Should LCDR Timothy White be disciplined for having a weapon on the Navy Operational Support Center?

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:20:23 -0400

Navy officer, Marine reportedly returned fire at Chattanooga gunman

A Navy officer and one of the Marines killed in last week's attack in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 3:25 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:25:12 -0400

Technically he did break the rules. However what he did probably saved lives and many feel they were bad rules to begin with. I certainly hope that he doesn't get punished.

Response by SGT David T. made Jul 22 at 2015 3:30 PM

SGT David T. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:30:30 -0400

It depends. If the facility was clearly marked with no firearms then yes. I don't like that particular rule but as a responsible gun owner there is an obligation to follow the laws.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 22 at 2015 3:33 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:33:21 -0400

No. But as the case in anything in the military, no good deed goes unpunished.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 22 at 2015 3:44 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:44:16 -0400

CMSgt Mark Schubert I have to agree with SSgt Private RallyPoint Member on this initially, but hopefully based on the investigation it will come out that his actions did in fact save additional lives. We'll have to see how it plays out, but my guess he will be charged for a personal weapon on Federal property. That's just my opinion. Now do I feel he should be charged - NO

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 22 at 2015 3:54 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:54:01 -0400

He broke the rules, and therefore should receive a p11 entry (administrative entry) stating such. Had his actions resulted in the harm to himself and/or others, he should be disciplined, however as they did not, he should only be counseled, which a p11 accomplishes.

As this is now "public" it must be a "Formal Counselling Session" (again a p11 fulfills that requirement), whereas had it not come to public light it could have been an inform counselling.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jul 22 at 2015 4:00 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:00:20 -0400

CMSgt Mark Schubert - He violated the "rules", therefore he needs to be "punished" for the violation. The punishment should be no more than a written reprimand that does not go in his official file.

As a 2LT, I received a General Officer Letter of Reprimand for doing something stupid. When the CG gave it to me, he told me he understood why I did what I did and that he would have done the same thing. He then gave me the letter and told me that it was the only copy and that I could do with it whatever I wanted. Like the dumbass I was then (and, maybe, still am), I took the letter and put it on the company bulletin board, since everybody knew what I had done and was in trouble for it. My battalion commander saw it a few days later, told me to take it down, and chewed my butt.

Violations cannot be overlooked ... How you handle them, however, is the key. I gave quite a few Art 15 in my career that I never turned in, although the soldiers did not know that until weeks later, when I told them to put their rank back on (they did do the extra duty, however, before I told them I had not submitted it). No reduction, no loss of pay, no record...

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 22 at 2015 4:00 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:00:27 -0400

Rock and a hard place - On one hand, it may have saved lives. On the other hand, the military expects/needs service members to not feel that rules are optional. All I know is I'd hate to be the guy who had to make that call.

Response by CPL Roland Newton made Jul 22 at 2015 4:05 PM

CPL Roland Newton — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:05:40 -0400

Hell NO

Response by SPC Tony Bucaro made Jul 22 at 2015 4:06 PM

SPC Tony Bucaro — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:06:29 -0400

Hello NO!! Those guys should be armed thus the term "Armed Forces" in my opinion.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jul 22 at 2015 4:37 PM

1LT William Clardy — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:37:38 -0400

I'm afraid I have to side with the "Officers need to obey regulations" side -- he definitely earned at least an aural reprimand, and any paperwork for a medal would go into the shredder alongside any formal adverse counseling statement.

Response by MSG Robert Mills made Jul 22 at 2015 4:44 PM

MSG Robert Mills — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:44:15 -0400

If he is to be diciplined it should be in the form of retraining at the range because he missed his target.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 4:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:46:25 -0400

Lieutenant Commander White, hold out your hand.

SMACK!

Discipline terminated.

Response by CPT Bill McNeely made Jul 22 at 2015 5:09 PM

CPT Bill McNeely — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:09:25 -0400

This is a tough call. If you don't punish it you let enlisted guys know there is a double standard. If you do punish you get hesitation the next time

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 22 at 2015 5:40 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:40:09 -0400

Absolutely not.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 22 at 2015 5:50 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:50:26 -0400

He should be called to the CO's office and given an ass-chewing. Then his department should take him out for a beer.

