Monday, August 3, 2015

Debunked? The Navy is NOT charging Lt. Commander White with gun crimes after all... so far.

Facebook post from the U.S. Navy confirming that nobody has been charged with an offense. 

Yesterday's post about the rumor that Lt. Commander Timothy White, the commander of the Navy recruiting station that was attacked in Chattanooga, being charged with a gun crime has turned out to be largely unfounded... just like I suspected. The U.S. Navy posted on their official facebook page that no one has been charged in the incident at this time. Though that is not a complete refutation of the article that started this whole kerfuffle, it does shoot down the theory that Lt. Commander White was in immediate danger of being charged. Indeed, it sounds very likely that the story had no basis in fact. 

The story never made much sense in the first place. Though the premise, that the government could follow the letter of the law and charge White with a crime, was plausible, in actuality, the Navy and the President knew that doing so would create a firestorm of criticism. That happened anyways, even though it is extremely unlikely that anyone seriously considered charging Lt. Commander White with a crime. 

After all, the prohibition on carrying firearms at military instillation seems to be on the way out, even if the President and the Navy brass aren't too keen on repealing it. Indeed, the attack on Chattanooga showed that the lower ranks aren't following the rule in the first place. They rightly reasoned it was better to risk a charge then lose their lives in a terror attack. To punish people for trying to defend themselves while breaking an unpopular law that will likely be repealed in the near future would be, quite frankly, even too stupid for the Obama administration. 

And if they DID what to punish White, they could do it in ways that wouldn't attract attention. For example, they could just make sure that he never made the rank of Commander, or just transfer him to an undesirable post. That makes a lot more sense to me then trying him in public and creating a firestorm of controversy. If you are against a cause, like gun rights, it does not make sense to turn someone who is already thought of as a hero and turn him in to a martyr. 

So why did the rumor start in the first place? Well Allen West wrote up a post, citing anonymous sources, saying that White would be charged and basically blamed the whole thing on the Navy and the Obama administration. The whole thing reeked of motivated clickbait and of course it went viral. 

Since the story appears to be false, one has to wonder what really happened. It's clear that the story was premature at the very least, and it should not have been published. I can think of a few options.

1. The story by West scared the Navy enough that they decided to back down and won't be charging White with anything. I am sure this is what West will claim if he ever addresses this point again, but my guess is that won't happen. The story when viral, but almost exclusively on fringe right wing news outlets. The government doesn't care about the right at all under this administration, and I seriously doubt that the fringe would have this much of an impact.

2. West is right and White will be charged. They just need more time to do the investigation. I sincerely doubt that this will happen for all the reasons I listed above. I give it less then a 10% chance of happening. 

3. West had a source that either lied or unintentionally misrepresented what was happening. Without knowing who West's source is we won't be able to tell for sure. But I sincerely doubt that West had a source that had inside knowledge of the case. My guess is that either someone had a grudge against the Obama administration or the Navy top brass and made the whole thing up, which is extremely plausible given how unpopular both of those organizations are right now with the military, or someone heard some un-sourced gossip and passed that info on to West thinking it is real. I think the second option is a very likely outcome because it wouldn't even need someone to outright lie. They could just have repeated something they have heard without properly checking it out and them passed it on to a guy that believed him. I'd put money on this being what happened. 

4. West out and out lied. It's almost impossible to prove that he did. Given his political leanings, he certainly has a motive to do so. But without any evidence that he out and out lied, I'm not comfortable calling him a liar. The jury is still out at this point...  

About the only good thing that came out of this whole debacle is that there is yet another example out there of a good guy with a gun responding to a shooting. It's not clear how much of an effect Lt. Commander White, and the Marine who returned fire and died in the attack, had in stopping the shooting, but you have to think that this helps the cause of gun rights. If nothing else, the gun control advocate's scenario where everyone ends up shooting each other instead of the suspect, did not happen. And again, as far as I know, it has NEVER happened. And even if Lt. Commander White did not shoot or kill the suspect, at the very least he bought time to for the police to arrive and for his fellow sailors and Marines to escape. That also does not fit the gun control advocates scenario. 

A good guy stopping a mass attack happens more often then is covered in the media, and if it wasn't for this pseudo-scandal, it would have been buried in this case as well. I can think of two cases I have posted on this blog alone where good guys stopped someone from committing mass murder. A man with a rifle stopped Muslim man after he had decapitated one woman and was trying to do the same thing to another.  In another case, a doctor at a gun free zone hospital shot a man trying to commit mass murder, allowing another person to tackle the man. That's three examples in the little over a year of doing this blog. And I am sure there are other ones I have missed. 

But the myth that mass shootings are never stopped by good guys with guns will probably never go away. The media is motivated to not cover these kinds of things, since they tend to go alone with our president. Our current administration is incredibly hostile to gun and self defense rights, so it makes it easier to believe that they would do something like charge a man for defending himself during a terrorist attack. Still, we have to remember to not fall for clickbait and to take a critical look at everything. Even if the source matches your world view. Especially if the source matches your worldview! People are always able to spot B.S. from sources that fit the other tribe's narrative, but it's always hard to see it when it is coming from your side... 

No comments:

Post a Comment