Shootout at Walter Reed

[Kwaipie]

Juicy Bits

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A security guard at Walter Reed Army Medical Center opened fire at another guard Wednesday outside a busy entrance to the hospital, police said. No one was injured.

The guards had been arguing at about 8:30 a.m. when one of them fired as many as 10 shots, Lt. Jimmie Riley said.

The other guard, who was not hit, ran to a nearby house to call police, Riley said. The guard who fired the shots was taken into custody.

"We're very fortunate," Riley said. "It could've been tragic."

The guards are employed by a private security firm, which is under contract to Walter Reed.

Police did not immediately release the identities of the guards.

The hospital in Washington is the Army's premier center for treating injured soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.


Why do we have private contractors securing military facilities? You can't tell me it is less expensive than throwing a couple privates out there to provide security.

 

[Siddhartha]

"Would this have happen if everyone had a gun?"

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Why do we have private contractors securing military facilities? You can't tell me it is less expensive than throwing a couple privates out there to provide security.

Good question.

Oh, and I'm not buying it's because they're all deployed:

Geographic Distribution of U.S. Military Personnel (AD)
Total Number on Active Duty 1,381,401
United States and Territories 1,092,586
Europe and Former Soviet Union 97,658
East Asia and Pacific 78,369
Africa, Near East, and South Asia 8,254
Western Hemisphere (excluding USA) 2,112
Undistributed 102,422

Link

Fern

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie



Why do we have private contractors securing military facilities? You can't tell me it is less expensive than throwing a couple privates out there to provide security.

Security at most military installations is contracted out to private security. You would have to create a new MOS if you intended to have soldiers guard every installation. It's just not feasible to provide a guard force; soldiers also have day to day jobs in the military when they are in garrison to include maintenance, paperwork, training, etc.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Military Police provide security at larger installations, but by and large, security is maintained by private contractors...there simply aren't enough active duty personnel to provide this function.

I was stationed in Germany when 9/11 happened...shortly thereafter, all of the bases in Germany became secure, with checkpoints controlling the flow of people in and out...prior to that, the bases were largely open gated.

Initially, the units stationed on our base rotated through checkpoint security duty, which was a huge drain on resources and impacted our training schedule...eventually, all of the bases switched over to private security contractors.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Why do we have private contractors securing military facilities? You can't tell me it is less expensive than throwing a couple privates out there to provide security.

Good question.

Oh, and I'm not buying it's because they're all deployed:

Geographic Distribution of U.S. Military Personnel (AD)
Total Number on Active Duty 1,381,401
United States and Territories 1,092,586
Europe and Former Soviet Union 97,658
East Asia and Pacific 78,369
Africa, Near East, and South Asia 8,254
Western Hemisphere (excluding USA) 2,112
Undistributed 102,422

Link

Fern

That is a snapshot of where military members are stationed permanently. It does not include deployments of which we have over 155,000 in Iraq alone now.

BTW, privates are more expensive than you think. Add in all the training, gear and so forth, it is much cheaper usually to turn basic security at certain installations over to private contractors.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Why do we have private contractors securing military facilities? You can't tell me it is less expensive than throwing a couple privates out there to provide security.

Good question.

Oh, and I'm not buying it's because they're all deployed:

Geographic Distribution of U.S. Military Personnel (AD)
Total Number on Active Duty 1,381,401
United States and Territories 1,092,586
Europe and Former Soviet Union 97,658
East Asia and Pacific 78,369
Africa, Near East, and South Asia 8,254
Western Hemisphere (excluding USA) 2,112
Undistributed 102,422

Link

Fern

That is a snapshot of where military members are stationed permanently. It does not include deployments of which we have over 155,000 in Iraq alone now.

BTW, privates are more expensive than you think. Add in all the training, gear and so forth, it is much cheaper usually to turn basic security at certain installations over to private contractors.

In my ten years active duty, I performed plenty of base security. Can we find out how many people are stationed at Walter Reed?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Why do we have private contractors securing military facilities? You can't tell me it is less expensive than throwing a couple privates out there to provide security.

Good question.

Oh, and I'm not buying it's because they're all deployed:

Geographic Distribution of U.S. Military Personnel (AD)
Total Number on Active Duty 1,381,401
United States and Territories 1,092,586
Europe and Former Soviet Union 97,658
East Asia and Pacific 78,369
Africa, Near East, and South Asia 8,254
Western Hemisphere (excluding USA) 2,112
Undistributed 102,422

Link

Fern

It's not because all the soldiers are deployed, but a lot of the ones with security ratings are. The base I was mostly stationed at (Naval Station San Diego) was about 75% military security and 25% civilian. The ships security forces themselves are all military, but as for the sailors stationed on the shore installations, simply put they have other things to do. I worked at a communications repair shop and we didn't stand a single security station, instead we had people on call to go to ships and work on their communications gear day or night. You can't really do that if you're manning a post.

Pretty much it comes down to if the military would rather you use your training to do the job that they "hired" you for, or if they would rather you stand guard. In the end it seems they have chosen the former. This may be somewhat unique to the navy and possibly the air force though, as the army and marines have this sort of training as part of their jobs... and the average navy man is a scary/sad sight when you watch him try to use a gun.

