Ft. Hood

Discuss the politics behind the gun industry.
User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: FiveSeven used by gunman at Ft. Hood...

Post by f3rr37 » 10 Nov 2009, 11:49

I think I stopped counting at 7.

retread
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 05 Sep 2008, 06:27
Location: Texas gulf coast

Re: FiveSeven used by gunman at Ft. Hood...

Post by retread » 10 Nov 2009, 11:55

tragic yes, but the investigator in me wants to know what round was used, what location of bullet strikes resulted in fatality or incapacitation. If he expended 100 rds ,how many strikes did he have, where did the 9mm rounds strike him and what damage did it do? Did it put him out of the fight or was he able to continue with his rampage? i want to know all this and not because of some Morbid Curiosity. I still carry guns daily, my life and someone elses may depend on it.

DarkWater
Member
Posts: 315
Joined: 01 Sep 2008, 14:48

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by DarkWater » 10 Nov 2009, 12:18

Cyberfly wrote:Hey, did you guys hear the news?
They're saying that the shooter at Ft. Hood used a 5-7! Wow...just wow.

Oh, hey. There's already a thread on this. I better merge this before Fuzzy sharts himself... :p
Just kidding. I just wanted to jerk his chain a little. If he had hair, I think he would have pulled it all out by now. :lmao:
oh, you mean
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5879" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:wall: :wall: :wall:

toyslr
Senior Member
Posts: 2020
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 09:56
Location: Cypress, Texas
Contact:

Re: FiveSeven used by gunman at Ft. Hood...

Post by toyslr » 10 Nov 2009, 12:28

:thumb: dead on fuzzy...

its beyond funny the number of posts this is getting here, compared to the "other" forum.
wish my SALE post got as many hits :clap:

RedDog57
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 12 Aug 2009, 12:43
custom title: RedDog
Location: Pugetropolis, Washington

Re: FiveSeven used by gunman at Ft. Hood...

Post by RedDog57 » 10 Nov 2009, 12:33

toyslr wrote:Image
Love it! Hopefully we won't need this smiley permanently. :lmao:

User avatar
jmz5
Site Admin
Posts: 11108
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 21:26

Re: FiveSeven used by gunman at Ft. Hood...

Post by jmz5 » 10 Nov 2009, 12:41

Argh....
كاف

User avatar
jmz5
Site Admin
Posts: 11108
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 21:26

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jmz5 » 10 Nov 2009, 12:42

Merged, again.
كاف

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 10 Nov 2009, 12:47

What's wrong jmz? :laugh:

AN_OLD_LADY
Junior Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 02 Nov 2009, 21:24

More bad news...

Post by AN_OLD_LADY » 10 Nov 2009, 16:17

I heard today that the shooter at Fort Hood used a Five-seveN, This is the only site that doesnt cry BAN!
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... fort-hood/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More 'cop-killer' bs. This bugs me a lot.

*gets on soapbox* :furious:

Why is it that anytime something is used by bad people, the item becomes evil itself? :evil:
9mm has probably been used in far more cop killings than any other caliber.
"it holds 20-30+rds..." :banned:
It's very light and portable :banned:
it's been used in a SINGLE high profile shooting :banned:
it's a highspeed bullet. :banned:
Guns made this country, guns will protect this country. Only slaves aren't allowed to own weapons. A country is fearful of armed citizens, but that is the only way a country won't opress it's people. Disarmament is the 1st step to opression.

And yet, the biggest killer of all is not the gun, sword, pen, country, nor hand... Religeon, the number one killer of man...
Why not ban it? It has killed more people throughout history than any weapon ever has or ever will.


*gets off of soapbox* *passes soapbox on to next person*

User avatar
jmz5
Site Admin
Posts: 11108
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 21:26

Re: More bad news...

Post by jmz5 » 10 Nov 2009, 16:18

Not again..... :laugh:


Merged, again! :laugh:
كاف

toyslr
Senior Member
Posts: 2020
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 09:56
Location: Cypress, Texas
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by toyslr » 10 Nov 2009, 16:45

Image
Image
Image

Why not lock ALL the existing threads and do way with WHOLE deal.....

SeaHawkDriver-B
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 11 Nov 2009, 13:15
Location: Embarked on 2 acres of floating Soverign US Territory
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by SeaHawkDriver-B » 11 Nov 2009, 14:19

I find this discussion both disgusting and thrilling at the same time so I'm shelaced in irony.

<removed by administrator:f3rr37>
Last edited by f3rr37 on 11 Nov 2009, 15:27, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: not appropriate

EARS
Senior Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:43
Location: Rochester New York
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by EARS » 11 Nov 2009, 14:23

Seahawk - You forgot one important part on "his sentence". All that has to be done by women.

User avatar
jgreenberg01
Platinum Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jgreenberg01 » 11 Nov 2009, 14:28

Don't hold back SeaHawk... it's not good to keep it bottled up inside!

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 11 Nov 2009, 15:29

SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:I find this discussion both disgusting and thrilling at the same time so I'm shelaced in irony.
I found your post completely inappropriate to be posted on an open forum and have removed all but the first sentence.

SeaHawkDriver-B
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 11 Nov 2009, 13:15
Location: Embarked on 2 acres of floating Soverign US Territory
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by SeaHawkDriver-B » 11 Nov 2009, 15:46

Ok Ok, my bad I didn't know what "kind" of forum this was. Lots of them are OPEN forums and lots of forums have their own distinct 'opinionated' rule on language use and subject matter. I didn't use much in the way of profanity whatsoever I left most of the graphic depicitions of what that individual deserves up to your own mind to put together. The fact of the matter is that a dozen or so of our boys lay slaughtered, bloody, dead in the hallways or behind the meager homewares the sought cover under. Thats a fact...... language... oh yes the language of vengance which I used is but a mere fraction of what the reality of this sutation brings to us.

Whatever, I'm not here to make trouble, just tell it like it is. Haven't we all had enough of the rhetoric?

In my defense I will only say that it seems you are a staunch supporter of the Second amendment and not the First Amendment. YOu can't have it both ways, either we have both guns and unsensored free speech, or we have neither. Do not be lukewarm, or I will spit you out, sayeth the Lord.

User avatar
jmz5
Site Admin
Posts: 11108
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 21:26

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jmz5 » 11 Nov 2009, 15:50

We do support the first amendment here :) But, that only applies to public places, as this is a privately owned forum, we like to keep things semi-g rated as we do have young people use the site also.
We do have another area of the site that allows members to talk about gross things and such.
كاف

Llagoud
Senior Member
Posts: 5266
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 08:49
custom title: A is A
Location: Buckthorn Ridge

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Llagoud » 11 Nov 2009, 15:59

The First Amendment protects you from reprisal by government, not from Trace Adkins. :laugh:

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 11 Nov 2009, 16:04

SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:Ok Ok, my bad I didn't know what "kind" of forum this was. Lots of them are OPEN forums and lots of forums have their own distinct 'opinionated' rule on language use and subject matter. I didn't use much in the way of profanity whatsoever I left most of the graphic depicitions of what that individual deserves up to your own mind to put together. The fact of the matter is that a dozen or so of our boys lay slaughtered, bloody, dead in the hallways or behind the meager homewares the sought cover under. Thats a fact...... language... oh yes the language of vengance which I used is but a mere fraction of what the reality of this sutation brings to us.

