Navy officer and Marine returned fire during Chattanooga shooting

Navy Times just posted a story saying that a Navy officer and an enlisted Marine returned fire durin the attack that killed four Marines and a sailor.

As of posting, it's unclear why either of them were armed as it is prohibited to carry personal firearms. Sources are saying that Lieutenant Commander Tim White returned fire with a personally owned sidearm. Navy sources are also saying one of the slain Marines may have been carrying a 9 mm Glock and also returned fire before being killed.

As of now it is unclear whether either of them struck the gunman, and will be unknown until the autopsy results are published.

FBI investigators are saying that the final moments of the incident are still somewhat unclear but so far they haven't uncovered any information to dispute the information provided.

Commentary - if true, I fully expect White to be left to twist in the wind by the Navy and would be utterly shocked if his career wasn't over. If he manages to dodge charges, that would be a blessing in my book.

Source - www.navytimes.com...

Additional commentary - regulations be damned, I'm glad at least somebody went down with a fight.

"You may find me dead in a ditch somewhere, but by God you'll find me in a pile of brass." S/F, gents.

I have nothing to add but wanted to say something S&F

"You may find me dead in a ditch somewhere, but by God you'll find me in a pile of brass."

Amen to that.

For all anyone knows, those returned shots may have saved someone.

Some times events show that certain rules shouldn't exist. Maybe this is one of those.

Agreed. Really not a ton to add to the story, I just thought some might find it interesting to read. Hopefully at least of them tagged the jerkbag.

One of the reports I read had an interview with a woman who was in one of the nearby businesses. She reported that she saw two guys from the targeted office attempting to chase the shooter. Perhaps they had their personal weapons in their vehicle and retrieved them? There were reports that they "went out the back door" making me think they may have been going for weapons in their personal vehicles.
(Sorry, I can't find the story right now.)

a reply to: diggindirt

That seems probable to me. I highly hope that is the case as these men should face no charges for this.

And i say this is probable because a couple couple miles from my home there are recruiting centers for three branches side by side in an outdoor strip mall. It is small and the parking lot is as well. All the employees servicemen included park in the back i see it driving out.

Anyways, how else were they concealed carrying private weapons in uniform? Doubtful..

Thank-god they're guns provided them so much protection



quick, lets arm teachers while we're at it.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
Thank-god they're guns provided them so much protection

quick, lets arm teachers while we're at it.

Wow you really think that the ban on weapons carried by stateside troops directly put those men in the line of danger. The two that were able to get to there guns took so long is the fact they had to try to weigh their career or life.
If they would have legally been allowed to carry a firearm the chances that an incident this bad would happen would be minuscule. Criminals could give a $h17 about the laws and exploit them against those the do.
Open or concealed carry for military needs to be instated yesterday IMHO.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

How would a teacher having a gun have changed anything here?

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Good call.

"If it saves one life".

Glad to see that a couple folks did indeed fire back. RIP to those that died in this tragedy.

Some laws are made to be broken and should not be followed.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

How do you know they didn't provide protection for someone else, hmmm?


How about we wait for more information? Or would that not help you opinion?

If true, this guy should never have to buy another beer for the rest of his life! But yeah, if he was carrying while on duty his career is probably over.

Gate guards and any service member controlling access to a military facility SHOULD be armed at all times. Just common sense. How else are you going to prevent an attack?

That being said, I am not ready to call for all service members being armed on US soil. There are good solid reasons for keeping the weapons locked up unless needed, and I don't see a level of danger in this country to change my mind about that. Things are still relatively safe here. If a concerted attack was launched by some enemy (foreign or domestic) then I can see handing out the guns. But that hasn't happened yet.

I am convinced it WILL happen but I think it will be 10 to 15 years from now. I hope I am gone before that time.

Unfortunately, that naval officer's career is probably over. Doesn't take much to sink a career. Even if exonerated, unless he has a real sea-daddy, he'll certainly never get a star, or a major surface command (if that was his track). Which is sad, really... No military org. has enough officers, or enlisted, like these two apparently were.

It boggles my mind that they are not allowed to have firearms! What is wrong with our commander-in-chief?! This is 2015. We live in an entirely different world than even ten years ago. It is time for some common sense.

This prez gets up in front of the microphone and blah blah blah blah blah's about "the dangers of the lone wolf" and blah blah blah blah blah.

Then he allows tens of thousands of refugees and immigrants to come into this country who are of the muslim persuasion. PC be damned. These people have a different mindset and culture and I'm sure the American Way can be a culture shock for them, even the ones that have lived here for years, especially if they decide to "go home" to the middle east for a few months and return.

Surely he knows that ISIS and other Islamic groups have said they will kill our military men and women and pinpoint and attack their families on our soil. Is he deaf and dumb? Surely he knows this. Why he hasn't already told them to have firearms at their disposal is beyond me.

Thank goodness some of our military people are smarter and have more common sense than that man we call commander-in-chief does in the WH. I can't wait till his term is up. The damage he has done will take years to reverse.

a reply to: Montana

That being said, I am not ready to call for all service members being armed on US soil. There are good solid reasons for keeping the weapons locked up unless needed, and I don't see a level of danger in this country to change my mind about that. Things are still relatively safe here. If a concerted attack was launched by some enemy (foreign or domestic) then I can see handing out the guns. But that hasn't happened yet.

I agree to a point.

An exposed duty station like a recruiting office, IMHO, should be armed. Or at least have them immediately available. On a base? Maybe not. Or, again, immediately available. Nothing wrong with having them in a locker of some sort in each and every building on a base. ...and gate guards should certainly be armed, packin' as it were.

If that means more training, and more paperwork, so be it.

was the one who had his personal weapon a higher up officer? this guy

Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the support center's commanding officer

i had always assumed perhaps wrongly that it was some what of a tradition for the higher ups to keep either a display peice(fancy gun w a few bullets in a case) or their own personal fire arm at their desk? probally just saw to many movies about caught officers offing them selves with their own peice and could be why i think that but for some reason i seem to remember this being some what of a practice .

could he have been a "patton type" and kept a pair of handguns on him? or how bush (the first?) kept a gun in a case in the oval office for a few years that was gifted to him from iraq but that would not be classified as a "carry piece"

kind of like the fire axes in the boxes that say break incase of fire you break it and get it out then and only then. coffes kicking in still so sorry if this is more scatter brained then i intended ,but im thinking the officer may have a better explanation then the lower ranking marine for why they were armed


articles.dailypress.com... or how old storming normal took to wearing a 45 where ever he went

Now this story stinks of lame stream propaganda. What is wrong with this picture? When the story broke the media made it clear these military men did not shoot anyone. Yet they want us to believe that this scumbag just walked in the recruitment office in a gun free zone and killed four military officers who are trained to shoot and they missed their target?

Yet this scumbag, with no training was a better shot than our recruitment officers? Something is wrong with this. Shortly after the story broke, Americans were screaming that our recruitment officers should be armed. And that is when mainstream propaganda media CHANGED their story about the shootings. And why you may ask, is to prove that it wouldn't have made any different if our military men where armed. So the gun grabbers in Washington DC can continue to keep our military disarmed.

I see a bigger agenda here, and it is about keeping our military disarmed.

You mean to tell me that Obama trust Iran with nuclear weapons, yet he does not trust our military to be carrying side arms?

a reply to: Informer1958
I think maybe you should go back and read the initial stories on the subject very carefully. And watch the videos of the witness reports of what they saw happening at the recruiting center. Doing so might clear up some of your confusion. I won't attempt to do so here because it had all been outlined neatly for you in several articles.