Posted on Aug 6, 2015
Navy Officer Will Not Be Charged For Shooting At a Gunman
10.4K
75
45
22
22
0
Stars and Stripes | Aug 06, 2015 | by By Tara Copp
WASHINGTON — 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.
White was reported to be one of two service members carrying sidearms at the time of the attack, which could have led to charges. The Department of Defense prohibits all military personnel other than security forces from carrying arms while on base unless they are in a combat zone.
The Navy is still investigating the shooting, where a lone gunman attacked two separate military facilities. The shootings resulted in the deaths of four Marines and one sailor.
Last week, the Navy countered reports that White would be charged, which spurred a national backlash. “At this time we can confirm no service member has been charged with an offense,” the Navy said in a statement.
It also faced a backlash over why troops at “soft” military targets such as recruiting centers — which are often in easy-to-reach places like shopping malls — were not allowed to carry weapons, and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter directed a review to determine how security at these types of facilities could be improved.
WASHINGTON — 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.
White was reported to be one of two service members carrying sidearms at the time of the attack, which could have led to charges. The Department of Defense prohibits all military personnel other than security forces from carrying arms while on base unless they are in a combat zone.
The Navy is still investigating the shooting, where a lone gunman attacked two separate military facilities. The shootings resulted in the deaths of four Marines and one sailor.
Last week, the Navy countered reports that White would be charged, which spurred a national backlash. “At this time we can confirm no service member has been charged with an offense,” the Navy said in a statement.
It also faced a backlash over why troops at “soft” military targets such as recruiting centers — which are often in easy-to-reach places like shopping malls — were not allowed to carry weapons, and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter directed a review to determine how security at these types of facilities could be improved.
Crime
Court Martial
Law
Chattanooga
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 28
13
13
0
8
8
0
Good.
Common sense prevails.
Let's hope that there is no under the table administrative shenanigans.
Common sense prevails.
Let's hope that there is no under the table administrative shenanigans.
(8)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Yes, PO2 Kevin Peine he broke regulations. And the Navy can't have that, so I am sure he will get a stern talking to.
Having said that, the Navy would've been smoked for nailing LCDR White to the wall. This is the correct call. If he hadn't done what he had done, the Navy would likely be burying more Sailors.
Having said that, the Navy would've been smoked for nailing LCDR White to the wall. This is the correct call. If he hadn't done what he had done, the Navy would likely be burying more Sailors.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Kevin Peine
I admit that his actions we're heroic, but what I was stating is the LCDR will be confined to a bar for the duration of the whiskey rightfully so, but I believe if the action taken was not by an officer, but by an E-6 or below I think that service member would be in hand cuffs so fast that the bracelets would be smoking.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Perhaps, PO2 Kevin Peine. I too have seen the different actions taken for Officers vs Enlisted. We don't quite have the same "Chief's Class" in the Army that the Navy traditionally does. But I don't think the Navy would have gone after anybody this time, not with the visibility and national media attention.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Kevin Peine
I don't think it would have been a court marital more likely a captain's mast(what a njp is called in the navy) reduction in ranks, forfeit of pay, restriction and extra duty is probably what would have been awarded. It all would depend on the skipper.
Some of our traditions are very much rooted in previous centuries. Our officers eat separate from the enlisted and chiefs eat separate from junior enlisted and depending on the the ship size our first classes even are sperated from their sailors
Some of our traditions are very much rooted in previous centuries. Our officers eat separate from the enlisted and chiefs eat separate from junior enlisted and depending on the the ship size our first classes even are sperated from their sailors
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I would not bet a plug nickle either way on this one. The final decision has not yet been made and, I believe, it will be made at a very high level based on personal belief, not justice. POTUS has an agenda of disarming all of the country, not just civilians and this ia a perfect example for him to use to prove that even military Commanding Officers cannot be trusted to follow orders.
I personally believe that what the CO did by firing 7 times at this terrorist was justified and heroic, but I am not the ultimate decision maker. LCDR White has my support, for what it is worth. He was acting heroically and he is the one who issues orders on his command.
I personally believe that what the CO did by firing 7 times at this terrorist was justified and heroic, but I am not the ultimate decision maker. LCDR White has my support, for what it is worth. He was acting heroically and he is the one who issues orders on his command.
(5)
(0)
PO3 John Jeter
Personally, I couldn't agree with you more. However, that opens a rather large can of legal worms. The next time a service member is busted for unauthorized possession of a firearm in a federal facility (meaning he's violated federal law and articles of the UCMJ, how will they justify "selective enforcement" of the law and regs? How will this officer ever be able to administer an article 15 hearing after being given a pass? That pretty much eliminates the word 'uniform' from the UCMJ, doesn't it? Just a bit of food for thought......
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Hi PO3 John Jeter and that is why we are all trained to react to situations and not just blindly follow orders. I have had a few CO's like this who were thinkers and though out of the box with "what if" always in their heads. The debate is on about LCDR White and will NEVER be settled, even if he faces a Courts Martial. (No NJP for him in any way if he has to pay for his actions.) If you read the Federal Law that so many claim to have it is very open to interpenetration on his conduct. After all HE was the person responsible for determining who could and could not carry ANY weapons on his command. (Read the thing carefully and try to no come away confused - it was written by lawyers.)
18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities | US Law...
2001—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–56 struck out “or attempts to kill” after “A person who kills”, inserted “or attempts or conspires to do such an act,” before “shall be punished”, and substituted “1113, and 1117” for “and 1113”.
(1)
(0)
PO3 John Jeter
Not fair to hit me with "lawyer-speak" first thing in the morning! *grin* The brain is trying to follow the 'twisty-turney' directions that came out of that. I'm going to leave it up to those that are affected to figure out the actual legalities involved. I hope they can figure out an equitable solution. Even an reprimand on the record can have devastating effects on a career. I'm glad I don't have to make the final call on this one, it's going to stir things up no matter which way it goes.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google