7 killed at Ft Hood shooting

[ammo two]

Can someone with more expertise help me out here.
Am I correct in that she was a civilian police officer?
This was on the base itself correct?
If so 1. where were the MPs shooting at the guy? 2. How did she get on the base? I am not understanding how this works.

DOD police. Lot's of MP's are deployed overseas so the military tends to rely on civil service and contractors to provide security at military installations at home.

[frazzled]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

[Purplehood]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

What are "troopers"?

[frazzled]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

What are "troopers"?

Soldiers, military, guys with the short haircuts.

[Lodge2004]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

Soldiers are expensive and in short supply. It's all about using the resources you have wisely. Contractors/civilians are less expensive and free up soldiers to train and/or deploy.

[frazzled]

Again, thanks!

Also, looks like he was trying to contact Al Qaeda and at least someone somewhere had intercepted.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... id=9030873" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[57Coastie]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

What are "troopers"?

Simple, Purplehood.

We have Texas State Troopers, Star Wars Troopers, and even a drumcorps in Wyoming.
http://www.troopersdrumcorps.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

[frazzled]

Don't forget Supertroopers!

[Purplehood]

Wow, in 24 years I was never called a Trooper (USMC or USA). I learn something new every day.

[stevie_d_64]

I see that the discussion about radical islam has tapered off...And that might be a good thing...

The only thing I will interject, if those around here like to read...

I recently finished a book by Joel Rosenberg called, "Inside the Revolution"...It basically covers the whole spectrum of the issue, and packaged up a few things I already knew, in a way that made the rest of the investigation he made come together in a very good read...

I highly recommend it...

[casingpoint]

Argue the fine points all you want to. When he finally made his move, Hasan fell back on the role espoused for sleeper cells by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, acknowledged terrorists. I defer to Sen. Lieberman to pin the tail on this donkey.

[karder]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

There is a big difference between being a solider and being a law enforcement officer. The training, goals and missions of each is very different. While most police departments like to hire new recruits with military experience, this is because veterans tend to be disciplined, mature, understand chain of command and know how to take orders, not because they are trained in police work, with the exception of MPs of course. This situation would not have been solved by better security. Our troops need to have the same right to carry and defend themselves as the rest of the population. To have trained soldiers gunned down because they don't have access to their weapons is criminal.

[casingpoint]

To have trained soldiers gunned down because they don't have access to their weapons is criminal

Just finished watching Ft. Hood Commandant Lt. Gen Cone at a press conference on base via FOX network. From what he said, he isn't getting it. But he doesn't sound stupid, and he looked and acted a little tight lipped.

[Purplehood]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

There is a big difference between being a solider and being a law enforcement officer. The training, goals and missions of each is very different. While most police departments like to hire new recruits with military experience, this is because veterans tend to be disciplined, mature, understand chain of command and know how to take orders, not because they are trained in police work, with the exception of MPs of course. This situation would not have been solved by better security. Our troops need to have the same right to carry and defend themselves as the rest of the population. To have trained soldiers gunned down because they don't have access to their weapons is criminal.

I have been reluctant to address this issue, but it has popped-up in regards to the Ft Hood shooting several times. That issue is the concept of allowing the members of our Armed Forces to have constant access to guns.
Now being an advocate of the 2A, and being a veteran of the Marines and Army with a total of 24 years service, I am reluctant to admit that I continue to be in favor of weapons being kept in Armories until needed for training and/or mobilization. Please keep in mind that I mean this only for garrison troops in a non-combat environment, such as bases in the Continental USA only.
Having been in a combat zone (and I don't mean in the rear with the gear), I fully support and agree with every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine carrying 24/7. I even carried my pistol to the shower. You never know when Charlie (or Achmed) is going to crawl into your hooch and try to send you onto the great PCS in the sky.

Back in the USA, we now have the specter of domestic Terrorism as evidenced by the recent events at Ft. Hood. Loud and vociferous statements are being made to the effect that our Men and Women should be carrying their weapons at all times. I beg to differ, and here is why:

In a combat zone (especially the Middle East) the servicemember is subject to a completely different code of conduct than back home. In Iraq and Afghanistan we were all subject to General Order Number One. No alcohol, and no sex (unless you were a married couple, only exception I was made aware of). Period. Besides, you couldnt go to a Bar or a party or a ballgame or whatever that was not a unit-sponsored event only. So the only folks around were us servicemembers and us servicemembers. So we all had our weapons. We were also all sober, knew the members of our units and didn't let anyone leave a weapon lying around forgotten.

In the US it is a world of difference (gawd I love puns). There are dependents (spouse and children) everywhere. There are young servicemembers that are out for the first time in their "adult" lives, couldn't afford college and are now learning to work during the day and party during the night. How do you secure weapons in the barracks, base-housing or worse yet, off-base housing (which is more common than you might think)? Ever seen a barracks on a Friday night or weekend? Crickets and tumble-weeds are floating down the hallways. Anyone with wire-cutters would have a field-day. It ain't like boot-camp where someone is guarding the weapons 24/7. It could be, but it isn't.
Do you want Moms and Dads toting their M-16/M-4 to the Commissary, PX (the mall) or the Base Hospital while carrying a couple of squealing toddlers?

