# Civilians pretending they're guarding recruiters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 23, 2015, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929 "2015-07-23T04:55:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/241 "2015-08-24T20:33:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Indeed, the chief of staff of the _Army_ is- on the subject of whether or not _Army_ recruiters should be armed. He is not a authority on whether or not a _Navy_ Officer should be in a Court Martial. There’s two different issues and two different Services. Now you’ve managed to pique my curiosity. What, exactly, do you think _Uniform_ means in _Uniform Code of Military Justice_? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/242 "2015-08-24T20:43:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > My quote is on that page too. Try reading- I know it’s hard, with the big words and all.:rolleyes: You do realize you’re wrong here, don’t you? Specifically, you are committing the error of _fallacy of composition_. Go look that one up. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/243 "2015-08-24T21:26:28Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You do realize you’re wrong here, don’t you? Specifically, you are committing the error of _fallacy of composition_. Go look that one up. I’ve just come to the conclusion that he’s probably committing the fallacy of being freaking insane. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/244 "2015-08-24T21:45:25Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Yet again, you lie. I did not “dis” anything other than your ridiculous patter. > … > > You show rather a limited (read: zero) understanding of what I–or anyone else, for that matter–did in the US Navy. > > I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked this–mainly because I never bothered to count that–but here goes again: Exactly what part of my ship–bow, stern, keel, superstructure–was not at sea with the rest of the ship? You see (actually, you don’t), I was not “behind the lines”. I was on a ship. > > My opinion is based on the law and regulations, not on politics. > > Then, since you’re the one who thinks military experience trumps law and regulation on this issue, you really should stop your prattling. > > Then you should know what the law says about military in the US performing “civilian law enforcement”, shouldn’t you? You should also be aware of the rationale behind background checks and discipline in a law enforcement organization as opposed to, say, having a “bunch of armed yokels” pretending to guard a very select few places with military recruiters present. > > And where did I say that about you, liar? > > Let’s see…I was approximately two years into my retirement after a full career in the US military, something I managed to do without violating the law and regulations regarding carrying unauthorized weapons. I was still subject to recall as, being approximately two years into my retirement means that I was in the Fleet Reserve. > > Yet again, you show that you really do not know what happens in the US Navy. > > Class: How many times is it now that twerp’s shown how stupid he is? > > Hey, DD, Let’s try this again: I have posted a number of questions in this thread. Perhaps you would care to answer, say, just the last three, quoted here for your convenience: > > On the positive side, **D\_Odds** is still [correct](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18546459&postcount=100). 1. You said there was no way my Dad would have been allowed to carry a sidearm as a E7. 2. Yeah, how dare I take what you said for granted? “6 1/2 years, United States Army, Active Duty, separated at the rank of Specialist (5), transferred to the drilling Reserve. 13 months drilling with the Army Reserve, separated from Reserves upon enlistment into the US Navy. 13 1/2 years, United States Navy, Active Duty, retired as Personnelman First Class.” 3. Do you have the **Combat Action Ribbon**? Serving _in_ a Combat Zone is different from being in Combat. 4. I think the Secretary of the Navy knows more about Military law and regulations than a Personnelman First Class. Now if you were the Judge Advocate General or one of their lawyers, then yes your opinion on Military law and regulations would be considered “expert”. I’d really like to see a E6 telling a Full Captain from the JAG’s office that they are a “pussy wimp coward incompetent” and that the Personnelman First Class opinion is worth more. it would be fun. Well,\* for me to watch\*, not for the soon to be E1. 