search
top

Pittsburgh Cop Killer Not Prohibited

His discharge was administrative:

Marine Corps records show that [no publicity for cop killers] enlisted in 2004 in Pittsburgh, entering boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., on Dec. 13. He was administratively discharged on Jan. 4, 2005, before he could complete marksmanship training or learn war-fighting skills.

Other than the use of the made-up term “assault weapon,” it’s good fact-finding journalism.  It even mentions the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic, and the laws that surround them.

8 Responses to “Pittsburgh Cop Killer Not Prohibited”

  1. TXGunGeek says:

    But, he still may very well be the subject of an order of protection. Have to see if it was still active or if it was a temp order.

  2. Bram says:

    What a loser. He was kicked out before finishing First Phase. Possible reasons are:

    1. He popped positive for drugs when he showed up at PI (results take a few weeks).
    2. Criminal or juvenile record they tried to hide when they enlisted – shows up as the FBI processes their Security Clearance.
    3. Physical Fitness – Recruits who can’t keep up are sent to Physical Conditioning Platoon (living Hell). If the still can’t keep up in a few weeks, they get discharged.
    4. Psyche problems – sleep walking, freak-outs, threats of suicide.
    5. Refusal to train, disobedience, etc. – low enough level to not warrant a Bad Conduct Discharge. The Corps just dumps this garbage.

    Probably not an injury. They just put recruits back into training after they heal. If it is too serious, they get a Medical discharge.

    I felt for the guys in my Platoon that got hurt, and one who tried to hid his sleep walking but got picked up by MP’s wandering the base in the middle of the nights.

    The ones who just pussied out were worthless pieces of shit like this guy.

  3. Jake says:

    Bram:

    Early reports mentioned that he threw a lunch tray at his Drill Sergeant (and survived :P ). I guess that was enough to throw him out, but not enough for a bad conduct discharge.

  4. Bram says:

    The Chow Hall may be the one place he could do something like that in front of other NCO’s and maybe officers – so the DI couldn’t just beat him. Innovative way to pussy out of Boot Camp. Let’s see if he has a way out of 1st Degree Murder.

  5. Kristopher says:

    An administrative discharge is still not an Honorable Discharge.

    The form 4473 is quite specific about that.

    The paper is not correct here.

  6. Jake says:

    Kristopher:

    The form 4473 may ask about “other than honorable,” (if I remember the phrasing correctly) but the statute specifically says “dishonorable.”

    18 U.S.C. 922

    (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person–
    […]
    (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    [emphasis added]

    The plain language of the statute controls, so an administrative discharge should not make him a “prohibited person.”

  7. Linoge says:

    Administrative discharges are 100% neutral – they are not a negative reflection on someone’s records, but neither are they something one would be proud telling one’s future employers about.

    More often than not, at least in the Navy, they were used in cases of individuals who simply were not suited for the service, for whatever reason – they might not have been bad folks, but they simply did not work well in the military environment.

    In this particular case, it was probably just a matter of expediency for the military. For instances where people misbehave in basic, the Navy very rarely viewed them as worthwhile of taking to courts martial and doing the whole shebang on them – just get them out, and keep moving. Unfortunately, in this particular case, that expediency still allowed an apparently violent and unstable individual to legally own a firearm.

  8. Xrlq says:

    Form 4473 uses the same language “under dishonorable conditions.” I know because I recently got in a debate with someone who was convinced you couldn’t own a gun if you got kicked out of the military for being gay (which, many moons ago, might well have earned you a dishonorable discharge).

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Arizona Rifleman » Blog Archive » Internal Conflict - [...] Turns out it wasn’t a dishonorable discharge. My mistake. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law,…
top