Navy Officer Who Fired on Islamist During Chattanooga Terror Attack Will Be Charged

[RdKill]

Before a service member is "formally charged" the command makes the decision of to the charge/s and punishment.

The problem is by violating an order and federal law he saved lives. So how to punish him for that?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/0...ging-service-member-who-fired-on-chattanooga/

Typical Faux News reporting... "A Navy official told Fox news"...wtf is that? BS! Sounds to me like once the story was debunked, they are trying to keep it going anyway by quoting a mysterious "official" that could be anybody or nobody. Why is it that the folks so outraged about the prospect of charging this hero are the very people that are pointing out that he could be charged? They seem to really want him charged so they can be even more pissed off. Idiots.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Typical Faux News reporting... "A Navy official told Fox news"...wtf is that? BS! Sounds to me like once the story was debunked, they are trying to keep it going anyway by quoting a mysterious "official" that could be anybody or nobody. Why is it that the folks so outraged about the prospect of charging this hero are the very people that are pointing out that he could be charged? They seem to really want him charged so they can be even more pissed off. Idiots.

No official close to this investigation is allowed to speak to any member of the media. Communication must be through a PAO (Public Affairs Officer) or equivalent. Strict control will be observed, however, senior members not pleased with the impending actions will speak informally (off the record) to men they respect and may have an informal impact.

The "story" has not been "debunked". The PAO only told the public what his superiors wanted them to know. A Commanding officer not only violates orders but federal law? He discharges his firearm on a federal "gun free zone"? Despite the circumstances he violated "law".

The people are not pleased with the "law" and more so if it punishes an armed Marine Commander who ran to danger to defend his unarmed troops. And more so if it was he or another illegally armed Marine that killed the terrorist within their wire.

The investigating teams by now know who killed the "domestic extremist". The question to ask is why have they not made it public?

 

[Shovelhead]

Those looking at the "Law" should know this trumps it...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The gentlemen should get a medal not subjected to the "Law".

 

[spencer60]

Latest is that he hasn't actually been charged yet, but the Navy is considering it.

In the same note, they still 'don't know' who fired the rounds that killed the terrorist. I find that hard to believe, but I'm not surprised they aren't saying anything

My guess is that the bullets came from one of the two soldiers 'illegally' carrying a firearm on the base. After all, they were on the scene way before the cops were.

 

[rockyfatcat]

Those looking at the "Law" should know this trumps it...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The gentlemen should get a medal not subjected to the "Law".

He wasn't defending the constitution we was attacking a man engaged in workplace violence. The constitution wasn't anywhere close to his location. (pun intended)

 

[RdKill]

Point is...as it stands, nobody is filing any charges. Reports of charges filed were just made to piss people off.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Point is...as it stands, nobody is filing any charges. Reports of charges filed were just made to piss people off.

That's a good question to ask. Why aren't they? If they were what would be the public's reaction and what changes would they demand?

The PAO "no charges have been filed at this time" yesterday. The PAO "Not ruling out charging service member who fired on Chattanooga shooter" today. Tomorrow is yet another day.

Really want to **** with their heads, have a large movement to push for awards and accolades for thwarting a mass murderer. This will really poke a stick in the mix.

I would not put it past this administration in a convoluted justification to falsely claim it's unknown or to give credit to local LEO for the dead tango in the name of "security" and to "maintain order" within the ranks. I guarantee this is being seriously considered. Senoir leaders flaunting federal law and regulations are a serious issue and damn sure they will consider the "precedent" it sets.

Everyone remember hearing about the breaking news of the recruiting station, then mere minutes later a second shooting that ended rather abruptly. Consider in most mass shootings LEO response time varies around 15 minutes.

There were two locations to respond to.

 

[Shovelhead]

He wasn't defending the constitution we was attacking a man engaged in workplace violence. The constitution wasn't anywhere close to his location. (pun intended)

I think he was doing this.... defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

 

[rockyfatcat]

I think he was doing this.... defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

What part of "pun intended" did you fail to comprehend? The constitution as a piece of paper is very well protected. But as a practical consequence, it has been shredded by both parties and largely ignored by many including our supreme court!

 

[REDX]

Those looking at the "Law" should know this trumps it...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The gentlemen should get a medal not subjected to the "Law".

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Fixed it for you. You left out the part about Obeying the orders of the offices appointed over him( I left out the President) and the part about UCMJ