Shooting at NAVSEA

[PhrogLoop]

So the Navy Yard shooter was apparently on our base last fall here in San Diego. Yesterday my office's receptionist was browsing online news reports about the shooting and swore she recognized the guy. At the time, she was the receptionist at our Regional Operations Center and she remembered coming to conduct the tech refresh for NMCI and says he swapped out some computers. To be sure, she called the ROC supervisor and he looked up the sign in records and confirmed it was him, 2 days last November. Interestingly, she remembers him being all smiles and chatty. He even asked her out! He wanted to know where were good places to hang out in the evening and she suggested Gaslamp. He then asked her to join him and she politely declined. Creepy, huh?

 

[feddoc]

Creepy is right. Too close for comfort.

 

[PenguinGal]

It is a terrible reminder that we never know with whom we are dealing or what might push them over the edge.

Though I didn't have the honor of knowing those who were injured and lost their lives, I do mourn for them and their families/friends. I also pray for those that were there but made it out without physical injury. I cannot imagine trying to go to again after something like that. Heck, I was freaked out enough after my office in Jax was evacuated for a suspected anthrax attack. (A US Senator's office was in the same building and received a letter with white powder in it.)

 

[wink]

So I read he didn't need a waiver to enlist in 2006 after a gun involved arrest in Seattle. Really?! That wouldn't have happened in all the years I was recruiting. I know we loosened up a bit during the height of OEF/OIF, but they all required waivers. He apparently gets General Discharge for conduct (including a gun incident) and gets to keep his Secret clearance. WTF. Police report his insane behavior to Navy Norfolk, and it doesn't get a rise out of anyone? We won't (shouldn't) even talk about Navy Yard security. But we all know a CAAC card doesn't allow you to bring guns onto the base. Has it gotten so bad no one is willing to make a judgment call anymore. No one is willing to take an extra minute to ask some crucial questions. I know the Navy is hurting real bad now. But they are going to have to take it on the chin for this one.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

So I read he didn't need a waiver to enlist in 2006 after a gun involved arrest in Seattle. Really?! That wouldn't have happened in all the years I was recruiting. I know we loosened up a bit during the height of OEF/OIF, but they all required waivers. He apparently gets General Discharge for conduct (including a gun incident) and gets to keep his Secret clearance. WTF. Police report his insane behavior to Navy Norfolk, and it doesn't get a rise out of anyone? We won't (shouldn't) even talk about Navy Yard security. But we all know a CAAC card doesn't allow you to bring guns onto the base. Has it gotten so bad no one is willing to make a judgment call anymore. No one is willing to take an extra minute to ask some crucial questions. I know the Navy is hurting real bad now. But they are going to have to take it on the chin for this one.

Here is how, according to the news and what I was able to look up, the paperwork was never filed for him to be prosecuted, normally an arrest would show up but nothing does, the City of Seattle dropped the ball.

If he never disclosed it and it isn't on the website then no one would know.

http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.namesearch&terms=accept&flashform=0

I don't think they are hurting that much right now, the enlisted recruiters I know are as of today at 200% of goal with 10 days left.

 

[Brett327]

But a CAC card does allow you to bring guns onto base. Unless they plan on searching every single vehicle that comes through the gate, pretty much anyone can bring a weapon on base. Not sure we can criticize base security for "allowing" people to bring weapons on base when there's no effective way of stopping them short of locking the whole place down. Obviously, we need to do more to ensure that those that don't belong in the service or as contractors because of mental or behavioral issues are dealt with accordingly and not granted access or clearances.

 

[jmcquate]

Brett's right. Very few secure installations in the DC Metro area search vehicles, and if they do they are looking for car bombs. If you have valid ID to enter a facility, you don't go through a metal detector. The Navy Yard was one of the easier instillations to enter (just a valid Driver's License). The Navy Museum that includes a destroyer is part of a revitalization project of the Anacostia waterfront around Nationals Stadium and efforts were made to allow relatively easy access to the public.