Whatever, I'm not here to make trouble, just tell it like it is. Haven't we all had enough of the rhetoric?
I'm fully aware of the situation that took place. I have the same feelings toward this terrorist as you do.
SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:In my defense I will only say that it seems you are a staunch supporter of the Second amendment and not the First Amendment. YOu can't have it both ways, either we have both guns and unsensored free speech, or we have neither. Do not be lukewarm, or I will spit you out, sayeth the Lord.
Ask anyone here, I am a strong supporter of the first and second amendments.

You are free to say what you wish, but as jmz said this is a private forum and we try to keep things somewhat at a toned down level on the open forum.

tejohnson
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 16:19
custom title: a nobody
Location: WV
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by tejohnson » 11 Nov 2009, 16:37

Interesting read:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091111 ... challenges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Hasan Case: Overt Clues and Tactical Challenges
November 11, 2009 | 1841 GMT

By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton

In last week’s global security and intelligence report, we discussed the recent call by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West. We also noted how it is relatively simple to conduct such attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns or even knives and clubs.

The next day, a lone gunman, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. The victims were in the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a facility on the base where troops are prepared for deployment and where they take care of certain processing tasks such as completing insurance paperwork and receiving medical examinations and vaccinations.

Even though the targets of Hasan’s attack were soldiers, they represented a very soft target in this environment. Most soldiers on bases inside the United States are normally not armed and are only provided weapons for training. The only personnel who regularly carry weapons are the military police and the base civilian police officers. In addition to being unarmed, the soldiers at the center were closely packed together in the facility as they waited to proceed from station to station. The unarmed, densely packed mass of people allowed Hasan to kill 13 (12 soldiers and one civilian employee of the center) and wound 42 others when he opened fire.

Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim who, according to STRATFOR sources and media accounts, has had past contact with jihadists, including the radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is a U.S.-born imam who espouses a jihadist ideology and who was discussed at some length in the 9/11 commission report for his links to 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Al-Awlaki, who is currently living in Yemen and reportedly has contacts with al Qaeda, posted a message on his Web site Nov. 9 praising Hasan’s actions. Despite Hasan’s connections to al-Awlaki and other jihadists, it is unknown at this point if he was even aware of al-Wahayshi’s recent message calling for simple attacks, and therefore it is impossible to tell if his attack was in response to it.

However, one thing that is certain is that investigators examining Hasan’s computer hard drive, e-mail traffic and Internet history will be looking into that possibility, along with other indications that Hasan was linked to radicals.

We noted last week that by their very nature, individual actors and small cells are very difficult for the government to detect. They must somehow identify themselves by contacting a government informant or another person who reports them to the authorities, attend a militant training camp or conduct correspondence with a person or organization under government scrutiny. In the Hasan case, it now appears that Hasan did self-identify by making radical statements to people he worked with, who reported him to the authorities. It also appears that he had correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki, whom the government was monitoring. Because of this behavior, Hasan brought himself to the attention of the Department of Defense, the FBI and the CIA.

The fact that Hasan was able to commit this attack after bringing government attention to himself could be due to a number of factors. Chief among them is the fact that it is tactically impossible for a government to identify every aspiring militant actor and to pre-empt every act of violence. The degree of difficulty is increased greatly if an actor does indeed act alone and does not give any overt clues through his actions or his communications of his intent to attack. Because of this, the Hasan case provides an excellent opportunity to examine national security investigations and their utility and limitations.

The Nature of Intelligence Investigations

The FBI will typically open up an intelligence investigation (usually referred to as a national security investigation) in any case where there is an indication or allegation that a person is involved in terrorist activity but there is no evidence that a specific law has been broken. Many times these investigations are opened up due to a lead passed by the CIA, National Security Agency or a foreign liaison intelligence service. Other times an FBI investigation can come as a spin-off from another FBI counterterrorism investigation already under way or be prompted by a piece of information collected by an FBI informant or even by a tip from a concerned citizen — like the flight instructors who alerted the FBI to the suspicious behavior of some foreign flight students prior to the 9/11 attacks. In such a case, the FBI case agent in charge of the investigation will open a preliminary inquiry, which gives the agent a limited window of time to look into the matter. If no indication of criminal activity is found, the preliminary inquiry must be closed unless the agent receives authorization from the special agent in charge of his division and FBI headquarters to extend it.

If, during the preliminary inquiry, the investigating agents find probable cause that a crime has been committed, the FBI will open a full-fledged criminal investigation into the case, similar to what we saw in the case of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and his followers in Detroit.

One of the large problems in national security investigations is separating the wheat from the chaff. Many leads are based on erroneous information or a misidentification of the suspect — there is a huge issue associated with the confusion caused by the transliteration of Arabic names and the fact that there are many people bearing the same names. Jihadists also have the tendency to use multiple names and identities. And there are many cases in which people will falsely report a person to the FBI out of malice. Because of these factors, national security investigations proceed slowly and usually do not involve much (if any) contact with the suspect and his close associates. If the suspect is a real militant planning a terrorist attack, investigators do not want to tip him off, and if he is innocent, they do not want to sully his reputation by showing up and overtly interviewing everyone he knows. Due to its controversial history of domestic intelligence activities, the FBI has become acutely aware of its responsibility to protect privacy rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and other laws.

And the rights guaranteed under the Constitution do complicate these national security investigations. It is not illegal for someone to say that Muslims should attack U.S. troops due to their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that more Muslims should conduct attacks like the June 1 shooting at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark. — things that Hasan is reported to have said. Radical statements and convictions are not illegal — although they certainly would appear to be conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer. (We will leave to others the discussion of the difficulties in dealing with problem officers who are minorities and doctors and who owe several years of service in return for their education.)

There are also many officers and enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army who own personal weapons and who use them for self-defense, target shooting or hunting. There is nothing extraordinary or illegal about a U.S. Army major owning personal weapons. With no articulable violation of U.S. law, the FBI would have very little to act upon in a case like Hasan’s. Instead, even if they found cause to extend their preliminary inquiry, they would be pretty much limited to monitoring his activities (and perhaps his communications, with a court order) and waiting for a law to be violated. In the Hasan case, it would appear that the FBI did not find probable cause that a law had been violated before he opened fire at Fort Hood. Although perhaps if the FBI had been watching his activities closely and with an eye toward “the how” of terrorist attacks, they might have noticed him conducting preoperational surveillance of the readiness center and even a dry run of the attack.