5 My answer to your questions are: That a Full Captain or even Cmdr from the JAG’s office or higher ranking member will likely make that decision, not a GS 11 Fed _or_ a E6 Personnelman. (Now, if it was Moneylaundering, then I am a certified expert.) So, if we do get a Full Captain from the JAG’s office or higher ranking member in that Office come in and give their opinion, I will listen to it with all due deference. Until then, I’ll have to take the word of Lt Cmdr Timothy White’s CO (Likely a Captain, maybe a Cmdr) and the Full Captain or higher from the JAG’s office who \*actually decided \*that the Lt Cmdr should not be charged, along with the opinion of the former Secretary of the Navy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/245 "2015-08-24T21:50:50Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Now you’ve managed to pique my curiosity. What, exactly, do you think _Uniform_ means in _Uniform Code of Military Justice_? You dont think the Army has different regs than the Navy? You served in both, you should know that. :dubious: The same Criminal code, yes, but if the Navy decided that they should allow their recruiters to be armed, the Army doesnt have to do that same. Of course the Joint Chiefs and the Secy of Defense can overide them along with POTUS and Congress. And, clearly the Uniform Code of Military Justice does nto say “You have to prosecute this crime every time” otherwise the Navy wouldnt have made the decision to not prosecute. Are you saying the UCoMJ\* requires\* prosecution? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/246 "2015-08-24T21:58:21Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Then you should know what the law says about military in the US performing “civilian law enforcement”, shouldn’t you? Missed this one. Yes, but the Military is allowed to arm it’s members on Guard, MP or other duty. You know that. Don’t be obtuse. Carrying a gun for defense is not the same as “civilian law enforcement”. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/247 "2015-08-24T23:32:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 1. You said there was no way my Dad would have been allowed to carry a sidearm as a E7. I refer you back to post #202 in this thread, liar. > [@](#): > > 1. How dare I take what you said for granted? “6 1/2 years, United States Army, Active Duty, separated at the rank of Specialist (5), transferred to the drilling Reserve. 13 months drilling with the Army Reserve, separated from Reserves upon enlistment into the US Navy. 13 1/2 years, United States Navy, Active Duty, retired as Personnelman First Class.” Your point? Your _relevant_ point, I mean? > [@](#): > > 1. Do you have the **Combat Action Ribbon**? Serving _in_ a Combat Zone is different from being in Combat. Yeah. What’s up with the enemy not shooting at everyone in the zone? I was not wounded nor was I directly shot at. Still more experience in a freaking combat zone than you. > [@](#): > > 1. I think the Secretary of the Navy knows more about Military law and regulations than a Personnelman First Class. Now if you were the Judge Advocate General or one of their lawyers, then yes your opinion on Military law and regulations would be considered “expert”. I’d really like to see a E6 telling a Full Captain from the JAG’s office that they are a “pussy wimp coward incompetent” and that the Personnelman First Class opinion is worth more. it would be fun. Well,\* for me to watch\*, not for the soon to be E1. I’m no longer on active duty. I can say any blame thing I want to about them. There is absolutely no way that any of the individuals you mention could reduce my pay grade. As it is, your answer is a non-answer. I specifically asked (let me put it bullet point format so you can follow it more easily): [ol][li]So, if you can manage to answer without your trolling comments, what do you think would have happened had that officer been searched the day before this event and the unauthorized weapon found on him?[/li][li] What do you think will happen, say, tomorrow, if during one of the random searches at a base entrance, another service member (regardless of rank) is discovered to have an unauthorized weapon on their person or in their vehicle?[/li][li]Do you seriously think that “I’m just protecting myself and others” will fly?[/ol][/li] > [@](#): > > 5 My answer to your questions are: That a Full Captain or even Cmdr from the JAG’s office or higher ranking member will likely make that decision, not a GS 11 Fed _or_ a E6 Personnelman. (Now, if it was Moneylaundering, then I am a certified expert.) So, if we do get a Full Captain from the JAG’s office or higher ranking member in that Office come in and give their opinion, I will listen to it with all due deference. Until then, I’ll have to take the word of Lt Cmdr Timothy White’s CO (Likely a Captain, maybe a Cmdr) and the Full Captain or higher from the JAG’s office who \*actually decided \*that the Lt Cmdr should not be charged, along with the opinion of the former Secretary of the Navy. And that still doesn’t address the questions put to you. Oh, and the individuals you mentioned had no way of knowing in advance of the attacks under discussion that said attacks would happen. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/248 "2015-08-24T23:35:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And, clearly the Uniform Code of Military Justice does nto say “You have to prosecute this crime every time” otherwise the Navy wouldnt have made the decision to not prosecute. Are you saying the UCoMJ\* requires\* prosecution? :dubious: So, you’re admitting that the Naval officer who had an unauthorized weapon on base was, in fact, breaking the law. Nice to know. I now return the audience to the _Insane DD show_. Enjoy! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/249 "2015-08-25T18:32:43Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I refer you back to post #202 in this thread, liar. > > Yeah. What’s up with the enemy not shooting at everyone in the zone? I was not wounded nor was I directly shot at. Still more experience in a freaking combat zone than you. > > As it is, your answer is a non-answer. I specifically asked (let me put it bullet point format so you can follow it more easily): > > [ol][li]So, if you can manage to answer without your trolling comments, what do you think would have happened had that officer been searched the day before this event and the unauthorized weapon found on him?[/li][li] What do you think will happen, say, tomorrow, if during one of the random searches at a base entrance, another service member (regardless of rank) is discovered to have an unauthorized weapon on their person or in their vehicle?[/li][li]Do you seriously think that “I’m just protecting myself and others” will fly?[/ol][/li] > And that still doesn’t address the questions put to you. Oh, and the individuals you mentioned had no way of knowing in advance of the attacks under discussion that said attacks would happen. _“E-7 issued a weapon in the US to have with him at all times? When was this?” " I do doubt that he was carrying a sidearm when he was not on a specific duty. And “He was always on duty” has just as much truth to it as “Every Marine’s primary MOS is Infantryman”. When not on specific duties specifically requiring arms, the service member is not issued the arms. "_ **Do you have the Combat Action Ribbon?** My answer again is :_That a Full Captain or even Cmdr from the JAG’s office or higher ranking member will likely make that decision, not a GS 11 Fed or a E6 Personnelman._ Now, based upon what happened at my post of duty, what would happen is if the Officer had a good record and no one else knew, he’d be asked to quietly leave and not bring it back, and no record would be made of the incident. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/250 "2015-08-25T18:33:53Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > So, you’re admitting that the Naval officer who had an unauthorized weapon on base was, in fact, breaking the law. Nice to know. Everyone breaks the law every day. Justice is deciding when and if to make a big deal over it. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/251 "2015-08-25T22:01:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _“E-7 issued a weapon in the US to have with him at all times? When was this?” > " I do doubt that he was carrying a sidearm when he was not on a specific duty. And “He was always on duty” has just as much truth to it as “Every Marine’s primary MOS is Infantryman”. When not on specific duties specifically requiring arms, the service member is not issued the arms. "_ You just proved you are a liar. I obviously did not say what you said I said. > [@](#): > > My answer again is :_That a Full Captain or even Cmdr from the JAG’s office or higher ranking member will likely make that decision, not a GS 11 Fed or a E6 Personnelman._[ You’re just twisting in the wind here. And what the heck is a “Full Captain”. The US Navy does not have “Lieutenant Captain”; there is just the one level of Captain. > [@](#): > > Now, based upon what happened at my post of duty, what would happen is if the Officer had a good record and no one else knew, he’d be asked to quietly leave and not bring it back, and no record would be made of the incident. Oh, you were in the military? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Everyone breaks the law every day. Justice is deciding when and if to make a big deal over it. An unauthorized weapon is not a big deal? Then what’s with all those screening machines around the country. Based on my experience aboard ship–a real ship as opposed to the magical tinker-toy thing which you apparently think it was–when someone caught bringing aboard a can of beer becomes a guest of honor so to speak in the captain’s office, being caught with an unauthorized firearm would likely rise to at least that level of consequence. Do yourself a favor. Post an apology for the lie you’ve posted in this thread and simply stop posting in it. The more you post in this thread, the more you show how dishonest and silly you are. Oh, I forgot to thank you for “deriding” my service when you said you are not "deriding"my service. You’re also showing how much of a jackass you are. [Capeesh](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capeesh?s=t)? Way back in the real world (which I’ve never left, by the way; why don’t you visit it some time? It’s rather nice.), the military is still seeing the unregulated, non-uniformed, not subject to discipline armed civilians as a security threat. Can you explain that without pretending that you know better than the people who are way above my pay grade and, obviously, who happen to be in the military as opposed to someone who has never been in the military like, say, you? ---
**Author:** ![CinnamonBabka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bbce88/32.png) [@CinnamonBabka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CinnamonBabka)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/252 "2015-08-26T16:49:26Z")
So are these guys going to start sitting guard at live TV broadcasts? ---
