Reporter Insinuates that Army to Blame for Dallas Police Shooting
The incident that got the Dallas police shooter discharged from the Army has been disclosed; he stole panties from his officer girl friend in his reserve unit:
But two soldiers who knew Johnson in Afghanistan, who were reached and interviewed separately, said it was an open secret that the pair had a romantic relationship and were publicly affectionate.
In an interview with TheBlaze website, Johnson’s mother, Delphene, implied they were more than friends.
“Before, when they went to drill, during the drill weekends, she stayed here,” she said. “Yeah, they slept in the same bed.”
Gilbert Fischbach, a former Army sergeant who was Johnson’s squad leader, says that the woman has denied being intimate with Johnson and that he believes the two were just close friends.
But, he said, the nature of their relationship doesn’t matter — he was found with her underwear without her permission. [Dallas Morning News]
After the incident Johnson was supposedly ostracized from his unit and eventually moved to a different base. When it comes to a sex crime accusation in the Army of course few people are going to want to be associated with someone accused of that crime; especially one caught in the act. Here is where the reporter states that the ostracizing of Johnson led to him hanging out with “black people”:
“Everybody thought that he was just a person that stole panties,” a soldier said. “He broke down after that a little bit because they ostracized him. All of his friends started unfollowing him on Facebook. They wouldn’t deal with him, they wouldn’t talk to him.”
“He started hanging out with people he usually didn’t hang out with — the black people, honestly,” said the soldier, who is black.
So what is this passage supposed to mean? That him hanging out with other black people led to him becoming a racist killer? That if he didn’t hang out with other so called “black people” that the killings would not have happened? I also find it hard to believe he was not hanging out with so called “black people” before this incident happened. Notice how the reporter had to specify that the quoted person was black; this was intentional because the reporter does not want to be accused of passing on a racist statement if a white guy was quoted as making that statement.
Johnson was discharged for the panty incident in Afghanistan and the article concludes with the reporter insinuating that the Army should have checked up on this guy despite him no longer being in the Army:
One of the soldiers interviewed by The News reported talking to Johnson about a year after they returned from Afghanistan.
“I was like, ‘How are you doing? Has anybody called to check up on you?'” the soldier recalls. “He said, ‘You’re the first person I’ve heard from in the unit.'”
This reporter doesn’t seem to understand that the Army has no obligation to check on Soldiers when they are no longer in the service. Considering the amount of Soldiers that leave the Army every year this would be an impossibility anyway unless a large unit was stood up to do this. This article seems like a lame attempt by the reporter to pass blame on to the Army for what happened in Dallas instead putting the responsibility solely on the person that committed the crime.
And Marines blamed for Baton Rouge, why do “servicemembers” kill cops?
If Obama had a son…..
There have always been people with persecution complexes. Now they can find legitimacy and purpose with like-minds online.
If you have a friend or family member with gripes against the world and seem to have a burning fuse, don’t wait until it’s too late. When you see or hear something, say something.
JoeC, that’s the best way to be branded a racist.
@tbone, let me correct your statement; why does a radical, racist, Nation of Islam member who just happened to have served a short time in the Marines kill cops?
‘And Marines blamed for Baton Rouge, why do “servicemembers” kill cops?’
Because the military is no longer able to wall-to-wall council the ghetto out of them.
When they steal panties, the military doesn’t correct the behavior… but simply gives them a discharge… and an honorable one as they cross their fingers and hope that allows them to get a job instead of becoming a instant criminal out of necessity.
“and hope that allows them to get a job instead of becoming a instant criminal out of necessity.”
Eeeeew, you’re such a racist! Who is “them” and why “necessary?”
@ Serviceyourselfmember, you sound like Donald Drumpf!
“Eeeeew, you’re such a racist! Who is “them” and why “necessary?””
“Them” are the people who can’t lose the actions and attitudes of the ghetto, barrio, and trailer park when they enter the military. It is a cultural rather than racial issue… though with the large percentage of fatherlessness and criminality in the black community, race becomes an easy to indicater due to correlation rather than causation.
“Necessity” refers to the difficulty in getting a meaningful job after being dishonorably discharged. For many, the actions and attitudes leading up to getting kicked out of the military will make it difficult to successfully interview for a job that pays anything close to the military. A dishonorable discharge narrows the possibilities even further. Research shows people in this situation often engage in crime to fund the lifestyle they feel entitled to… especially if drugs become involved.
It is my understanding, from talking to vets from decades past, that many people entered the military with a history of minor criminality or a display of inferior cultural traits and the military straightened them out and molded them into productive citizens.
Those days seem to have passed.