The Military would than have to look at liability issues. How do you provide, inspect and insure that all weapons are secure at a married-couples base or off-base residence? What do we do when Pvt. Such-and-Such goes UA or AWOL with his/her weapon?

As it presently stands, troops (not Troopers) in garrison do not keep their weapons until they are required for training. They are kept in Armories where they are accounted for, clean and maintained. Military Police and Federal Police handle the task of security.

What about my rights as an American Servicemember to carry open or concealed? It is my personal belief that while in uniform you do not enjoy many of the Civil Rights that the typical civilian might enjoy. We do not have the Right to Free Speech. We do not have the Right to unreasonable search and seizure (as compared to a Civilian - it is different but tightly controlled). We do not have the right to simply walk off the job if it no longer pleases us. And we do not have the right to bear arms until and unless it is considered a requirement of our duties. I accepted these infringements on my rights when I enlisted so many moons ago. I don't foresee any radical changes to the idea of Gun Control on Military Bases in the near or distant future until and unless open warfare reaches our shores.

[frazzled]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

There is a big difference between being a solider and being a law enforcement officer. The training, goals and missions of each is very different. While most police departments like to hire new recruits with military experience, this is because veterans tend to be disciplined, mature, understand chain of command and know how to take orders, not because they are trained in police work, with the exception of MPs of course. This situation would not have been solved by better security. Our troops need to have the same right to carry and defend themselves as the rest of the population. To have trained soldiers gunned down because they don't have access to their weapons is criminal.

I have been reluctant to address this issue, but it has popped-up in regards to the Ft Hood shooting several times. That issue is the concept of allowing the members of our Armed Forces to have constant access to guns.
Now being an advocate of the 2A, and being a veteran of the Marines and Army with a total of 24 years service, I am reluctant to admit that I continue to be in favor of weapons being kept in Armories until needed for training and/or mobilization. Please keep in mind that I mean this only for garrison troops in a non-combat environment, such as bases in the Continental USA only.
Having been in a combat zone (and I don't mean in the rear with the gear), I fully support and agree with every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine carrying 24/7. I even carried my pistol to the shower. You never know when Charlie (or Achmed) is going to crawl into your hooch and try to send you onto the great PCS in the sky.

Back in the USA, we now have the specter of domestic Terrorism as evidenced by the recent events at Ft. Hood. Loud and vociferous statements are being made to the effect that our Men and Women should be carrying their weapons at all times. I beg to differ, and here is why:

In a combat zone (especially the Middle East) the servicemember is subject to a completely different code of conduct than back home. In Iraq and Afghanistan we were all subject to General Order Number One. No alcohol, and no sex (unless you were a married couple, only exception I was made aware of). Period. Besides, you couldnt go to a Bar or a party or a ballgame or whatever that was not a unit-sponsored event only. So the only folks around were us servicemembers and us servicemembers. So we all had our weapons. We were also all sober, knew the members of our units and didn't let anyone leave a weapon lying around forgotten.

In the US it is a world of difference (gawd I love puns). There are dependents (spouse and children) everywhere. There are young servicemembers that are out for the first time in their "adult" lives, couldn't afford college and are now learning to work during the day and party during the night. How do you secure weapons in the barracks, base-housing or worse yet, off-base housing (which is more common than you might think)? Ever seen a barracks on a Friday night or weekend? Crickets and tumble-weeds are floating down the hallways. Anyone with wire-cutters would have a field-day. It ain't like boot-camp where someone is guarding the weapons 24/7. It could be, but it isn't.
Do you want Moms and Dads toting their M-16/M-4 to the Commissary, PX (the mall) or the Base Hospital while carrying a couple of squealing toddlers?

The Military would than have to look at liability issues. How do you provide, inspect and insure that all weapons are secure at a married-couples base or off-base residence? What do we do when Pvt. Such-and-Such goes UA or AWOL with his/her weapon?

As it presently stands, troops (not Troopers) in garrison do not keep their weapons until they are required for training. They are kept in Armories where they are accounted for, clean and maintained. Military Police and Federal Police handle the task of security.

What about my rights as an American Servicemember to carry open or concealed? It is my personal belief that while in uniform you do not enjoy many of the Civil Rights that the typical civilian might enjoy. We do not have the Right to Free Speech. We do not have the Right to unreasonable search and seizure (as compared to a Civilian - it is different but tightly controlled). We do not have the right to simply walk off the job if it no longer pleases us. And we do not have the right to bear arms until and unless it is considered a requirement of our duties. I accepted these infringements on my rights when I enlisted so many moons ago. I don't foresee any radical changes to the idea of Gun Control on Military Bases in the near or distant future until and unless open warfare reaches our shores.

Working under that proviso mayhaps adjutstment such that sergeants, officers, and additional designated personnel be armed (pistol level sidearms).