 

[Lemon law]

At least no one was even hurt---so it can tickle the funny bone---all except for the guard that fired the gun--that fellow may be in a heap of trouble. But was probably an accident waiting to happen anyway.

 

[Darwin333]

Did anyone else notice that this was a guard at a U.S. military building; he fired 10 shots and didn't hit a darn thing? Not to mention, if they where arguing at the time that implies he was at a pretty close range.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

A security guard is a mercenary? Try again spanky.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Did anyone else notice that this was a guard at a U.S. military building; he fired 10 shots and didn't hit a darn thing? Not to mention, if they where arguing at the time that implies he was at a pretty close range.

Not up to the Jack Bauer standard? They paid for cheap and they got cheap!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

Well, as soon as we start using primarily mercenaries from our "occupied territories" who have no interest in/cannot obtain citizenship then I'll buy the Roman comparison.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

A security guard is a mercenary? Try again spanky.

Sure, Yep, Ahuh, hired muscle. Loyal to the paycheck. Mercenary as, in only for the money, it is the definition. They don't take an oath like doctors, police, soldiers or serve a calling like firefighters, EMTs, rescue workers.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

A security guard is a mercenary? Try again spanky.

Sure, Yep, Ahuh, hired muscle. Loyal to the paycheck. Mercenary as, in only for the money, it is the definition. They don't take an oath like doctors, police, soldiers or serve a calling like firefighters, EMTs, rescue workers.

Yes, and the last I looked a security guard can just walk away from a situation that looks too dangerous. Just like an Iraqi solier.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

Well, as soon as we start using primarily mercenaries from our "occupied territories" who have no interest in/cannot obtain citizenship then I'll buy the Roman comparison.

Check out the world-wide US bases and the toady Governments that do just that.
Cuba being an exception.

By the way, the "Barbarians" joined the Roman Legions to earn citizenship.
Would than allowing Foreign Nationals to serve in our Military to get citizenship count?
What exactly are the Nationalities of those Independent Security Forces operating in Iraq?
Hiring local Warlords to back up US interests in Afganistan? He((, we once hired Saddam to fight a war with Iran.

 

[boomerang]

Good thing you don't have to be able to shoot and hit anything to get the job. Just shooting is fine. Worked out well in this case.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

A security guard is a mercenary? Try again spanky.

Sure, Yep, Ahuh, hired muscle. Loyal to the paycheck. Mercenary as, in only for the money, it is the definition. They don't take an oath like doctors, police, soldiers or serve a calling like firefighters, EMTs, rescue workers.

Yes, and the last I looked a security guard can just walk away from a situation that looks too dangerous. Just like an Iraqi solier.

Yep, that's right, a security guard has one main function, look mean and cash his check. Taking bribes to look the other way, do help out the check thing. And what is that crack about Iraq soliers, you know they are all US trained now. By Independent (US tax payer paid) contractors again.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The first sign of decline of the (empire/nation) is the use of mercenaries to replace citizen soldiers. Yes/No/Maybe?

A security guard is a mercenary? Try again spanky.

Sure, Yep, Ahuh, hired muscle. Loyal to the paycheck. Mercenary as, in only for the money, it is the definition. They don't take an oath like doctors, police, soldiers or serve a calling like firefighters, EMTs, rescue workers.

Yes, and the last I looked a security guard can just walk away from a situation that looks too dangerous. Just like an Iraqi solier.

Yep, that's right, a security guard has one main function, look mean and cash his check. Taking bribes to look the other way, do help out the check thing. And what is that crack about Iraq soliers, you know they are all US trained now. By Independent (US tax payer paid) contractors again.

So one security guard firing on another is a sign of the decline of America. Oh boy. Hey, I wonder if he played violent video games?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
"Would this have happen if everyone had a gun?"

:laugh: Everyone is ignoring you.

 

[JD50]

So I just heard on the radio that the shooter is an Army Vet. What was that you all were saying about how much better off we would be without private security? :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Did anyone else notice that this was a guard at a U.S. military building; he fired 10 shots and didn't hit a darn thing? Not to mention, if they where arguing at the time that implies he was at a pretty close range.

I figured he wasn't really trying to actually hit the other guard. Scare tactic maybe.

 

[Lemon law]

As Jd50 says---So I just heard on the radio that the shooter is an Army Vet. What was that you all were saying about how much better off we would be without private security?

So maybe this is like Mr. & Mrs. America stuck and frustrated in a traffic jam---and instead of blowing their horn he fires his pistol in the air just to vent frustration. Well, works just as well in this thread which is a collective futile attempt to make sense out of the senseless. Guns don't kill people--people kill people---but guns can be generic equivalents of car horns with slightly different ring tones.---and a form of constitutional protected free speech even Dick Cheney would love.

Just an another alternative version of what the guard may say when it comes time to tell it to the judge. Your Honor---this is just a giant misunderstanding it really was---insert excuse.---but hey---JD50 may be right.---there really ought to be a nobel prize for the poster closest to the truth on what the guard tells the judge.