Die Like Sheep: Navy to Prosecute Chattanooga Hero For Discharging Firearm on Federal Property

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: buster2010
Allen West well there went all credibility on this story out the window. Nevertheless he did break the rules by carrying a gun into a gun free zone. Would West get his nickers in a bunch if a shooting didn't happen and this guy was charged for breaking the law?

Why do your hate retired Marines like Allen West?

We know you didn't serve!

Wrong dude I did serve. If you check into Wests background he retired pretty much a disgrace to the service.

a reply to: infolurker

A negligent discharge is pretty serious. When it happens in the military and it does the soldier is prosecuted. Someone could have been killed or injured. He should be prosecuted and perhaps go to school to learn how to handle a weapon if allowed to have one anymore. With that said, does this mean he should see time in prison...no but he should have some time to think about it as he cleans sidewalks or something more productive.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: infolurker

A negligent discharge is pretty serious.

Hardly negligent . .... more like brave !
Even a law student should be able to acheive acquittal
of this bogus stance

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I'm sure "hands up, don't shoot" would've worked.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: infolurker

So did obama force the navy to do this?

I am confused on how it is his fault.

It's not, obviously. Only an absolute moron can get mad about a law being upheld, and then go on to demonize Obama for it. The guy broke the law. End of story.

Would you break the law at the expense of possibly saving lives?

I would.

I'd laugh my way to the trial, too.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: infolurker

So did obama force the navy to do this?

I am confused on how it is his fault.

It's not, obviously. Only an absolute moron can get mad about a law being upheld, and then go on to demonize Obama for it. The guy broke the law. End of story.

Would you break the law at the expense of possibly saving lives?

I would.

I'd laugh my way to the trial, too.

Absolutely. I'd probably have done the same thing if I were in the same position. I would also fully expect to be prosecuted.

Just because he's being prosecuted doesn't mean that he'll be found guilty. That's for the court and the judge to decide. That's how our legal system works.

Sometimes i just don't get America , sure a law was broken but if ever their was a time to turn a blind eye now would be the time . Perhaps the navy should award him a medal , its always harder to convict a hero . Even ratface ( our prime minister Tony Abbott ) would say go away Smithers you did not tell me that .

a reply to: hutch622

They can't turn a blind eye. He has to be prosecuted. It's how the legal system works. PROSECUTION DOES NOT EQUAL CONVICTION.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
If he broke the law, of course he's going to be prosecuted, regardless of his intentions...

If obama expects enlisted personnel and civilians to not fight back when they are being attacked, maybe he could consider leading by example? He could lose all the SS and just walk around like a regular Joe. Oh wait, forgot, do as I say not as I do and all that crap. Plus his owners don't want their puppet ruined.

Cheers - Dave

Could you kindly explain how this is the fault of the POTUS please? Unless something has changed since I was discharged(i.e. a constitutional amendment I somehow missed), only congress can pass laws in this country. That includes UCMJ, which falls under federal guidelines. Obama, for all his faults, is not responsible for this. Bitch at congress for their restrictive laws which are supported by the Joint Chiefs and SecDef. Hell, write a letter to Hagel and ask him not to file charges. Place blame for this sure, but place it where it is appropriate instead of pointing the finger in the wrong direction because the POTUS is a convenient and easy target.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Presidential pardon perhaps , is there nothing written into your constitution allowing for discretion . Not saying Australia has but hey , just a question .

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Obviously that is exempted at the higher levels of this and past administrations though, right?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: hutch622

They can't turn a blind eye. He has to be prosecuted. It's how the legal system works. PROSECUTION DOES NOT EQUAL CONVICTION.