Look, the hard, cold fact is that he violated an order (not to carry on federal property). He should therefore be punished. Said punishment, however, is AT THE DISCRETION of his CO, and like any CO at captain's mast (or whatever it's called in the sister services), he can take mitigating circumstances into account. And in this case, they're a doozy.

So. He gets an ass chewing, and then he gets beer. And thanks. Effusive thanks from the families of the marines and sailors that didn't die that day, because the shooter had to address the threat he presented -- even if the commander missed, that threat had to be addressed, and while the asshat was doing that, he wasn't shooting at others.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 6:20 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:20:36 -0400

Worst case a NPLOC. Since I have a hard time supporting the rest of the servicemen and women in the recruiting center not being armed I'd also have a really hard time disciplining one of them for being armed...

It's a tough situation to be honest. He broke the law and him breaking the law didn't have anything to do with the attack. However, he wouldn't have ever been caught except that he tried to protect his recruiting center from the attack...

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jul 22 at 2015 6:40 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:40:39 -0400

Rules are broken all the time, even in the military. I chalk this up to more like a guideline. He should be verbally advised and given a medal.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 7:28 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:28:34 -0400

Very good question Chief. I would hope that common sense would prevail in this case. If he recieves anything it should be from the local police and then thrown out by a judge. The only thing his superiors should give him is a good butt chewing. His actions may have saved lives and by the reporting of it may make others think twice before attacking a gun free zone, because you never know who is armed.

Response by SP5 Dan Wroblewski made Jul 22 at 2015 8:42 PM

SP5 Dan Wroblewski — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:42:57 -0400

Absolutely not! He should be given a commendation for his actions, and promoted. He clearly showed leadership, initiative and an ability to act decisively under fire; these are all qualities which qualify him for advancement and by no means should be discouraged!

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Jul 22 at 2015 10:21 PM

SFC Maury Gonzalez — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:21:22 -0400

Give him as punishment 3 days "extra duty " at the CQB range so if there's a next time, he doesn't miss the target

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Jul 23 at 2015 1:02 AM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:02:36 -0400

Informal counseling.

On a related note, I saw a report stating that the DoD was discussing whether recruiters should be in uniform, and they specifically mentioned Marines.

Seriously? Does anyone really believe that a Marine becomes unrecognizable just because he takes off his uniform?

I could spot a Marine wearing a swimsuit on a crowded beach. My BIL that left active duty over 20 years ago STILL has the presence of a Marine.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 23 at 2015 9:32 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:32:53 -0400

No and in fact LCDR White should get a medal if autopsies prove that his weapon killed the shooter!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 11:48 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:48:44 -0400

I will rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2015 1:56 PM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 13:56:13 -0400

He did disobey a order so give him the bare minimum and then honor him for being brave enough to fire a pistol at someone in body armour with a ak-47.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Aug 1 at 2015 2:21 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 14:21:13 -0400

Absolutely not. It sounds like he and the Marine rate Combat Action Ribbons and Navy/Marine Corps Commendation Medals with a combat V for Valor, at LEAST.

This is absurd. It's time to arm the Armed Forces.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Aug 1 at 2015 5:27 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 17:27:29 -0400

Breaking the rules is not always wrong. He should be commended, and the rules should be changed.

Response by SN Victoria Glover made Aug 1 at 2015 6:14 PM

SN Victoria Glover — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:14:57 -0400

Although, rules are there, I would have done the same thing. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If my actions save 1 life then it is worth it! If we are trained to use weapons we should be able to have them at our duty station as protection! None of our military at home or on foreign soil should go unprotected, period! Even now I have a CHL and carry everywhere I can.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Aug 1 at 2015 9:04 PM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 21:04:59 -0400

Rules are rules and sometimes they are meant to be broken. It would be true justice if the autopsy showed that the shots that killed Abdulazeez were either fired by LTCD White or the Marine.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2015 11:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:07:09 -0400