**Author:** ![bobkitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobkitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobkitty)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/253 "2015-08-26T19:11:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Now, based upon what happened at my post of duty, what would happen is if the Officer had a good record and no one else knew, he’d be asked to quietly leave and not bring it back, and no record would be made of the incident. Bullshit. A few years back a general got tackled by a bunch of baby-faced guards at the Pentagon for trying to bring a gun through security. Only one that got in trouble was the general. If what you say happened somewhere outside of your imagination, it was a serious lapse by whoever “quietly sent him home.” ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2015, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/254 "2015-08-26T23:56:18Z")
> [@bobkitty](#): > > Bullshit. A few years back a general got tackled by a bunch of baby-faced guards at the Pentagon for trying to bring a gun through security. Only one that got in trouble was the general. If what you say happened somewhere outside of your imagination, it was a serious lapse by whoever “quietly sent him home.” How’d you like his assumption that what happens in his civilian law enforcement agency (nice touch, though, wasn’t it, calling it “tour of duty”?) would be representative of how a military offense would be handled in the military’s judicial system? I’m wondering what those civilian LEOs with whom he works/worked and who happen to be military veterans themselves would think of his blather in this thread. Back to reality again. At every one of my duty stations, it was not at all out of the ordinary for general or flag officers to have their own names removed from access rosters to sensitive areas under their command immediately prior to an inspection tour. During the inspection, the general or admiral would be challenged by the guard for that area and when the guard denied them entry, the officer would order the guard to let them in because, of course, the guard knew who they were. Only once in my 20 years did a guard let the general in. It was not a good experience for the guard. Of course, once that security procedure been checked and either passed or failed, the general or flag officer would have their name added and the inspection would continue. Have you ever heard of an anchor pool? I wonder if I should start one here for when DD’s going to post that apology. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/255 "2015-08-27T02:06:57Z")
> [@CinnamonBabka](#): > > So are these guys going to start sitting guard at live TV broadcasts? If the shooter had been Muslim, I wouldn’t’ve been surprised if those guys “offered their services” to the news stations. But, of course, that might have created a certain irony in and of itself. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2015, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/256 "2015-08-27T03:12:34Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > How’d you like his assumption that what happens in his civilian law enforcement agency (nice touch, though, wasn’t it, calling it “tour of duty”?) would be representative of how a military offense would be handled in the military’s judicial system? I’m wondering what those civilian LEOs with whom he works/worked and who happen to be military veterans themselves would think of his blather in this thread. I said “_post of duty_” which is correct. And, I’ll point out that Lt Cmdr Timothy White _wasn’t_ charged, thus it’s not as black and white as you claim. Thus, we have one example, and in that one example,\* no charges were filed. \* If charges were automatic, then he’d have been charged, no? Can you find a cite recently when a Officer was charged for simply carrying? Ps- since the Army also has “captains” which are a 03 and not a 06, my Dad used to say “Full Captain” referring to the Navy guys, as in “Full Colonel” (aka “Full Bird Colonel”), which a Navy Captain is equivalent to. I am surprised, given your long service you never heard that. Or, maybe it’s a WWII thing. Or maybe you’re gonna insult his record again. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2015, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/257 "2015-08-27T03:16:34Z")
Oh, and again:Do you have the **Combat Action Ribbon**? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2015, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/258 "2015-08-27T04:31:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I said “_post of duty_” which is correct. > > And, I’ll point out that Lt Cmdr Timothy White _wasn’t_ charged, thus it’s not as black and white as you claim. Thus, we have one example, and in that one example,\* no charges were filed. \* If charges were automatic, then he’d have been charged, no? > > Can you find a cite recently when a Officer was charged for simply carrying? The only thing I’m claiming is black & white is the fact that the man was carrying an unauthorized weapon. Didn’t you already admit that was the case? I never said that charges would be filed automatically. > [@](#): > > Ps- since the Army also has “captains” which are a 03 and not a 06, my Dad used to say “Full Captain” referring to the