Page 2 of 3

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 24 Nov 2009, 17:52
by Rapier1772
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:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 24 Nov 2009, 18:28
by Wollychop
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 25 Nov 2009, 12:26
by msw
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)

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 25 Nov 2009, 14:36
by SeaHawkDriver-B
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 25 Nov 2009, 14:59
by gw45acp
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 25 Nov 2009, 17:09
by blueorison
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

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 25 Nov 2009, 17:42
by EARS
"High Cap" came as the result of the Brady Bill. It generally referres to any magazine that can hold over 10 rounds.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 25 Nov 2009, 17:52
by Wollychop
The Bradys had help, even from inside the industry. Ol' Ruger comes to mind.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 26 Nov 2009, 01:17
by Cyberfly
And now their newest release, the SR9 has a 17+1 capacity. Nice. :huh:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 11 Jan 2010, 12:44
by helodad
so 197 or 192 anyone, anyone. :ponder:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 11 Jan 2010, 12:49
by f3rr37
SS197 is my bet.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 11 Jan 2010, 13:33
by gw45acp
If it wasn't SS197, I would be very surprised.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 16 Jan 2010, 22:34
by maxx3933
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 16 Jan 2010, 23:16
by panzermk2
Except the SS197 does not tumble. The other commonly available rounds SS195 and SS192 are the ones that tumble.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 00:06
by f3rr37
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?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 07:22
by Rapier1772
Fuzzy - the splat frags tumble

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 07:58
by panzermk2
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

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 08:33
by maxx3933
LOL my bad...I'm relatively new to this Five-Seven addiction. Between the SS192 or SS195 which
does more damage?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 09:15
by panzermk2
Other then batch to batch velocity differences they perform about the same.

Image
Photo Credit P99guy

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 09:49
by maxx3933
Thanks for the info. I've got a good stash of both SS192 and SS197. My next investment will
probably be Elite Ammo.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 10:19
by blueorison
it splatters... magically reforms... then tumbles again....
BEHOLD THE POWER OF SS197!!!
:p

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 11:43
by maxx3933
What I meant is the tip fragments then the projectile tumbles. I admit the word splatter
was a poor choice. :monkey:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 11:47
by maxx3933
Which now I stand corrected the 195 and 192 round is the one that tumbles.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 13:27
by f3rr37
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 14:08
by maxx3933
Thanks for the info on the rounds. Much appreciated.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 15:39
by f3rr37
Its what we're here for :)

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 18:01
by Llagoud
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 18:39
by User42
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 18:47
by fatherfoof
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 20 Aug 2010, 17:57
by jgreenberg01
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:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 20 Aug 2010, 20:26
by CenCalSplicer
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 12 Oct 2010, 04:26
by jgreenberg01
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

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 12 Oct 2010, 04:36
by Rapier1772
I'd bet he'd live longer without the insanity plea

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 13 Oct 2010, 08:02
by flyingirish04
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 13 Oct 2010, 11:17
by User42
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 13 Oct 2010, 15:05
by buckett
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 14 Oct 2010, 10:04
by RC57
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

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 20 Oct 2010, 16:18
by eagleshotz
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 391df.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :ponder:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 20 Oct 2010, 22:23
by blueorison
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 20 Oct 2010, 22:28
by Buffman
214 rounds and 6 magazines?? Even expending the one in the gun doesn't come out equal. did he fire the revolver?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 20 Oct 2010, 22:52
by blueorison
It says he did not fire the revolver. Then they say they heard shots that sounded like it came from different guns.

So...

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 20 Oct 2010, 23:21
by DmL5
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;

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Oct 2010, 06:08
by sabotteur
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Oct 2010, 07:53
by buckett
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Oct 2010, 11:29
by DmL5
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Oct 2010, 11:55
by blueorison
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Oct 2010, 16:05
by buckett
A scope too? It sounds like he's been learning from a video game...

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 21 Oct 2010, 16:35
by SeaHawkDriver-B
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?.....

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 02 Jun 2012, 06:49
by dhpierre
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 10 Aug 2012, 10:17
by Rapier1772
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?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 10 Aug 2012, 11:21
by Cyberfly
Hood...burka?
I have NO friggin idea. Just grasping at straws here...

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 10 Aug 2012, 12:05
by flyingirish04
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 10 Aug 2012, 19:19
by ShockedNKansas
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?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 10 Aug 2012, 23:41
by Esteves
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 11 Aug 2012, 08:26
by Grantness
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...

