7 killed in shootings at Fort Hood, Pentagon says

[RU OX Alum]

This is so horrible. I hate even thinking about how it went down. Just two people with handguns did this.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

This is so horrible. I hate even thinking about how it went down. Just two people with handguns did this.

Two people with handguns carried out the physical act, but several other people should be blamed as well. It wasn't a huge secret that he was unstable and on the verge of snapping. The information I have read said that they knew he was extremely disgruntled as well. One person commented that this behavior was in line with what he would have expected from this person.

All of this, but no one saw fit to do something that would have prevented him from doing this.

I'm definitely in prayer for the victims and their loved ones, but I'm getting tired of mass killings by people who exhibited signs of instability and others just stood back and watched. Maybe it is time for these people who know this stuff to be held accountable in some way.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

This is so horrible. I hate even thinking about how it went down. Just two people with handguns did this.

Just one killer, and one serviceman who brought him down.

I am positively thrilled that this will heard in a military court, and not some namby-pamby civilian court.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I am positively thrilled that this will heard in a military court, and not some namby-pamby civilian court.

I'm assuming this is because of the death penalty, but military courts actually use the death penalty WAY less than any others. Additionally, military courts are MUCH more "fair" (not necessarily lenient) in their rules and procedures than most jurisdictions, at least in my opinion.

"Namby-pamby" is entirely misplaced here. If anything, military courts are less likely to enact the strictest penalty (assuming that's death, in your opinion).

I'd assume he'll still be put to death as a result, but he'll be a marked rarity.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Little known fact, but most base security in the US is actually done by civilian police officers employed by the DoD. Both of the people who stopped the attack were civilian base police officers.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm assuming this is because of the death penalty, but military courts actually use the death penalty WAY less than any others. Additionally, military courts are MUCH more "fair" (not necessarily lenient) in their rules and procedures than most jurisdictions, at least in my opinion.

"Namby-pamby" is entirely misplaced here. If anything, military courts are less likely to enact the strictest penalty (assuming that's death, in your opinion).

I'd assume he'll still be put to death as a result, but he'll be a marked rarity.

I stand (sit) corrected on both counts. My knowledge of military courts is pretty much limited to the 19th century.

There is a part of me who doesn't want him to be martyred, either. I also don't want to see any of the Armed Forces put on trial for not reporting Hassan for his prior "problems", either.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I stand (sit) corrected on both counts. My knowledge of military courts is pretty much limited to the 19th century.

There is a part of me who doesn't want him to be martyred, either. I also don't want to see any of the Armed Forces put on trial for not reporting Hassan for his prior "problems", either.

I agree with most of this, but the more we learn about the warning signs, the more I wonder if it won't take a "public" airing of the laundry to get changes made, or even address what happened.

It's actually a really deep issue . . . were the warning signs ignored because, as some (particularly right-wing) pundits have offered, individuals didn't want to appear like they were singling out a Muslim? Were these issues fully examined and deemed noteworthy but ultimately unactionable (I really, really hope this winds up being the case)? Was it a communications break-down? It's traumatic and basically a one-off incident, but is it indicative of a cultural issue within the military (or the interaction between the FBI/law enforcement and the military, or similar)?

While the trial is basically open-and-shut, the ancillary issues are fascinating.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I agree with most of this, but the more we learn about the warning signs, the more I wonder if it won't take a "public" airing of the laundry to get changes made, or even address what happened.

It's actually a really deep issue . . . were the warning signs ignored because, as some (particularly right-wing) pundits have offered, individuals didn't want to appear like they were singling out a Muslim? Were these issues fully examined and deemed noteworthy but ultimately unactionable (I really, really hope this winds up being the case)? Was it a communications break-down? It's traumatic and basically a one-off incident, but is it indicative of a cultural issue within the military (or the interaction between the FBI/law enforcement and the military, or similar)?

While the trial is basically open-and-shut, the ancillary issues are fascinating.

This is fasincinating no matter how you look at it, but yes, I think you have it right. Here's a question for you, however: if someone is known to have ties with Al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, should he or she be permitted to be in the US military?

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by honeychile

This is fancinating no matter how you look at it, but yes, I think you have it right. Here's a question for you, however: if someone is known to have ties with Al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, should he or she be permitted to be in the US military?

They shouldn't be allowed in the US PERIOD, let alone the military.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

This is fancinating no matter how you look at it, but yes, I think you have it right. Here's a question for you, however: if someone is known to have ties with Al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, should he or she be permitted to be in the US military?

Of course he shouldn't be allowed in the US military. That's the reason why the process should likely be put on trial. What did the Army (or FBI) know? When? What was done about it? Why/why not?

I don't think the shooter had substantive ties to al Qaeda - everything I've seen was deemed harmless/for research purposes by those "in the know" - but the very specter makes me reject the notion of "not putting the military on trial" in this case.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I

I also don't want to see any of the Armed Forces put on trial for not reporting Hassan for his prior "problems", either.

I do. They should be.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I do. They should be.

Why do you feel that way?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Why do you feel that way?

Because it makes me angry how often there have been red flags in most of these mass killings, but people just chose to sweep it under the rug or ignore it. I think in many instances, had something been done, we might not have lost so many lives. Maybe if there is a public airing of sorts and some blame starts being cast, new policies and guidelines will be put in place.