Oh, again... There's a caveat to your comment. That's not how the legal system works (unless you're high ranking in the legislative or Congressional branch, then the system is blind as Stevie Wonder with his ears plugged and his hands tied behind him.

a reply to: hutch622

The constitution doesn't apply to active duty personnel as crazy as that sounds. At least not in the way it applies to civilians. Once you enlist, you are essentially, government property. True story, a guy in another platoon in my company got pissed off at his platoon sergeant, punched the sink in the latrine and broke his hand instead of throwing a punch at the 1st sgt. He was charged with destruction of government property(the broken hand, not the sink), sentenced to 60 days and dishonorably discharged. the UCMJ, uniform code of military justice, is the military's version of federal law and there is far less discretion in how to charge someone or if to charge someone. Until a few years ago, even if found guilty, your CO could for all intents and purposes, vacate the charges even if found guilty so at one point, there was a degree of discretion involved. SecDef Hagel pushed to change that a couple of years ago when he took the job. The only option for this guy is if Congress opts to change the laws governing personal firearms, which they won't or a presidential pardon after the fact if he is indeed convicted. Knowing how these things work, he will very likely be convicted. The worst I ever had to deal with was an article 15 which was handled by my company CO so I never went in front of a full court like this guy will have to so I don't know the specifics of how the proceedings will go, just that there is no impartial jury like in a civilian court so I don't see this ending well unfortunately.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks for that explanation , so by taking away discretion it all black and white . Just does not seem right to me . Looks like Presidential pardon it is then .

a reply to: hutch622

It really sucks because the guy did exactly what he was trained to do, he picked up his sidearm and tried to save his brothers lives and now his career is going to be ruined because of it. But the UCMJ is what it is and everyone knows how it works and what the repercussions are. It's really s#tty that he's in this spot in the first place and my heart goes out to him, his family and those he serves with because it's what anyone with that level of training would do. It's not an action based on thought, you go on autopilot, evaluate the threat and attempt to eliminate it. It's what they spend 100's of thousands of dollars preparing you for and it's going to cost him a career for doing what they made him for.

a reply to: peter vlar

In a fair and just world that would not happen , but is not a fair and just world , at least at times it does not seem to be .

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
If he broke the law, of course he's going to be prosecuted, regardless of his intentions...

Thats funny... considering we have a government that picks and chooses which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to ignore.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
If he broke the law, of course he's going to be prosecuted, regardless of his intentions...

If obama expects enlisted personnel and civilians to not fight back when they are being attacked, maybe he could consider leading by example? He could lose all the SS and just walk around like a regular Joe. Oh wait, forgot, do as I say not as I do and all that crap. Plus his owners don't want their puppet ruined.

Cheers - Dave

If he did then yeah - got any evidence to show that "if" is actually he case??

Well, if the law is such that a regular enlisted person is not allowed to protect federal property and personnel and would be charged criminally for doing so, then there is a serious problem. That federal property is allegedly "common" property owned by the "people" and maintained for their benefit by the federal government. To charge a federal employee for defending the property and persons used by the federal government seems beyond stupid, the guy should be given a medal for thinking on his feet rather than shifting responsibility to someone who may not have arrived soon enough to prevent further death and damage.

Any way you cut it, charging the guy is adding injury to insult to both the people and the soldier. We need people that act in crisis situations, on their own.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: infolurker

here's the thing about law and order--while I fully understand that Obama likes to play the roll of scofflaw as it appears fitting to his ideology, the truth is that the military is a different bird than civilians. If this officer did, in fact, break a law, then he needs to be punished for it. Of course, there are many ways of doing that in the military, to include non-judicial punishments, but with the discharging of a firearm, if it's illegal, that's not remotely the same as like missing PT formation.

But here's the reality of everything--even if he does get brought up on charge (although I doubt he really will, because I fail to see how discharging a [presumed] government-issued firearm on federal property in a defensive manner is illegal), that doesn't mean that the panel (the military word for "jury") will convict him, nor does it mean that he will receive any meaningful punishment if convicted.

But like I said, I don't buy this story at all.

I would say that this has nothing to do with Obama, but he does have the authority to pardon the guy at least. I hope that this gets thrown out of court or that the defendant wins his case. It makes no sense to punish him for trying to save lives. Greedy prosecutors.