Of course, in addition to just looking for violations of the law, the other main thrust of a national security investigation is to determine whom the suspect is connected to and whom he is talking to or planning with. In past cases, such investigations have uncovered networks of jihadist actors working together in the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. However, if all Hasan did in his correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki was exercise his First Amendment right to hold radical convictions, and if he did not engage in any type of conspiracy to conduct an attack, he did not break the law.

Another issue that complicates national security cases is that they are almost always classified at the secret level or above. This is understandable, considering they are often opened based upon intelligence produced by sensitive intelligence programs. However, this classification means that only those people with the proper clearance and an established need to know can be briefed on the case. It is not at all unusual for the FBI to visit a high-ranking official at another agency to brief the official on the fact that the FBI is conducting a classified national security investigation involving a person working for the official’s agency. The rub is that they will frequently tell the official that he or she is not at liberty to share details of the investigation with other individuals in the agency because they do not have a clear need to know. The FBI agent will also usually ask the person briefed not to take any action against the target of the investigation, so that the investigation is not compromised. While some people will disagree with the FBI’s determination of who really needs to know about the investigation and go on to brief a wider audience, many officials are cowed by the FBI and sit on the information.

Of course, the size of an organization is also a factor in the dissemination of information. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army are large organizations, and it is possible that officials at the Pentagon or the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (still known by its old acronym CID) headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Va., were briefed on the case and that local officials at Fort Hood were not. The Associated Press is now reporting that the FBI had alerted a Defense Criminal Investigative Service agent assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Washington about Hasan’s contacts with al-Awlaki, and ABC reports that the Defense Department is denying the FBI notified them. It would appear that the finger-pointing and bureaucratic blame-shifting normally associated with such cases has begun.

Even more severe problems would have plagued the dissemination of information from the CIA to local commanders and CID officers at Fort Hood. Despite the intelligence reforms put in place after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government still faces large obstacles when it comes to sharing intelligence information with law enforcement personnel.

Criminal Acts vs. Terrorism

So far, the Hasan shooting investigation is being run by the Army CID, and the FBI has been noticeably — and uncharacteristically — absent from the scene. As the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, the FBI will often assume authority over investigations where there is even a hint of terrorism. Since 9/11, the number of FBI/JTTF offices across the country has been dramatically increased, and the JTTFs are specifically charged with investigating cases that may involve terrorism. Therefore, we find the FBI’s absence in this case to be quite out of the ordinary.

However, with Hasan being a member of the armed forces, the victims being soldiers or army civilian employees and the incident occurring at Fort Hood, the case would seem to fall squarely under the mantle of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). From a prosecutorial perspective, a homicide trial under the UCMJ should be very tidy and could be quickly concluded. It will not involve all the potential loose ends that could pop up in a federal terrorism trial, especially when those loose ends involve what the FBI and CIA knew about Hasan, when they learned it and who they told. Also, politically, there are some who would like to see the Hasan case remain a criminal matter rather than a case of terrorism. Following the shooting death of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and considering the delicate relationship between Muslim advocacy groups and the U.S. government, some people would rather see Hasan portrayed as a mentally disturbed criminal than as an ideologically driven lone wolf.

Despite the CID taking the lead in prosecuting the case, the classified national security investigation by the CIA and FBI into Hasan and his possible connections to jihadist elements is undoubtedly continuing. Senior members of the government will certainly demand to know if Hasan had any confederates, if he was part of a bigger plot and if there are more attacks to come. Several congressmen and senators are also calling for hearings into the case, and if such hearings occur, they will certainly produce an abundance of interesting information pertaining to Hasan and the national security investigation of his activities.

SeaHawkDriver-B
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 11 Nov 2009, 13:15
Location: Embarked on 2 acres of floating Soverign US Territory
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by SeaHawkDriver-B » 11 Nov 2009, 17:21

Image

OdDuMet
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 21 May 2009, 13:46
custom title: Oderint Dum Metuant
Location: TX

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by OdDuMet » 12 Nov 2009, 08:37

tejohnson wrote:Interesting read:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091111 ... challenges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Hasan Case: Overt Clues and Tactical Challenges
November 11, 2009 | 1841 GMT

By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton

Stratfor is awesome. It has been accurately described as something of a private CIA, and is run by ex-intelligence agents with a vast amount of experience. I have a paid subscription and I wont pay for much in the way of information. It's amazing how very little of what you hear in the mainstream news has *anything* to do with what is actually going on with respect to geopolitics....and how little you do hear about what really is going on and why.

They have a free subscription option on their www site somewhere. You only get a couple articles a week for the free subscription, but I highly recommend it.

toyslr
Senior Member
Posts: 2020
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 09:56
Location: Cypress, Texas
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by toyslr » 12 Nov 2009, 09:21

Article makes ALOT of sense....

EARS
Senior Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:43
Location: Rochester New York
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by EARS » 12 Nov 2009, 09:39

It does that... make alot of sense.

OdDuMet
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 21 May 2009, 13:46
custom title: Oderint Dum Metuant
Location: TX

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by OdDuMet » 12 Nov 2009, 13:25

.

I know this is a very serious situation, but here's a little related humor to lighten things up a bit and blow off a bit of steam in a healthy way....


.
Image

MinuteofZombie
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 09 Nov 2009, 16:56

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by MinuteofZombie » 12 Nov 2009, 13:29

I agree - very informative and perceptive article.

What I am most impressed by is the lack of assumption. It seems like the majority of information circulating around out there regarding Hasan's motives, the actions of the Feds, the fact that this was able to occur following an informal federal investigation about his contact with the Yemeni imam; are all speculative and/or assumptions being floated by surface-trawlers like the talking heads who are missing all the depth and context.

I am actually soon to be a new fiveseven owner myself. It sounds silly, but I have always admired the FN weapons platform and decided, when I saw this happen, that it was time to get one finally. I, personally, endeavor not to be an alarmist, but too many factors are stacking one-on-top-of-the-other to deny the practical possibility of a future ban. Even if they aren't banned, there's a good chance that the good ole' law of supply and "NRA-generating-panic-laden-emails" will take hold and prices will skyrocket.

Greetings.
Last edited by MinuteofZombie on 12 Nov 2009, 13:38, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
jgreenberg01
Platinum Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jgreenberg01 » 12 Nov 2009, 13:30

OdDuMet wrote:.

I know this is a very serious situation, but here's a little related humor to lighten things up a bit and blow off a bit of steam in a healthy way....
A Muslim, an Imam and Secretary Napolitano walk into a bar...

hookdriver
Junior Member
Posts: 74
Joined: 05 Sep 2008, 04:39

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by hookdriver » 14 Nov 2009, 08:51

A good opinion piece from WND on the disarming of soldiers on our own posts. I know some don't like WND, but this is opinion -- not news.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115985

Contains this great quote attributed to Thomas Paine:
Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels. … I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power.