OK, so here is my question in response to this question. If he is not, where do we draw the line? The day after this up in Gainsville a recruiter shot himself in the leg because he decided to bring his POW into a weapon free zone. Here is the bottom line. We are not authorized to carry in the station. Do I think he should be punished, I am not sure. If he is not, WHERE does the line get drawn? Does he merely get an RI for it, SI? You see, agree or disagree with it, the rules are there and we have to follow them. If not, WHERE does the line get drawn? The next question is this, this is the line in the sand situation, EVERYONE is going to be watching this to find out where it goes from here and just like any other kid waiting to see if their siblings get a spanking for taking the candy before they do it, everyone else is waiting to see what they can or cannot get away with.
So, do not take this post as me agreeing or disagreeing with it. I do not personally care. Bottom line is this, he broke the rules. The rules out and out say that we CAN NOT carry POWS inside the station. What the military does with him from here, does not matter to me, it will not alter my actions. I wont jeopardize my career. Like I have mentioned before, it is a dangerous gig that we do, regardless if I am out on route in theater, walking through a market in Iraq, getting blown up an earning my TBI, we all agreed to do the job. The risks do not diminish, if we cannot accept it then we need to move on to something more safe (definitely not going to a theater).
Just my thoughts on this matter.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Aug 1 at 2015 11:08 PM

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:08:36 -0400

No...let it go

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2015 6:37 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 06:37:52 -0400

This is stupid. What physical security protocols are in place to keep Soldiers at his location safe? They obviously weren't good enough. If we arm our gate guards then recruiters should be allowed to carry at their locations because bad guys don't play by our rules.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 2 at 2015 6:40 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 06:40:06 -0400

Here's his punishment!

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Aug 5 at 2015 11:54 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 11:54:30 -0400

This is completely wrong!

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Aug 5 at 2015 11:59 AM

SSG Trevor S. — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 11:59:27 -0400

What kind of world has this turned into? He engaged the enemy under fire. The right to self protection is supposed to never be denied.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 12:09 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 12:09:27 -0400

Let's keep the Lieutenant Commander in limbo for a couple of years, so we can ruin his life and career. it"s PURE B.S.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Aug 5 at 2015 12:46 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 12:46:31 -0400

I wonder what would happen if all of use on RP write a 638 for this LCMD White recommending him for an award.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 1:34 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 13:34:23 -0400

It is true but when word got out they backed off because the officials are bottom-feeding scum.

Response by CWO4 Michael Gammage made Aug 5 at 2015 2:58 PM

CWO4 Michael Gammage — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 14:58:17 -0400

In the words of GySgt Highway - "Innovate, adapt and overcome". Change the regulation, improve your parameter and do a better job protecting our reserve personnel and give LCDR T. White and commendation.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 6:23 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 18:23:43 -0400

What Navy official? The Fox news article does not name the person. Come on Rally Point! You can do better than this.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/04/allen-west/navy-officer-who-shot-chattanooga-shooter-facing-c/

Is a Navy officer who shot at the Chattanooga shooter facing charges?

The story about what’s happening to a Navy officer

Response by PO2 Kevin Peine made Aug 5 at 2015 7:08 PM

PO2 Kevin Peine — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:08:27 -0400

He should be Confined to the nearest bar for the duration of the whiskey

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 10:32 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 22:32:20 -0400

He swore to fight US enemies, be they foreign or domestic. Yet military considers court martial against him for the job he was hired to do? What's next? Sending unarmed soldiers into Afghanistan and Iraq unarmed so we could not offend ISIS and Taliban?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 10:36 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 22:36:05 -0400

He was hired and swore to fight US enemies, be they foreign or domestic, but having court martial against him for doing the job he was hired to do?

What's next? Sending unarmed soldiers into Iraq and Afghanistan, in case ISIS or Taliban get offended for being shot at?