Navy guys, as in “Full Colonel” (aka “Full Bird Colonel”), which a Navy Captain is equivalent to. I am surprised, given your long service you never heard that. Or, maybe it’s a WWII thing. Or maybe you’re gonna insult his record again. The way I read that is that you’re just making up stuff now. (Not that you haven’t done that already in this thread, mind you.) My father who is a retired US Army Colonel, my brother who graduated from West Point and left the Army as a major, and my other brother who retired from the Army Reserves as a Lieutenant Colonel, never used the term “full captain” nor did anyone at all I encountered in my time in the Army or in the Navy. What people I met who really were in the military said to distinguish the difference when needed between an Army captain and a Navy captain was: [ul][li]_Referring to an Army captain:_ “Army captain”[/li][li]_Referring to a Navy captain:_ “Navy captain”[/ul][/li] Gee, aren’t anecdotes about military relatives as support fun? I’m not insulting his record. I’m insulting _you_. Try to distinguish the two. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Oh, and again:Do you have the **Combat Action Ribbon**? Thought I answered that: Nope. Do you? But, hey, I still have more experience in a combat zone than you do; and I still have more experience in the military than you do. And my battle station wasn’t at a freaking typewriter. I’ve also lost count of how many times I’ve mentioned this: military service or lack thereof has no bearing on the issue at hand. That issue is the unregulated, untrained, undisciplined “yokels with guns” pretending to guard recruiting offices. I do find it amusing, though, that both you and aruvquan think it matters when neither of you has been in the military. I guess my opinion doesn’t count because, according to you two jerks, my military experience isn’t good enough. So, are you going to apologize for your lie? You’re a jackass. You really should’ve taken my advice to you in Post #251. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2015, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/259 "2015-08-27T12:19:48Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I said “_post of duty_” which is correct. > > And, I’ll point out that Lt Cmdr Timothy White _wasn’t_ charged, thus it’s not as black and white as you claim. Thus, we have one example, and in that one example,\* no charges were filed. \* If charges were automatic, then he’d have been charged, no? > > Can you find a cite recently when a Officer was charged for simply carrying? > > Ps- since the Army also has “captains” which are a 03 and not a 06, my Dad used to say “Full Captain” referring to the Navy guys, as in “Full Colonel” (aka “Full Bird Colonel”), which a Navy Captain is equivalent to. I am surprised, given your long service you never heard that. Or, maybe it’s a WWII thing. Or maybe you’re gonna insult his record again. Since we are using our fathers as definitive cites I will use my father the Marine. He told me when I went into the military that the military justice system was in his experience the fairest around. That is until it was a case that hit the news. Then the outcome was most likely what will make the service look better in the eyes of the public and politically. That is what happened here. You have presidential candidates saying he was a hero and shouldn’t be punished. Charging him would make the military look bad. There are other ways that they will take care of the issue. I will be surprised if he makes O-5. And in 28 years in uniform I have never heard anyone say “Full Captain.” It sounds ridiculous. Along with those 28 years I have been on 2 deployments in joint units. Joint means they were made up of personnel from all branches so I worked closely with the Navy. If anyone needed to clarify if someone was a Navy Captain we would say “Navy Captain.” Or maybe Navy O-6. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2015, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929/260 "2015-08-27T13:23:10Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Since we are using our fathers as definitive cites I will use my father the Marine. Can I use my brother, the Point grad, again? He spent about five years assigned to a joint unit where there were Air Force officers junior to him; and my brother’s opinion on whether they should face UCMJ action could have been rather relevant had those USAF officers violated regulations. Being in a different service does not disqualify someone from certain things, such as using their brain. Does anyone have advice on how I should run the anchor pool for that apology? Seems to me that charging more for the most likely answers is tacky, not to mention rather unfair. “Never”, of course, is the front runner in that category. On the other hand, I really don’t want to charge any money as that would be condoning actual gambling. The next question is what kind of prize. I’m leaning towards a nice [G. I. Joe](http://www.hasbro.com/en-us/toys-games/g-i-joe/) figure so that the winner can pretend to be in the military but, of course, in a perfectly acceptable way to so pretend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civilians-pretending-theyre-guarding-recruiters/725929.md?page=14)