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 11 Aug 2012, 08:45
by jgreenberg01
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 03 Jun 2013, 14:36
by Rapier1772
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.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 03 Jun 2013, 14:52
by jgreenberg01
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...

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 03 Jun 2013, 15:08
by huddleston101
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:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 03 Jun 2013, 15:37
by Rapier1772
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?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 06 Jun 2013, 18:24
by Stitches1974
Surprised no one has posted this yet. http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/fort-hood-sh ... ing-trial/


"(Washington Times) Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army Major accused of killing 13 and injuring 30 others in a mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009, has received around $278,000 in salary payments over the three-and-a-half years he has been awaiting trial.

According to an NBC 5 Investigates report from Dallas-Fort Worth NBC affiliate NBC 5, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense confirmed its continued payments to Hasan, stating that the department can’t suspend his salary until he has been proven guilty."

Yet, his victims have not gotten any restitution and having issues getting VA/ service benefits. :ponder: :wall: :furious:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 06 Jun 2013, 18:48
by Rapier1772
I knew about the pay until guilty thing but his victims & their families? WTF?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 08 Jun 2013, 10:37
by Stitches1974
Rapier1772 wrote:I knew about the pay until guilty thing but his victims & their families? WTF?
One of the survivors of the shooting actually started a fund to help support the other survivors.
http://www.32stillstanding.com/Fort_Hoo ... en_TX.html

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 11:26
by Rapier1772
I guess he doesn't get paid any more
http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-gunman- ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hasan was found guilty on all counts, including 13 charges of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder.
Sentencing next week

Maybe we can take his pay back to offset a bit of the legal bills?
The military spent four years and $5 million to ensure Hasan would be convicted and be eligible for a death sentence.
$5 million? Why?

Based on what I've read, I am pretty sure he wants to die. Hope he gets his wish.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 13:42
by Cyberfly
Death by a thousand paper cuts, then rolled in pig waste and pork blood and let him die by infection.
He can await his 72 Virginians in the afterlife...

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 28 Aug 2013, 12:02
by Rapier1772
Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan Gets Death Penalty
http://news.yahoo.com/fort-hood-shooter ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people in a shooting rampage at Ft. Hood, was unanimously sentenced to death today by a jury of military officers.
[Unfortunately]
Executions in the military are rare. All death sentences are subject to automatic appeal, a process that can take decades. There are currently five inmates on the military's death row, but an active serviceman has not been executed since 1961.
Over the course of the three week trial, the government called 89 witnesses, none of whom the major cross-examined. He called none of his own witnesses and immediately rested his case when he had the chance to defend himself.
Like I said, he wants to die. I say we hasten that along but now the appeal process starts (its an automatic thing apparently). Waste of money

Also, can we please stop calling him Major now?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 28 Aug 2013, 14:22
by blueorison
You mean stop calling him Major? Yeah. Agreed.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 03 Jan 2014, 15:20
by kismetcapitan
ShockedNKansas wrote: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?
While it's morbid to glean data from the autopsies of the victims of a psychotic murderer, it is hard data concerning the performance of the 5.7x28mm round.

- Hasan scored 18 torso or head hits. 13 died, 5 survived.
- 28 victims were hit in non-vital areas or limbs. All survived.
- Hasan was charged by four people. 1 survived. None were successful in reaching him.
- The SS197 round shattered a femur, making it impossible for Officer Munley to continue to engage her target.
- Hasan, who was clearly suicidal, was finally stopped by four 9mm rounds. He (unfortunately) survived as a paraplegic.

There are plenty of debates regarding the Five-seveN as a "viable" personal defense handgun. By personal defense, what we really mean is how effective is the weapon against human targets. Since the public does not have ready access to anti-personnel performance of the Five-seveN by the Secret Service or other government/LE agencies, the Fort Hood massacre is really the only source of data available. And it answers many questions that ballistic gel cannot and really should put the argument to rest.

- As expected, shot placement matters. This implies that a firearm that is easier to shoot on target will be more deadly than one that is difficult to control, REGARDLESS of caliber.
- Any bullet that can shatter a bone will stop an attacker. In the oft-repeated hypothetical scenario of a drugged and unstoppable assailant high on PCP or some other anesthetizing drug, even if he cannot feel pain, he cannot continue to charge with a shattered leg.
- The Fort Hood incident is notable in that four individuals charged the shooter, and all were stopped before they could reach him. For stopping power, the Five-seveN was 100% effective. And if anyone were to argue that those attempting to stop and disarm Hasan were sober, I submit that a US Army soldier, motivated to save the lives of others without regard to personal safety and acting on that motivation, is as physically difficult to stop as any human may be.