I didn't realize that Clinton made such a large change in '93. I didn't join up until '97. Any members here share what weapon control was like on post prior to '93?

romer522
Senior Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:04
Location: WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by romer522 » 17 Nov 2009, 10:49

Larue Tactical is doing a fundraiser for the Fort Hood victims families. 100% of the donation goes to the proper charity and you get a free fridge-magnet beverage entry tool as well.


http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactic ... bok?no=403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Rapier1772
Global Moderator
Posts: 12938
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
Location: Benton City, WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Rapier1772 » 23 Nov 2009, 19:31

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fort Hood suspect may use insanity defense
FORT WORTH, Texas – An Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people during an attack on his Texas post will likely plead not guilty to the charges against him and may use an insanity defense at his military trial, his attorney said Monday.

John Galligan, the civilian attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said he is considering an insanity defense among other options, but that it's too early to determine his defense strategy.

"Based on the evidence thus far, his mental status must be raised," Galligan told The Associated Press by phone from his office near Fort Hood, about 130 miles southwest of Dallas. "Anybody who allegedly engages in conduct that is completely contradictory to his lifestyle and military career — an insanity defense has to be considered."

Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood, and military officials have said they may file more charges. More than two dozen others were wounded in the shooting spree, which happened at a building where soldiers finalize their wills and are medically screened before they are deployed.

Galligan said military law requires his client to plead not guilty if prosecutors seek the death penalty, but he said that decision has not been made.

Hasan remains in intensive care at a San Antonio military hospital, where he was taken after being shot during the attack. At a hearing in his hospital room Saturday, Hasan was ordered to remain in custody until trial.

Galligan said he is frustrated because prosecutors are taking too long to respond to his questions and requests. He said he has asked why no witnesses were allowed to testify during Saturday's hearing, and why it was closed to the news media. He said he had planned to question Hasan's commander, who in documents indicated Hasan would be moved to an unspecified hospital but did not say when.

Fort Hood officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 23 Nov 2009, 21:35

I read that earlier today... who wants to place bets on what the outcome will be if he does plead insanity?

romer522
Senior Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:04
Location: WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by romer522 » 23 Nov 2009, 21:38

If he doesn't get executed I'm gonna be severely disappointed in our country.

Wollychop
Senior Member
Posts: 5447
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:09
Location: MN

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Wollychop » 23 Nov 2009, 21:38

It doesn't stop there. The 9/11 f***s are takling about pleading guilty with the knowlege of a public hearing.

... I don't know what our leaders are thinking, giving prisoners of war a pulpit.

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 23 Nov 2009, 21:41

I know what they're thinking... "what can we do to bring this country down from the inside?"

User avatar
Cyberfly
Global Moderator
Posts: 10624
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 18:44
custom title: Mens Room Attendant
Location: SE OKlahoma

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Cyberfly » 24 Nov 2009, 12:42

f3rr37 wrote:I know what they're thinking... "what can we do to bring this country down from the inside?"
Yeah, I think that was the internal Memo straight from the President's Desk... :wall:
Never confuse 'The will of the Majority' with 'The will of God'.
**This post created with 100% recycled photons!**

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 24 Nov 2009, 12:50

Cyberfly wrote: Yeah, I think that was the internal Memo straight from the President's Desk... :wall:
Nah, Obama is just a puppet, just an image, he's nobody compared to the people who are really holding the cards.

User avatar
MrSlippyFist
Global Moderator
Posts: 7034
Joined: 27 Aug 2008, 12:44
custom title: Sweeper
Location: Spokane, WA
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by MrSlippyFist » 24 Nov 2009, 12:53

My how are fore fathers would cringe at the thought of the current state of the Union.
Embrace the Suck

msw
Junior Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:31

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by msw » 24 Nov 2009, 16:04

I saw this question before but didn't see an answer--sorry if I missed it:

Does anyone know which ammo this coward used? I realize it's a morbid question, but I've a professional interest, as a general & trauma surgeon. I suspect SS197, but that's just a guess. Not looking to offend anyone here.

Thanks,

msw

EARS
Senior Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:43
Location: Rochester New York
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by EARS » 24 Nov 2009, 17:00

I don't recall it was ever reported?

User avatar
panzermk2wife
Forum Supporter
Posts: 7013
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 16:40
Location: Harvard, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by panzermk2wife » 24 Nov 2009, 17:04

As far as I know it hasn't been confirmed by the Military or Government Goons yet.
Visit Us on FaceBook
https://www.facebook.com/EliteAmmunition5.7x28mm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Leave Us Feedback on the Forum
http://www.fivesevenforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8630" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Rapier1772
Global Moderator
Posts: 12938
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
Location: Benton City, WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Rapier1772 » 24 Nov 2009, 17:52

I've seen it posted by an unreliable source that it was the mil 190. But, they had the pic from wikipedia with the blue tips :lmao:
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.

Wollychop
Senior Member
Posts: 5447
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:09
Location: MN

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Wollychop » 24 Nov 2009, 18:28

Remember that SS190 is very difficult to obtain. As he purchased the weapon legally at a gun store he probably also just bought what was on the shelves.

Some folks might come to the conclusion that since he is military he would have access to the SS190. Even IF Fort Hood had units on the installation equipped with 5.7x28mm platforms, it's not like he could just go to their ASP and walk out with a case. Unless he purchased some SS190 off gunbroker at hundreds of dollars a box, I highly doubt that he used the AP.

msw
Junior Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:31

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by msw » 25 Nov 2009, 12:26

I've looked all over and couldn't find it. Frankly, like many others, I'm amazed there hasn't been more media coverage on this infamous, cop-killing, caliber. (Yes--that was sarcasm for those who might not be certain)

SeaHawkDriver-B
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 11 Nov 2009, 13:15
Location: Embarked on 2 acres of floating Soverign US Territory
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by SeaHawkDriver-B » 25 Nov 2009, 14:36

A simple Glock17 with +2 extension holds what... 19 rounds, maybe more, I've heard guys say up to 20 in a G17 +1 in the chamber. The FiveseveN isn't that unique when it comes to capacity, plenty of makes out there can stuff lots of lead. With factory loads the only adavantage he had with the FsN is low recoil to keep on target, there was NO AP-capability, nor was there any needed; in fact, if he had used something like .40 short-n-weak in JHP he probably would have had a lot more killed and less wounded.

Highly doubt that a token islamic doctor had any access to gov't issue ammo whatsoever. The closest he would have come to ammo was maybe an annual qual on the base range. I've never even seen a P90 used by MP's or base guards; most people just watch McGyver twirl one around on SG1 :laugh: .

Even if you're on an Army shooting range they do a pretty thorough brass count, and SHOULD do a search of your person for any remaining live rounds. Last year I did 7 quals on Fort Jackson and they've put procedures in place to make it very difficult for anyone to walk out of there with live rounds.

