Posted on 08/01/2015 12:03:27 PM PDT by abb
If this it true, it is beyond shameful. It is tar-and-feather worthy.
A scan of the iNet gives only 2nd hand speculation from the Navy Times and conservative oriented outlets. While I agree that this would be a TRAVESTY of justice, I am speculating that this may be a charge against standing orders. If this post had standing orders to have no personal weapons on site, then Lt. Cmdr Timothy White would have been in violation of those orders.
So, with his public admission of the use, higher command has no choice but to bring charges. The logical thing would be for the area commander to make a fast decision that reaffirms the standing order (subject to later change), and tap this officer with the lightest of punishments and mark his record that he still met the expectations of the Navy.
If he comes up with a couple million $$$, could he buy a POTUS pardon in Jan 2017?
Our soldiers are heroes. Our generals are cowardly traitors. All of them.
Well then, I think this sends a pretty clear message to the military rank and file. Will they heed it?
Carpet munching,Obama lap dogs!
Alright, not that it will make a difference but, who do we call over this?
If true, blame the GOP liberals that America elected. It is they that were SUPPOSED to be a check on this type of abuse.
Of course the fact that their leadership campaigned on working with the guy doing this should have given someone a clue they would not be that check.
So I have to think America is just fine with this. They did after all, vote for it.
last year at my son’s college an outsider went into one of the campus buildings and started shooting. Killed one and wounded some others.
The “hall monitor” sprayed the gunman with pepper spray while he reloaded and then tackled him and held him to the ground. He was hailed as a hero for good reason.
I never heard a thing against him having pepper spray, which is against the school rules. I was sort of surprised being in a Liberal city. Although the college is pretty conservative.
There is a form on the Drudge homepage for reporting breaking stories like this.
Obama's children!
How stupid we as a country have become even to consider charging this officer.
Mabus? Read Nostradamus? Not cool.
Laws only apply to those who are not among the ruling class elite. Hillary, Obama, Holder, and company can lie, steal, cheat, and cause the deaths of thousands and they are not held to account. Yet, a sailor, knowing that he was a target, may be charged for having, and discharging a firearm in defense of his life and the life of others on federal property. This is one damn sick country. The end must surely be near.
Ah, the internets. Where you can post falsities all day and night and never have to answer for it.
There's the law, and then there's whether conditions warrant the application of the law.
This application is unjustified and wrongful.
As I noted, although he may be found guilty, I’ll take that mitigation case any day of the week: good soldier defense, no victim, and the DoD CHANGED ITS POLICY as a direct result of the Chattanooga incidents and now permits recruiters to carry.
And he’s by no means the only non-security forces military member who carries on duty. I’ll wager at least 10% of us are armed with POWs while on duty, because yes, we do know better than the folks in the Pentagon.
The other piece is the clear statement in the DODD to the effect that there is always “the inherent right of self-defense”. I’d ride that horse a long way, and point out the inconsistencies between the statute and the DODD.
One would hope this is a joke
Charge a man who shot at a terrorist??
Man, do we EVER need Donald Trump....and SOON! To straighten out the wimpy douche bags running the Navy right now. Unlawful to defend oneself from an armed attacker on a military duty location? What an outrage!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.