 

[ltedge46]

Brett's right. Very few secure installations in the DC Metro area search vehicles, and if they do they are looking for car bombs. If you have valid ID to enter a facility, you don't go through a metal detector. The Navy Yard was one of the easier instillations to enter (just a valid Driver's License). The Navy Museum that includes a destroyer is part of a revitalization project of the Anacostia waterfront around Nationals Stadium and efforts were made to allow relatively easy access to the public.

I'm sure it's just random but my wife (civilian) had to drive onto the Yard last year for a meeting and she had her car searched and had to get a one day visitors pass, even though she had an official guest parking permit and a dependant ID card. It is amazing though, how trusting we are just because someone flashes a CAC or contractor ID card and drives or walks right through security with no problem.

 

[ea6bflyr]

It is amazing though, how trusting we are just because someone flashes a CAC or contractor ID card and drives or walks right through security with no problem.

So are you saying that contractors, both DoD and non-DoD, should be held to a higher level of scrutiny when passing through security checkpoints?

 

[ltedge46]

Nope, just that we blindly trust someone with a badge (contractor or CAC) isn't bringing in a backpack full of weapons or carrying out a backpack full of classified info. Not implying that a contractor should be trusted less than an active duty member, presumably anyone with a clearance has been vetted through the same system as the rest of us. The only way to keep bad stuff out and secrets in is to institute stricter security procedures for all regardless of status or rank.

 

[ea6bflyr]

I guess it's time to start investing in companies that produce full body scanners, x-ray machines, and scanning wands. It'll soon be a booming business.

 

[lowflier03]

Or for those who are trained and qualified to carry firearms, allow us to carry on base. The fact that these kind of things happen on military bases and we have to rely on base security to come to the rescue is appalling. How much less likely would this be to happen if the shooter knew there was a very high chance that as soon as the first round left the barrel, that his intended victims could all be reaching for their own PDW's? There would at least be fewer victims. Its stupid that I'm able to defend myself anyplace other than on base.

 

[Brett327]

This whole line of thinking seems odd to me. A base really isn't any more secure than off base, nor can it be - that is an illusion. We have huge facilities with thousands of people coming and going at all hours of the day. You just can't have the kinds of physical security measures in place that people are suggesting. A CAC just says "I work here." It doesn't guarantee the person is sane or that they're not concealing a weapon in their car or on their person. Like a driver's license, it means you meet the basic requirements, but doesn't imply you won't resort to road rage.

 

[BigRed389]

A base really isn't any more secure than off base, nor can it be - that is an illusion. We have huge facilities with thousands of people coming and going at all hours of the day. You just can't have the kinds of physical security measures in place that people are suggesting. A CAC just says "I work here." It doesn't guarantee the person is sane or that they're not concealing a weapon in their car or on their person. Like a driver's license, it means you meet the basic requirements, but doesn't imply you won't resort to road rage.

Agreed, but I'm curious as to how we apply the curve for shore installation security.

There are obviously differing levels of security at shore installations, even for an engineering/progam mgmt organization like NAVSEA...most recent one I visited had metal detectors at the front door and specially badged gates beyond that. On the other end, there are some that didn't seem to have any armed personnel in the entire building.

Maybe a building like NAVSEA (and NAVAIR) where we have a soft target concentrating a lot of our intellectual capital should have better security than your average NOSC...

 

[wiseguy04]

Agreed, but I'm curious as to how we apply the curve for shore installation security.

There are obviously differing levels of security at shore installations, even for an engineering/progam mgmt organization like NAVSEA...most recent one I visited had metal detectors at the front door and specially badged gates beyond that. On the other end, there are some that didn't seem to have any armed personnel in the entire building.

Maybe a building like NAVSEA (and NAVAIR) where we have a soft target concentrating a lot of our intellectual capital should have better security than your average NOSC...

Security guards are meaningless if they are gunned down at the front door. After that, metal detectors simply reassure the gunman that everyone past that point will be unarmed.

Yes, it is pretty sad and pathetic that I am better armed and much safer OFF base as opposed to ON base.