I think as soon as the libs do their research the backlash on the FsN will stop, becuase they know their arguments and propganda claims won't hold up to the facts.

User avatar
gw45acp
Gold Member
Posts: 832
Joined: 21 Aug 2008, 06:17
Location: Utah

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by gw45acp » 25 Nov 2009, 14:59

Lib arguments rarely have any basis in fact. The Brady Bunch will continue to spread their propaganda and lies as long as they have the funding.
"How the Hell did I get here?"

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10672
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by blueorison » 25 Nov 2009, 17:09

I never understood why people keep referring to FsN mags as "hi-cap". This is bs. CZ's and other older generation 9mm guns have had 16-19 round capacities, including the aforementioned glocks, etc.

1 or 2 more rounds with the FsN mags isn't a great big deal especially since it's such a wimpy caliber compared to 9x19.

Seriously doubt he got ss190. Most likely 192 or 197
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

EARS
Senior Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:43
Location: Rochester New York
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by EARS » 25 Nov 2009, 17:42

"High Cap" came as the result of the Brady Bill. It generally referres to any magazine that can hold over 10 rounds.

Wollychop
Senior Member
Posts: 5447
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:09
Location: MN

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Wollychop » 25 Nov 2009, 17:52

The Bradys had help, even from inside the industry. Ol' Ruger comes to mind.

User avatar
Cyberfly
Global Moderator
Posts: 10624
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 18:44
custom title: Mens Room Attendant
Location: SE OKlahoma

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Cyberfly » 26 Nov 2009, 01:17

And now their newest release, the SR9 has a 17+1 capacity. Nice. :huh:
Never confuse 'The will of the Majority' with 'The will of God'.
**This post created with 100% recycled photons!**

helodad
Junior Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 12:25

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by helodad » 11 Jan 2010, 12:44

so 197 or 192 anyone, anyone. :ponder:

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 11 Jan 2010, 12:49

SS197 is my bet.

User avatar
gw45acp
Gold Member
Posts: 832
Joined: 21 Aug 2008, 06:17
Location: Utah

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by gw45acp » 11 Jan 2010, 13:33

If it wasn't SS197, I would be very surprised.
"How the Hell did I get here?"

maxx3933
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 14:43

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by maxx3933 » 16 Jan 2010, 22:34

I would say he used the SS197. That round with the polymer tip splatters on impact and then
tumbles creating a grievious wound cavity. That would be my choice for stopping power of this
round in a situation no vests or armor are worn. If vest and armor were worn then the SS190
would be the practical choice. But for most us out here...I think the SS197 really works.

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 12377
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Pr. CEO Elite Ammunition
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by panzermk2 » 16 Jan 2010, 23:16

Except the SS197 does not tumble. The other commonly available rounds SS195 and SS192 are the ones that tumble.
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 17 Jan 2010, 00:06

maxx3933 wrote:That round with the polymer tip splatters on impact and then tumbles creating a grievious wound cavity.
LOL, that doesn't even make any sense... how does a round both splatter and tumble?

User avatar
Rapier1772
Global Moderator
Posts: 12938
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
Location: Benton City, WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Rapier1772 » 17 Jan 2010, 07:22

Fuzzy - the splat frags tumble
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 12377
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Pr. CEO Elite Ammunition
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by panzermk2 » 17 Jan 2010, 07:58

You get three wound channels. A small 4 inch from the polymer tip, The lead core and the third which is the jacket. The lead core gets the most penetration.





Image
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

maxx3933
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 14:43

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by maxx3933 » 17 Jan 2010, 08:33

LOL my bad...I'm relatively new to this Five-Seven addiction. Between the SS192 or SS195 which
does more damage?

User avatar
panzermk2
Forum Supporter
Posts: 12377
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 15:51
Location: Pr. CEO Elite Ammunition
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by panzermk2 » 17 Jan 2010, 09:15

Other then batch to batch velocity differences they perform about the same.

Image
Photo Credit P99guy
Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

"Engineers, the oompa-loompas of science!"

Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz
Image

maxx3933
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 14:43

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by maxx3933 » 17 Jan 2010, 09:49

Thanks for the info. I've got a good stash of both SS192 and SS197. My next investment will
probably be Elite Ammo.

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10672
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by blueorison » 17 Jan 2010, 10:19

it splatters... magically reforms... then tumbles again....
BEHOLD THE POWER OF SS197!!!
:p
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

maxx3933
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 14:43

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by maxx3933 » 17 Jan 2010, 11:43

What I meant is the tip fragments then the projectile tumbles. I admit the word splatter
was a poor choice. :monkey:

maxx3933
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 14:43

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by maxx3933 » 17 Jan 2010, 11:47

Which now I stand corrected the 195 and 192 round is the one that tumbles.

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 17 Jan 2010, 13:27

maxx3933 wrote:What I meant is the tip fragments then the projectile tumbles. I admit the word splatter was a poor choice. :monkey:
The tip is just plastic, it really doesn't do much more than help the BC (ballistic co-efficient) and with fragmentation. The SS192, T194, SS195, SS198 (FN Restricts to LEO), and EA's super/ultraRapTOR, all use the same projectile that tumbles.

maxx3933
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 14:43

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by maxx3933 » 17 Jan 2010, 14:08

Thanks for the info on the rounds. Much appreciated.

User avatar
f3rr37
Site Admin
Posts: 14670
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 12:09

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by f3rr37 » 17 Jan 2010, 15:39

Its what we're here for :)

Llagoud
Senior Member
Posts: 5266
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 08:49
custom title: A is A
Location: Buckthorn Ridge

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Llagoud » 21 Jan 2010, 18:01

http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3429

No mention of Islam in official Ft. Hood report.

They do however get around to questioning the wisdom of allowing private ownership of firearms. :skep:

20 January 2010: On 15 January, 2009, the U.S. Military released its 86-page report “Protecting the Force, Lessons Learned from Fort Hood,” an independent review by the Department of Defense of the causes behind the November 5, 2009 massacre by Islamic terrorist insider Nidal Malik HASAN. Thirteen were murdered, plus one unborn child and another 43 were injured.

Omitted from the report was any direct reference to Islam, Islamic terrorism, or the motives of HASAN, which were clearly influenced by his beliefs or interpretation of the Muslim ideology. These obvious omissions were explained by two of the report’s authors, former Army Secretary Togo West and former Navy’s Admiral, Vernon Clark, who spoke to reporters last week when the report was released. According to the investigators, they didn’t “drill down into HASAN’s motives.” Any person of reason would be compelled to ask why motive was not a factor in this investigation, when it must be considered as one of the primary factors in any normal investigation.
The fact that the authors intentionally omitted any doctrinal based assessment of the killings should be an indictment of not only the authors, but of our current administration. To purposely omit the Islamic motivation that was the sole basis of HASAN’s murderous rampage is not only disingenuous, but traitorous as it places our armed forces at risk for future killings, sabotage, and treason. Therefore, the report is either a clear exhibit of our senior leadership’s knowledge deficit pertaining to the ideology of enemy we are fighting, or illustrates just how deeply entrenched the enemy really is within our military infrastructure and political bodies of policy and oversight.