Stopping power is often equated with a round's ability to instantaneously kill a human. Stopping power in reality is the ability of a round to stop a human from attacking, and lethality is not inherently a part of stopping an attack. I selected the Five-seveN after becoming convinced from available data (most notably the above massacre) that the 5.7x28 round is at least as effective as a 9mm (and probably more so) and noting that it is easier to put rounds quickly on target with the 5.7x28 than any other available pistol round with the exception of subsonic match grade .22LR. It is very tragic that a psychotic employed a weapon as lethal as the Five-seveN to commit such an atrocity. And it leaves no question as to the lethality or stopping power of the Five-seveN.

This post may be quoted or cross-posted.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 03 Jan 2014, 22:51
by panzermk2
kismetcapitan wrote:
ShockedNKansas wrote:T

There are plenty of debates regarding the Five-seveN as a "viable" personal defense handgun. By personal defense, what we really mean is how effective is the weapon against human targets. Since the public does not have ready access to anti-personnel performance of the Five-seveN by the Secret Service or other government/LE agencies, the Fort Hood massacre is really the only source of data available. And it answers many questions that ballistic gel cannot and really should put the argument to rest.
.

Actually there are hundreds almost thousands of reports from south of the boarder. The FsN is the preferred gun of the drug cartels and is used to kill peolpe daily.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:54
by kismetcapitan
panzermk2 wrote:
kismetcapitan wrote:
ShockedNKansas wrote:T

There are plenty of debates regarding the Five-seveN as a "viable" personal defense handgun. By personal defense, what we really mean is how effective is the weapon against human targets. Since the public does not have ready access to anti-personnel performance of the Five-seveN by the Secret Service or other government/LE agencies, the Fort Hood massacre is really the only source of data available. And it answers many questions that ballistic gel cannot and really should put the argument to rest.
.

Actually there are hundreds almost thousands of reports from south of the boarder. The FsN is the preferred gun of the drug cartels and is used to kill peolpe daily.
Exactly! It boggles my mind when someone calls it a toy, a plinker, or an overpriced .22. If those who commit violent crimes are hip to the lethality of the Five-seveN, it most certainly is more than enough for lawful use in self defense, home invasion, or stopping an extremely violent crime in progress.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 04 Jan 2014, 09:48
by Buffman
But wait I can just post the same thread about small caliber PDW's from the Doc and it's all over :|

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 04 Jan 2014, 09:51
by Rapier1772
You mean the dentist data from 20ys ago?

You forgot the sarcasm font

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 04 Jan 2014, 10:03
by Buffman
That's pink right?

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 04 Jan 2014, 10:29
by kismetcapitan
I just looked at that thread. It's strange, that's for certain. Lots of people citing this test or that test. No one citing the available data on 5.7 performance against humans

Or perhaps their biases lead them to ignore the anti-personnel performance of one cowardly psychiatrist with little handgun experience, armed with a FsN. In the hands of a trained operator highly motivated to protect, it logically will be equally if not more lethal.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 04 Jan 2014, 10:53
by Rapier1772
Buffman wrote:That's pink right?
Yeah but just use the sarcasm button, it will take care of the coloring.

Although perthonally, I'd have gone for a lighter shade. :laugh:

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 07 Feb 2015, 03:21
by Ditch
WASHINGTON — The Army announced Friday that it will award the Purple Heart and its civilian counterpart, the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom, to victims of a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
http://www.stripes.com/news/army-to-awa ... s-1.328220" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 07 Feb 2015, 06:54
by Stitches1974
Ditch wrote:
WASHINGTON — The Army announced Friday that it will award the Purple Heart and its civilian counterpart, the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom, to victims of a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
http://www.stripes.com/news/army-to-awa ... s-1.328220" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
About effing time. It should have been awarded from the get go. Hopefully the special benefits that go along with the award will help some of those families.

Re: Ft. Hood

Posted: 07 Feb 2015, 07:07
by jgreenberg01
Wait, does this mean this was more than your typical workplace violence by an individual screaming allahu akbar?