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Aug 5 at 2015 11:44 PM

SFC Benjamin Varlese — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:44:52 -0400

I understand the military's want, need and desire to contain and control all weapons in a facility and on post, and I have seen more than enough troops in my career that shouldn't be allowed to even handle their issued weapon. That being said however, if the military has deemed them fit enough to carry and use a weapon in any capacity, why not their POW? If they have an ND, same rules apply as with their issue weapon and they lose that privilege. When we start treating our service-members like adults and not grown children (although some deservedly so), they will start acting like responsible adults.
The end state as well is, when members of our society start acknowledging the true threat to this nation and the motivations of those who perpetrate these kinds of attacks there won't even be a question of whether he should be charged or not and whether those killed or wounded in attacks such as this or at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan should receive Purple Hearts...but that would be asking a lot from crooks, cowards and sheep.
"LTC White, you're a bad dog, here's your MSM"

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2015 8:55 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:55:55 -0400

Honestly, there is no choice but to title the LCDR with Article 92: failure to obey an order or regulation. However, under UCMJ, the commanding office can choose no-action or non-judicial punishment to the tune of nothing... making the title paperwork, effectively, and glorified counseling statement. (Military record only, easily explainable during clearence investigations, and no civilian criminal record, whatsoever.)

Response by SGT Nathan Huff made Aug 6 at 2015 10:55 AM

SGT Nathan Huff — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 10:55:57 -0400

this is old news they are not charging him.
https://military.id.me/news/navy-confirms-sailor-who-shot-at-chattanooga-gunman-will-not-be-charged/?utm_source=SOV&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=article

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Aug 6 at 2015 2:32 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:32:06 -0400

I suppose next we'll be charging SM's with sexual harassment if they perform CPR.

"We don't bend or break rules. We do what it takes to win"
~ Drill Sargent Gibbs, basic training 1989.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Aug 6 at 2015 2:40 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:40:32 -0400

And no... there should be a methodology for identifying, responsible, trained service members and arming them to the freakin' teeth.

The battle is coming to us... why are our service members standing in a battle with their hands tied AGAIN?!

It's just ROE in a different theater and it pisses me off.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 6 at 2015 3:31 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:31:37 -0400

I once upon a time was in this position while in Federal service.
During my time, my facility was the subject of terrorist activity as well as firearms related work place violence. I chose to be discrete and not be a victim.
Despite the law, I made it a point to always be within a short sprint of a firearm.
Thankfully I never had to make use of my insurance policy.
I hope that common sense prevails and this prepared troop is given the praise that he deserves.

Response by SSG John Erny made Aug 6 at 2015 4:04 PM

SSG John Erny — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 16:04:37 -0400

Hmmm.... Okay, so a service member who obeys orders not to have a privately owned weapon and gets hunted down and killed by Hadji is superior to a service member who has a weapon and fights back. This does not pass the logic test.

Many Governors thankfully get the message and are arming Guard members as needed.
I am not a big fan of dead victims but I am a big fan of dead bad guys, and the more the better. Some people are so FUBAR that the only thing that will stop them is hot lead or a steel cage.

Response by PFC Will Shaffer made Aug 6 at 2015 4:35 PM

PFC Will Shaffer — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 16:35:04 -0400

Hell no

Response by SSG Ranger Day made Aug 6 at 2015 5:49 PM

SSG Ranger Day — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 17:49:36 -0400

Our military officials are becoming more retarded the longer the wanna be commander in chief is still sitting on his throne to continue terror and destruction against U.S. soil. Giving everything he can to our enemies to better their lives, leaving our Americans with nothing left to show. Having this US officer kill one of Obamas people just shows who's more important in the presidents eyes.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Aug 11 at 2015 10:45 PM

SFC William Farrell — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:45:07 -0400

It seems that since he violated rules he should face the music but at a very low level. He quite possibly saved more lives. Would I do the same thing? YES! I just read that he will not be charged. There is a petition going around from Special Operations Speak, an advocacy group regarding gun free zones. I signed it and am putting a link to it here. If you agree, and I hope that you do, please sign it.

http://action.politicalmedia.com/18292/tell-congress-lift-gun-free-zones-from-military-workplaces/?ifr=820

Tell Congress: End 'Gun-Free Zones' At Military Bases

All of these tragedies were facilitated by federal policy that mandates ‘Gun-Free Zones’ at bases and other military workplaces.