Perhaps even more disturbing than the reports omission of “Islam” or “radical Islam” within the report, the authors broadly imply that adherents to all religions are equally influenced to the possibility of radicalization. Recommendation 2.7 therefore suggests that Department of Defense (DoD) should “Promptly establish standards and reporting procedures that clarify guidelines for religious accommodation.” To argue in favor of this possibility is to completely ignore that Islam is unique among all other religions as its fundamental doctrine requires its adherents to wage war against non-Muslims or unbelievers, a fact that is not a hijacking of the faith, but mandated by the Qur’an and Hadith that is currently supported by every school of Islamic jurisprudence
Yet another disturbing recommendation is contained in section 3.8 of the report. The authors also recommend a policy directing the Department of Defense to “review the need for DoD privately owned weapons policy,” somehow suggesting private gun ownership by members of the most heavily armed organization in the world might have been a contributing factor to the Fort Hood massacre. The fact that this subject was even given consideration should be disturbing to every individual concerned with their Second Amendment rights and suggests an agenda well above the scope of this investigation.

To deny or fail to address our enemy’s motivation and their own stated doctrine is unacceptable and will only embolden their will and strengthen their abilities of infiltration. To incorporate all other religions and to state the need to review private gun ownership of military personnel into the Fort Hood threat assessment has more serious overtones of a shadowy agenda that is at war with democracy.

User42
Senior Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 29 Sep 2008, 20:22

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by User42 » 21 Jan 2010, 18:39

You have got to be kidding me. Wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin.

I do have one question though. Who writes this garbage? Is it even possible that the people reviewing this case are that clueless? Here is another point they missed, did he wear glasses during the attack? If so lets ban glasses, so a potential homicidal maniac can't see to shoot straight.
If a man dedicates his life to good deeds and the welfare of others, He will die unthanked and unremembered. If he exercises his genius bringing death and misery to billions, his name will echo down through the millennia for a hundred lifetimes.

User avatar
fatherfoof
Senior Member
Posts: 3089
Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 00:56
Location: Lone Star State

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by fatherfoof » 21 Jan 2010, 18:47

Newt Gingrich spoke on the incident, and talked about nonrotarians. He explained since Obama won't tolerate the word terrorist, nor islam, muslim and the like, what he finds all the murders had in common is they do not belong to the local Rotary Club. He made his point about whether this administration really is serious about all this.
Please PM Me for LE/Military Access

User avatar
jgreenberg01
Platinum Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jgreenberg01 » 20 Aug 2010, 17:57

Fort Hood Shooting Puts Focus on 'Internal Threat'

(Aug. 20) -- More than nine months after the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a series of changes meant to prevent such incidents.

In a 26-page memo released today and signed Aug. 18, Gates ordered a series of procedural and policy changes that focus on identifying, responding to and preventing potential workplace violence.
Entire article: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/r ... e/19602428

Yes because we all know that this was a case of simple WORKPLACE VIOLENCE...

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
0100001101101111011011010110010100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001100001011010110110010100100000011010010111010000101110

CenCalSplicer
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 18:37
Location: Clovis, CA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by CenCalSplicer » 20 Aug 2010, 20:26

Don't you get it??? 26 pg memo's and sensitivity training will prevent future wackjobs from entering violence free zones and murdering innocent people. Instead of range time and allowing people(especially on military bases) to defend themselves they will get class lecture time. Everyone knew habib was a nutcase working with soldiers(poorly) and no one wanted to say anything for fear of being labeled a racist. That is how he used our PC system against us and innocent people are dead.

User avatar
jgreenberg01
Platinum Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jgreenberg01 » 12 Oct 2010, 04:26

Fort Hood Rampage Victims to Face Hasan in Court

And so it begins. It will be interesting to see how the media reports on this (or what they don't report). Here's a quote from the article, I gotta figure that there's no chance of this happening, but then again, OJ got off...
Hasan's lawyer, retired Army Col. John Galligan, has hinted that he could pursue an insanity defense. "If there's a sanity board issue enough that presents a realistic mental responsibility issue, we could be talking about the possibility of an acquittal," Galligan told the Express-News.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/f ... t/19670286
0100001101101111011011010110010100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001100001011010110110010100100000011010010111010000101110

User avatar
Rapier1772
Global Moderator
Posts: 12938
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
Location: Benton City, WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Rapier1772 » 12 Oct 2010, 04:36

I'd bet he'd live longer without the insanity plea
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4784
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by flyingirish04 » 13 Oct 2010, 08:02

jgreenberg01 wrote:Fort Hood Rampage Victims to Face Hasan in Court

And so it begins. It will be interesting to see how the media reports on this (or what they don't report). Here's a quote from the article, I gotta figure that there's no chance of this happening, but then again, OJ got off...
Hasan's lawyer, retired Army Col. John Galligan, has hinted that he could pursue an insanity defense. "If there's a sanity board issue enough that presents a realistic mental responsibility issue, we could be talking about the possibility of an acquittal," Galligan told the Express-News.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/f ... t/19670286
Pretty sure UCMJ will not allow an insanity plea, or I should say it won't punish differently on the basis of insanity. If this were a civilian court of law, then the lawyer is right.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

User42
Senior Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 29 Sep 2008, 20:22

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by User42 » 13 Oct 2010, 11:17

I think it should be treated as a war crime. We are still in the "war on terror" (tm), and he decided to become a terrorist. It doesn't matter if he did it for Islam, as even if he renounced his religion the day before he would still be a mass murderer. Insanity might be true, but it should not be a reasonable defence (as in get out of jail free card) for what he did.
If a man dedicates his life to good deeds and the welfare of others, He will die unthanked and unremembered. If he exercises his genius bringing death and misery to billions, his name will echo down through the millennia for a hundred lifetimes.

User avatar
buckett
Junior Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 08 Jun 2010, 10:31
custom title: Firefighter
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by buckett » 13 Oct 2010, 15:05

User42 wrote:I think it should be treated as a war crime. We are still in the "war on terror" (tm), and he decided to become a terrorist. It doesn't matter if he did it for Islam, as even if he renounced his religion the day before he would still be a mass murderer. Insanity might be true, but it should not be a reasonable defence (as in get out of jail free card) for what he did.
I agree 100%. There is no excuse for what he did. Period.
My goal in life: To be the next John Moses Browning.

It takes 43 muscles to frown... 17 muscles to smile... But only 3 for a proper trigger squeeze.

RC57
Junior Member
Posts: 81
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 13:26

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by RC57 » 14 Oct 2010, 10:04

My question is, which gun is the older-fashioned pistol that takes a magazine from the quote below?

