Reports of active shooter in Chattanooga, TN; several sites, one officer down.

[oldpink]

Well this admin has been changing higher ranking officers like Kleenex.

It's called The Purge, and it goes hand-in-glove with the recent radical changes forced upon an unwilling military, i.e. all the better to get the senior officers to acquiesce to the Community Organizer-in-Chief.

 

[KLB]

It's called The Purge, and it goes hand-in-glove with the recent radical changes forced upon an unwilling military, i.e. all the better to get the senior officers to acquiesce to the Community Organizer-in-Chief.

Power must really corrupt. In order for a purge to work, he has to find those willing to follow his wishes. If he did, it isn't like they were new to service. They had to have been around for a while.

 

[cobber]

It's called The Purge, and it goes hand-in-glove with the recent radical changes forced upon an unwilling military, i.e. all the better to get the senior officers to acquiesce to the Community Organizer-in-Chief.

It worked very well for Stalin in cementing his power in the 30s. Once Germany attacked, not so much...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Read the article, got sick by the second paragraph. Some of us armed citizens are veterans. I'm sure I'm not the only one who takes it personal being considered a security threat. I'm getting pretty tired of this y administration treating us veterans like WE are the problem. The abuse the veterans have been subjected to in the recent past, the constant accusations, the distrust, etc. This constant stirring the pot just to cause trouble has got to stop. I used to enjoy watching the news, now all it does it raise my blood pressure and **** me off more and more. I really hope we get someone in office this next time that can straighten out some of the problems.

As the saying goes: Soap box - ballot box - ammo box. We've been through the first 2 for a long time. I'm dreading what may happen next.

Yeah, this part struck me in particular: “If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens, be polite, professional and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement …,” the command advised.

Report it for what? Assuming they are breaking no laws and are lawfully carrying, just what "incident" are they going to report??

"Hello, police? I want to report a man outside of the recruiting office doing absolutely nothing wrong. Please come arrest him immediately!"

 

[Super Bee]

I saw this on Mark Levins website.


"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."


What?s happening to this heroic Navy officer from the Chattanooga shooting will make your blood BOIL - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

 

[prescut]

The Pentagon knows that sailors are not trustworthy. They will mutiny. Everyone knows this. The British knew it centuries ago and it hasn't changed. You only arm the crew when you need them to attack and be cannon fodder. You disarm them immediately afterwards.

So for centuries we have done the same thing. What is such a shock here is that the guy they are charging is an officer. Now we can't trust those guys either? Must be lots of mutineers out there.

I can only assume this is a gun control issue from the white house.

Terrorist attacks and rule breaking issues would not get this guy charged. Maybe a reprimand.
This officer broke a PC gun control rule. Fry his azz.

Prescut

 

[actaeon277]

I saw this on Mark Levins website.


"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."


What?s happening to this heroic Navy officer from the Chattanooga shooting will make your blood BOIL - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

While I disagree with them charging him....... he disobeyed an order.
I was a nuke. That was a pretty big charge for me. I'm assuming it's a big charge for the rest of the military.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Pentagon knows that sailors are not trustworthy. They will mutiny. Everyone knows this. The British knew it centuries ago and it hasn't changed. You only arm the crew when you need them to attack and be cannon fodder. You disarm them immediately afterwards.

So for centuries we have done the same thing. What is such a shock here is that the guy they are charging is an officer. Now we can't trust those guys either? Must be lots of mutineers out there.

I can only assume this is a gun control issue from the white house.

Terrorist attacks and rule breaking issues would not get this guy charged. Maybe a reprimand.
This officer broke a PC gun control rule. Fry his azz.

Prescut

Lol, Epic

 

[actaeon277]

The Pentagon knows that sailors are not trustworthy. They will mutiny. Everyone knows this. The British knew it centuries ago and it hasn't changed. You only arm the crew when you need them to attack and be cannon fodder. You disarm them immediately afterwards.

So for centuries we have done the same thing. What is such a shock here is that the guy they are charging is an officer. Now we can't trust those guys either? Must be lots of mutineers out there.

I can only assume this is a gun control issue from the white house.

Terrorist attacks and rule breaking issues would not get this guy charged. Maybe a reprimand.
This officer broke a PC gun control rule. Fry his azz.

Prescut

Disobeyed an order.

 

[cce1302]

While I don't think that they should have charged him at all, I have some conspiracy theories running around in my head.

1. If "illegally discharging a firearm on federal property" is the charge then I don't think they really want to convict him. it may be a media circus or perhaps 'making an example' so others don't carry in their reserve centers.

B. Here are other articles they could possibly charge him with, though I don't think they could convict him.

Article 134-20 [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica](Firearm, discharging— through negligence) [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) That the accused discharged a firearm; [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) That such discharge was caused by the negligence of the accused; and [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [/FONT]


Article 134-21 [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica](Firearm, discharging— willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life) [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) That the accused discharged a firearm; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) That the discharge was willful and wrongful; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) That the discharge was under circumstances such as to endanger human life; and [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](4) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [/FONT]
​

III. Article 134-55 [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica](Weapon: concealed, carrying)[/FONT] would be easier, I think, to get a conviction if they really wanted to:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) That the accused carried a certain weapon concealed on or about the accused’s person; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) That the carrying was unlawful; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) That the weapon was a dangerous weapon; and [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](4) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.


Although we don't even have the full story yet. They could be tacking all this stuff on as lesser included offenses, indicating that they may be more serious about prosecuting him.
[/FONT]
​

 

[actaeon277]

While I don't think that they should have charged him at all, I have some conspiracy theories running around in my head.

1. If "illegally discharging a firearm on federal property" is the charge then I don't think they really want to convict him. it may be a media circus or perhaps 'making an example' so others don't carry in their reserve centers.

B. Here are other articles they could possibly charge him with, though I don't think they could convict him.

Article 134-20 [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica](Firearm, discharging— through negligence) [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) That the accused discharged a firearm; [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) That such discharge was caused by the negligence of the accused; and [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [/FONT]


Article 134-21 [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica](Firearm, discharging— willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life) [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) That the accused discharged a firearm; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) That the discharge was willful and wrongful; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) That the discharge was under circumstances such as to endanger human life; and [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](4) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [/FONT]
​

III. Article 134-55 [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica](Weapon: concealed, carrying)[/FONT] would be easier, I think, to get a conviction if they really wanted to:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) That the accused carried a certain weapon concealed on or about the accused’s person; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) That the carrying was unlawful; [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) That the weapon was a dangerous weapon; and [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](4) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.


Although we don't even have the full story yet. They could be tacking all this stuff on as lesser included offenses, indicating that they may be more serious about prosecuting him.
[/FONT]
​

Or, since I'm pretty sure it's a standing order to not be armed there...... UCMJ Article 92. Failure to obey Order or Regulation.

 

[Birds Away]

His career is toast. They will probably just let him walk away, hopefully.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Navy to Post Armed Guards at Reserve Centers After Chattanooga

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...avy-officer-charged-chattanooga-shooting.html

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Source: No charges against Navy officer for weapons violations in Chattanooga attack - Stripes

 

[Dead Duck]

Hooyah