO ROAST THIS BRAVE OFFICER. IF THAT SHOULD HAPPEN, I WOULDN'T BE AGAINST A NIGHT TIME "TORCHLIGHT AND PITCHFORK" MARCH ON THE PENTAGON. THAT WOULD BE A RIGHTEOUS "MILLION MAN (AND WOMAN) MARCH"! AND WHY IS IT, THAT NO ONE HAS ASKED GEORGE H.W. BUSH IF HE REGRETS HIS ORDER, DISARMING MILITARY MEMBERS ON POST, AND WOULD HE NOW, AFTER SEVERAL MASS SHOOTINGS ON GUN-FREE ZONE POSTS, BE IN FAVOR OF RESCINDING HIS SO ILL-ADVISED ORDER, HMMMMMMMM?? JESS1344 Edited July 24, 2015 by JESS1344 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 He is not muslim. He is an atheistic humanist. Nothing he pushes would even slightly accord with muslim doctrine. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevyman097 2,579 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 "Murica letting proven criminals loose and locking up our hero's" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Long Shot 1,287 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Time for some public outrage on this crazy ass backwards LUNACY ! http://allenbwest.com/2015/08/whats-happening-to-this-heroic-navy-officer-from-the-chattanooga-shooting-will-make-your-blood-boil/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 .mil needs to take a hint from this guy and ARM our military! Our troops are NOT meant to be targets. It's OUR JOB to make the other bastard die for HIS country. (Thank you Gen. Patton) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
THE NEW GUY 113 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 They want our military to be targets so they can push their gun control agenda . Its win win for them they want to take our rights away .Its for the children don't u know 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Way back in 1972 or about during my early fire department career, we had an old Engineer (apparatus operator) who was at Pearl Harbor. He got through it OK, but still remembers today sweating bullets AFTER the attack because some high officer wanted to court martial him and a bunch of other ratings and chiefs for busting off security padlocks to get at some, (little) ammo to shoot at the Japanese? Seems policy then was to keep all ships at Pearl disarmed? No ammo? They were lucky they had some on board. Sosss ... the brass to protect their own asses for setting up the disaster at Pearl only wanted to protect their own careers by going after the lower ranks ... for destroying Navy property! Seems nothing has changed in our peace time Navy? Reason and sanity has gone out over the side. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted August 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 Yep, the Navy will be charging him with illegally discharging a firearm on federal property. Yep, bat shit crazy insanity reigns supreme. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 That is crazy. I think it might be crazy enough to draw meaningful political pressure. I don't know very well how the military courts work, and frankly the phrase "military courts" angers me in itself. Everyone should use the same legal system. Period. However, they still have the right to a jury, so that means the jury can still nullify. So there is that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 he's lucky it's Tenesee, a communist state could try him, convict him and then the navy could run him through court martial. Military courts resemble civilian ones in that there is a judge, jury and two lawyers. It changes from there as far as evidence, witness rules, jury selection etc. He will be found guilty as he broke the uniform code of military justice. Is it crazy, military intelligence Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 When I am chief justice.... 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 I guess no charges are going to be filed! Good on them for finally showing some sense... 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.