The 357 revolver, or the FiveseveN? :skep:

"As soon as I turned I saw Maj. Hasan behind me. He was holding an older-fashioned pistol. As soon as I looked at him, he brought his magazine up and loaded it. He looked straight down at me, we made eye contact, and he brought his weapon down toward me. I turned on him, and the weapon fired. It hit me in the left shoulder, my arm went limp," Stratton said. "I couldn't feel it at all."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/13/tex ... Stories%29

eagleshotz
Senior Member
Posts: 1166
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 16:15
custom title: You like that
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by eagleshotz » 20 Oct 2010, 16:18

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 391df.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :ponder:

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10672
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by blueorison » 20 Oct 2010, 22:23

Terrorist. Burn them all. The Bible says to wish peace and love upon your enemies. I wish them to be peaceful 6 feet under.

And he had BOTH red and green Lasermax? So he stacked one under the other? AND he had 30 round mags? This terrorist might as well be a barf.com fanboy, may he burn with them.

Sorry to get off topic. Back on topic, I hope he goes to prison, he won't last long.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

Buffman
Silver Member
Posts: 2990
Joined: 12 Jan 2009, 22:48
Location: SW Michigan
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Buffman » 20 Oct 2010, 22:28

214 rounds and 6 magazines?? Even expending the one in the gun doesn't come out equal. did he fire the revolver?

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10672
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by blueorison » 20 Oct 2010, 22:52

It says he did not fire the revolver. Then they say they heard shots that sounded like it came from different guns.

So...
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

DmL5
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 01:03
Location: MO
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by DmL5 » 20 Oct 2010, 23:21

Buffman wrote:214 rounds and 6 magazines?? Even expending the one in the gun doesn't come out equal. did he fire the revolver?
That number probably includes casings from the shootout with police -- this source says 146 casings were recovered from inside the building. A witness that picked up the gun says the shooter had "skinny bullets with blue tips." As much work as the shooter put into planning this incident (two stacked lasers, extended magazines, etc), it's fortunate he went with SS197SR ammunition over the other types.

http://www.krqe.com/dpps/news/us/south/ ... g-_3616751" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sabotteur
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 21 Aug 2008, 07:39
custom title: Big Dog Outfitters
Location: A small farm in BFE Virginia
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by sabotteur » 21 Oct 2010, 06:08

Interesting. First time I've seen that we now know that he was using SS197 and not SS195, SS192, or the 'evil' SS190 that the media seems to have latched on to.

Thanks for posting the link.

User avatar
buckett
Junior Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 08 Jun 2010, 10:31
custom title: Firefighter
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by buckett » 21 Oct 2010, 07:53

blueorison wrote:
Terrorist. Burn them all. The Bible says to wish peace and love upon your enemies. I wish them to be peaceful 6 feet under.

And he had BOTH red and green Lasermax? So he stacked one under the other? AND he had 30 round mags? This terrorist might as well be a barf.com fanboy, may he burn with them.

Sorry to get off topic. Back on topic, I hope he goes to prison, he won't last long.
Don't waste any time digging a grave. Throw him to the dogs.
My goal in life: To be the next John Moses Browning.

It takes 43 muscles to frown... 17 muscles to smile... But only 3 for a proper trigger squeeze.

DmL5
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 01:03
Location: MO
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by DmL5 » 21 Oct 2010, 11:29

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/21/tex ... /?hpt=Sbin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"He asked one question -- what's the most technologically advanced handgun?" Army Specialist William Gilbert testified.

"I asked him, 'What's your intended purpose?' " Gilbert said.

Hasan gave no answer, according to Gilbert, but said his two specifications were the most technologically advanced handgun and a high magazine capacity.

User avatar
blueorison
Competition/Training Mod
Posts: 10672
Joined: 11 Apr 2009, 14:28
custom title: UT/EA Pistol Captain
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by blueorison » 21 Oct 2010, 11:55

1. He had a SCOPE on the GUN? In addition to a green AND red laser?

2. How much would you bet on, that he got his information about the pistol, from one of the "forums"...

3. His gun jammed, most likely round stuck in the chamber, which is why Kimberly Munley is STILL alive, or she would be toast by now

4. He was using ss197, had 2 of his mags fitted with 10 round extensions; definitely had info coming from some "forum"

All this is pretty wild, and I wouldn't believe it if they didn't testify to it.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The shooter will always matter more than the gear ever will.
Stop relying on others to do the work for you.
Shoot more, worry less.

User avatar
buckett
Junior Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 08 Jun 2010, 10:31
custom title: Firefighter
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by buckett » 21 Oct 2010, 16:05

A scope too? It sounds like he's been learning from a video game...
My goal in life: To be the next John Moses Browning.

It takes 43 muscles to frown... 17 muscles to smile... But only 3 for a proper trigger squeeze.

SeaHawkDriver-B
Senior Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 11 Nov 2009, 13:15
Location: Embarked on 2 acres of floating Soverign US Territory
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by SeaHawkDriver-B » 21 Oct 2010, 16:35

As a career military officer, the report that these two jack<profanity> flag officers wrote is disgusting. Its a political hat-tip to the Obama administration, and is a disgrace to the men and women who died that day in the name of "Islam". Its treasonous and they should be indicted in their own Article 32, if not promptly shot by their own troops as a more expeditious matter of their disposal.

The military has done absolutely NOTHING to prevent Fort Hood from happening again. I can attest to this first hand. The entrenched leadership outright refuses to publically acknowledge the Islamic threat from within out of fear of career suicide. Instead they will cover this festering wound with tissue paper. There will be mandatory classes, sensitivity training, the normal fare... and maybe a few more 'random' searches at the front gate to ensure that none of our "soldiers" DARE to bring in their own weapons to defend themselves from situations like Fort Hood. Instead, we must rely on poorly equipped, poorly trained, and usually out-sourced and contracted gate guards, and skeleton bodies of military police that patrol our bases in junked-out Ford explorers, equipped with 15-year old Beretta M9's, loaded with standard pressure 9mm FMJ.

Stupdity will again rule the day, as it usually does within our ranks.

Interesting to see that the guy used the blue-tips, if he had half a brain on his head he would have gotten a case of brown-box SS192, and at least done an endurance test on his OD-green FsN to see if there would be any extraction failures. A quick backup gun in the same caliber would have been a better investment than an unfired .357.

And he had a 'scope' on it??? As far as I know, there is only ONE option, maybe two at the most, for installing a scope on top of the FsN, and both those dude are on this forum. So who is it? Anyone.... Bueler?.... Bueler?.....

dhpierre
Silver Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 07 Nov 2011, 16:22

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by dhpierre » 02 Jun 2012, 06:49

hookdriver wrote:A good opinion piece from WND on the disarming of soldiers on our own posts. I know some don't like WND, but this is opinion -- not news.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115985

Contains this great quote attributed to Thomas Paine:
Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels. … I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power.

