Navy Officer Will Not Be Charged For Shooting At a Gunman

2015-08-06T18:16:31-04:00

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.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 6 at 2015 6:20 PM

2015-08-06T18:20:56-04:00

I didn't think he would. He may have broke some rule or regulation My Navy is not completely politically naive and is very aware how that would play out.

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Aug 6 at 2015 6:21 PM

2015-08-06T18:21:47-04:00

That's good. I didn't know how that was going to unfold.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Aug 6 at 2015 7:09 PM

2015-08-06T19:09:44-04:00

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.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Aug 6 at 2015 7:31 PM

2015-08-06T19:31:54-04:00

A reasonable decision....if he had the capacity to protect his people and didn't I'd have a problem....I have no problem with him taking action, especially appropriate action as he did!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2015 8:09 PM

2015-08-06T20:09:13-04:00

Good.
Common sense prevails.
Let's hope that there is no under the table administrative shenanigans.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Aug 6 at 2015 8:36 PM

2015-08-06T20:36:26-04:00

It's the right decision as far as I'm concerned, MAJ Ken Landgren.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 6 at 2015 8:37 PM

2015-08-06T20:37:36-04:00

Best news I have heard in a long time. Common sense prevails.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Aug 6 at 2015 8:41 PM

2015-08-06T20:41:40-04:00

I don't know if this is final or not, but I hope it is. Anyone with half a brain can foresee the social media shitstorm that would ensue if they charged him formally.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-08-06T20:44:23-04:00

This is hard. He broke the law, no doubt about it. Do I think he should be punished? ... This is hard, I don't know.

The problem is it sets a precedent that is already very often misperceived. I have heard from many enlisted folks who feel that officers get off for things that they don't. While the complete opposite is actually more often the case, situations that look the other way cause issues for everyone.

He should probably be punished in some way but not "Charged" or Court Martialed. And his career should not be over.

Overall I am happy with the decision, but there will be backlash either way.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Aug 6 at 2015 8:47 PM

2015-08-06T20:47:35-04:00

It has always been true that you can --are obligated to-- disobey orders that are illegal, or (I believe, someone correct me if I"m wrong) morally incorrect. The commander walked a razor thin line in this case (neither illegal nor immoral), but it's such a grey area that luckily, imo, in this case, there's enough wriggle room that the brass can point to the sure-to-be-upswell of outrage and use it as a reason to not charge him.

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Aug 6 at 2015 9:22 PM

2015-08-06T21:22:41-04:00

DUIs alone demonstrate that the ability to bypass a regulation is directly related to rank, not precedent. Also, any public outcry precludes changes to military policy, which is why basic & boot camp changed so drastically in the 90s.

More importantly, military leaders have always picked and chosen which regulations are important an which are not. Every unit has their pet peeve regulations that must be followed and others that are unknown or ignored.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Aug 7 at 2015 1:19 AM

2015-08-07T01:19:55-04:00

Finally, some real common sense. Now just carry it a little farther and arm those in high profile positions.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 7 at 2015 3:36 AM

2015-08-07T03:36:55-04:00

LCDR White should got a Navy Commendation Medal!

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Aug 7 at 2015 3:37 AM

2015-08-07T03:37:10-04:00

That's excellent news. If anything he and the other one that fired back should receive some form of commendation for not just standing idly by while being fired upon. Glad that they realized the errors of their thinking.

Response by SN Timothy Ehrenhaft made Aug 7 at 2015 4:51 AM

2015-08-07T04:51:11-04:00

Stateside installations should not have to worry about the safety and security of any SM or civilian contractor on-station. Considering the current state of affairs, the existing protocols regarding levels of security on base may need to be temporarily modified until things settle down.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2015 6:59 AM

2015-08-07T06:59:36-04:00

More of us should be armed to defend ourselves. Fatass fucks on the gate do not make us feel safe on the inside of the fence.

Response by PO2 Brandon Boucher made Aug 7 at 2015 7:07 AM

2015-08-07T07:07:51-04:00

Well this is far from over, there is a bigger picture here, how safe are our recruiting offices when we see in the homeland? Why didn't anyone else have a sidearm? Can security be improved? They are on federal property, why not a gun safe on site abs if they step outside they leave the firearm secured.

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Aug 7 at 2015 7:26 AM

2015-08-07T07:26:55-04:00

The headline is a bit misleading. The Navy has said that they have not completed their investigation, and as a result no one has been charged. The future is still an open question - hopefully it goes the way the headline suggests.

Response by PO2 Patrick Ladley made Aug 7 at 2015 8:15 AM

2015-08-07T08:15:08-04:00

Even though yes, he technically broke regulations, facts have to be faced. We're in the military, weapons are a large part of our lifestyle and the responsible use of those weapons is what we're trained for. As such, I find it ridiculous that we don't at least have the option to be armed if we chose to in uniform. It's already been clearly established that we're targets for terrorists. With all the efforts the military takes to ensure that we're safe and sound, to leave us high and dry by making us soft targets while in uniform frankly, is appalling.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Aug 7 at 2015 9:44 AM

2015-08-07T09:44:23-04:00

If the Lt. Commander has a cpl I don't see what the problem is. Isn't the reason we get a cpl is to defend ourselves and others? The Lt. Commander has my vote to go free for defending those troops under his watch.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2015 9:46 AM

2015-08-07T09:46:12-04:00

MAJ Ken Landgren, this should of never been considered in the first place. About time that someone made a common sense decision.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Aug 7 at 2015 9:53 AM

2015-08-07T09:53:53-04:00

Hell, if I was potus, I would try to make it available for most members of the armed forces able to get a federal cpl, (even if I had to create the federal cpl license) mainly for E-6 and above for noncoms and O-4 and above for officers. Exceptions would be MP's and anyone in similar departments.

Response by CDR Laurel Meadows made Aug 7 at 2015 10:21 AM

2015-08-07T10:21:47-04:00

Public outcry and common sense. Who'd' r thunk it?

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2015 10:21 AM

2015-08-07T10:21:50-04:00

This should be the incident that starts the ball rolling toward arming our military personnel in uniform, and possibly to allowing active duty, retirees. and veterans with proper training and CCW permits to carry open or concealed in civilian clothes. Negligent discharges can happen, but having more armed current and former military can only increase security in public places like malls and movie theaters. We're all on the same side.

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Aug 7 at 2015 3:25 PM

2015-08-07T15:25:05-04:00

Good. About time someone did something right.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 7 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-08-07T23:38:31-04:00

"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."

I think when the gunman came into the facility it became a combat zone and I'm glad at least someone had the ability to try to defend themselves.

Response by CDR Mike Kovack made Aug 9 at 2015 11:15 AM

2015-08-09T11:15:44-04:00

It's difficult to believe what I'm hearing from military personnel. He broke a regulation. If we're not required to adhere to regulations in the military, we have nothing. Having said that, I believe the proper route would be to charge him, find him guilty and give him no punishment based on extenuating circumstances. If we are to accept not charging him, we have no basis to enforce any regulations on any uniformed personnel. If the regulation is wrong (which I don't believe it is), change it. I find it difficult to understand that military personnel are saying, "Just look the other way." We really have become a touchy-feely or politically correct military. And also, if I'm LCDR White I say "thank you" and if I had the option to do it again I'd do the exact same thing. We always have the option to break regulations in the military - we just have to accept the consequences for doing so. That being said, I'd also decorate the sonofabitch......;)

Response by PO3 Danielle Sandlin made Aug 15 at 2015 5:24 PM

2015-08-15T17:24:41-04:00

He absolutely should not be charged for defending himself as well as those he worked with. I only wish he would have been the one who made the final fatal shot!