I didn't realize that Clinton made such a large change in '93. I didn't join up until '97. Any members here share what weapon control was like on post prior to '93?
I served in the Air Force under 3 Presidents; Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Airmen living in the dorms had to have their guns locked in the base armory. Airmen living in base family housing could store their guns in their houses. Airmen were not allowed to carry open or CCW on base. Those rules may have tightened under President Clinton, I don't know, I didn't live on base under him. That was for stateside bases, overseas we were not allowed to have personal guns at all.

User avatar
Rapier1772
Global Moderator
Posts: 12938
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
Location: Benton City, WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Rapier1772 » 10 Aug 2012, 10:17

Another attack?
http://news.yahoo.com/awol-soldier-gets ... 29850.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AWOL soldier gets life term for Fort Hood plot
WACO, Texas (AP) — An AWOL soldier convicted of planning to blow up a restaurant full of Fort Hood troops has been sentenced to life in prison by a federal judge in Texas.

Army Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo received the punishment Friday in Waco.

Abdo told authorities he planned to make bombs as part of a "massive attack" against Fort Hood soldiers last year. He was convicted in May on six federal charges, including attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

The 22-year-old represented himself at the sentencing.

Abdo was AWOL from Fort Campbell, Ky., when he was arrested with bomb-making materials last summer at a Fort Hood-area motel.
That's all they have right now.
What is with taking it out on Ft Hood? This guy was out of KY, why go to TX to wreak havoc?
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.

User avatar
Cyberfly
Global Moderator
Posts: 10624
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 18:44
custom title: Mens Room Attendant
Location: SE OKlahoma

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Cyberfly » 10 Aug 2012, 11:21

Hood...burka?
I have NO friggin idea. Just grasping at straws here...
Never confuse 'The will of the Majority' with 'The will of God'.
**This post created with 100% recycled photons!**

User avatar
flyingirish04
Gold Member
Posts: 4784
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 21:42
custom title: Mtn Man in Flatland
Location: Great Plains, USA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by flyingirish04 » 10 Aug 2012, 12:05

I mean, I LOATH Ft Hood and Killeen as much as the next guy. The place sucks. But blowing it up or shooting it up, not cool.
Killed Two Stones with One Bird.

ShockedNKansas
Senior Member
Posts: 992
Joined: 10 Feb 2011, 20:30
custom title: G0 SH0X

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by ShockedNKansas » 10 Aug 2012, 19:19

There's been a lot of talk in the hearing about the victim's autopsy reports. This is going to sound sick but... is there a way for us to see them? Perhaps via the Freedom of Information Act?

User avatar
Esteves
Wiki Moderator
Posts: 3168
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 10:23
custom title: Shhh!
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Esteves » 10 Aug 2012, 23:41

Perhaps Civics 101 will help with the how everything fits together question that you didn't ask.
http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Et ... 91714.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; might be the right place to start, though.
--
S
© 2004-2019 Esteves

Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative,
and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want
people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Grantness
Senior Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 09:13
Location: Virginia

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Grantness » 11 Aug 2012, 08:26

So another (ostensibly) Islamist tries to blow up Fort Hood soldiers and its not all over the news? I am bewildered by the media's reluctance to admit that these are acts of terrorism...

User avatar
jgreenberg01
Platinum Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jgreenberg01 » 11 Aug 2012, 08:45

This was actually in the news back in July, 2011-ish. The reporting did subside fairly quickly, but still, I'm surprised you guys missed.
0100001101101111011011010110010100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001100001011010110110010100100000011010010111010000101110

User avatar
Rapier1772
Global Moderator
Posts: 12938
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
Location: Benton City, WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Rapier1772 » 03 Jun 2013, 14:36

This is still not resolved. Some excerpts:
http://news.yahoo.com/ft-hood-suspect-d ... 07014.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood shooting rampage said Monday that he'll use a "defense of others" argument when he represents himself at his upcoming murder trial.

Hasan, 42, faces the death penalty or life without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

Hasan, who was set to deploy to Afghanistan with some of the troops killed that day on the Texas Army post, likely will try to show that he was trying to defend Muslims against U.S. troops in a war that he believes is illegal and immoral, military law experts said. To prove a "defense of others" argument, a defendant must show a threat was imminent.

"Even if he feels the U.S. is in an unjustified war, this defendant is not going to be able to show a threat was immediate because these soldiers were on U.S. soil and unarmed," said Jeff Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, who is not involved in Hasan's case.
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.

User avatar
jgreenberg01
Platinum Member
Posts: 3737
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 14:32
custom title: FNP-45 Cylon
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by jgreenberg01 » 03 Jun 2013, 14:52

It's infuriating to read that there is any defense that can be used for his actions. But when you read on in the article you see:
At a hearing in May, Hasan told Osborn that he wanted to plead guilty. But Army rules prohibit a judge from accepting a guilty plea to charges that could result in a death sentence. Osborn also denied his request to plead guilty to lesser murder charges, citing legal issues that could have arisen because his death penalty trial still would have proceeded.
We have some interesting rules - the guy wants to jump on his own grenade - let's save some time and money and let this piece of garbage self-terminate.

Just my $0.02...
0100001101101111011011010110010100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001100001011010110110010100100000011010010111010000101110

huddleston101
Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 18 Dec 2012, 10:58
Location: va
Contact:

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by huddleston101 » 03 Jun 2013, 15:08

jgreenberg01 wrote:It's infuriating to read that there is any defense that can be used for his actions. But when you read on in the article you see:
At a hearing in May, Hasan told Osborn that he wanted to plead guilty. But Army rules prohibit a judge from accepting a guilty plea to charges that could result in a death sentence. Osborn also denied his request to plead guilty to lesser murder charges, citing legal issues that could have arisen because his death penalty trial still would have proceeded.
We have some interesting rules - the guy wants to jump on his own grenade - let's save some time and money and let this piece of garbage self-terminate.

Just my $0.02...
:agree: :thumb:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Rapier1772
Global Moderator
Posts: 12938
Joined: 20 Aug 2008, 09:00
Location: Benton City, WA

Re: Ft. Hood

Post by Rapier1772 » 03 Jun 2013, 15:37

The good news is that he is representing himself. Maybe that is as good as pleading guilty?

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client." -Abraham Lincoln

Now they are saying that he will be able to question his victims at his trial. For a fair trail, I think this should be allowed just as they would allow Hasan's lawyer(s) to question them, if he had one.
But if I were one of the victims being questioned, I would also make it clear to him at about 10ft away, "That's close enough - lest I see you as a threat AGAIN."

Any argument & just say he wasn't SUPPOSED to have a gun on him last time, why should this time be met with any less caution?
How to post pics & videos: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6363
Contrary to popular belief, you CAN fix stupid - it's just illegal.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests