
US military bases are fortresses that guard against external threats. But what happens when the threat comes from within?
US military
FacebookTweetLink
Fort Stewart in Georgia houses the US Army's vaunted 3rd Infantry Division, a premier fighting force roughly 20,000 soldiers strong.
It was at the headquarters of the division's 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, described by the Army as its 'most lethal and fit' armored brigade combat unit — formidably equipped with tanks and modern artillery systems — where five soldiers were wounded Wednesday when authorities said a 28-year-old active-duty sergeant pulled out a personal weapon and opened fire.
The latest shooting at a US military fortress long accustomed to guarding against external threats demonstrates that no amount of physical security can totally protect soldiers when the threat comes from within, according to experts.
'I just don't think there's any way to ever prepare for every single possible insider threat,' said Robert Capovilla, a former military prosecutor and partner in a law firm representing current and former service members.
Still, the violence has renewed concerns about the safety of American service members at facilities where they live, train and work. And, when coupled with other high-profile shootings at military bases in recent years, the rarity of such incidents offers little solace to the victims and families of soldiers hurt or killed by other service members.
For Nichole Hillman — whose husband Nathan, an Army sergeant with the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, was shot and killed by another soldier at Fort Stewart in 2022 — the latest shooting was 'terrifying and completely heartbreaking.' Nathan Hillman and the alleged gunman both served in the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, nicknamed the Spartan Brigade.
'I was sick over it, as it brought back so much pain and fear, and had me reliving one of the absolute worst days of my life,' she told CNN via Facebook Messenger.
'Our soldiers shouldn't have to fear going to work. They should be able to know 100% for a fact they are safe.'
The military has mandated active shooter and 'insider threat' training following a series of deadly mass shootings at American bases, including one in 2009 at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, in which 13 people and an unborn child were killed and more than 30 others wounded.
At Fort Stewart on Wednesday, authorities said, unarmed soldiers ran toward the sound of gunshots and tackled the suspect, subduing him and halting a shooting Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said could have been much more severe were it not for their bravery.
'Under duress and fire, they ran into battle to the sound of the gunfire, took down the assailant, and then took care of their comrades. And that made all the difference,' Driscoll said Thursday at Fort Stewart, where he awarded six soldiers the Meritorious Service Medal for their actions.
'We commit to you that anything we discover during the investigation that can make this base and other bases like it safer, we will act on as quickly as possible,' Driscoll added.
'We are constantly looking at our security protocols at all of our bases … We absolutely will want to learn from this investigation. We do not want something like this to ever happen again at an Army base.'
Last year, Fort Stewart's military police simulated an active shooter and hostage rescue exercise. The drills have been routine at US military bases for years and include topics such as what to do before, during and after an active shooter incident. On Wednesday, Fort Stewart was briefly put on lockdown.
'The fact that the base was put on lockdown so quickly shows that the installation had practiced this kind of an event, and they knew what procedures they needed to implement in order to minimize the impact of this active shooter incident,' said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and CNN military analyst. 'The response clearly had been practiced.'
The motive for the shooting was not known. A law enforcement official briefed on the case told CNN the shooter, identified as Quornelius Samentrio Radford, had a disagreement with one of the victims on Tuesday. He followed that coworker to a maintenance area and shot him in the chest before shooting four others on Wednesday. It's unclear what the disagreement was about.
Law enforcement responded at 10:56 a.m. ET, according to a Facebook post from Fort Stewart Hunter Army Airfield. Less than 10 minutes later, the base was locked down. Emergency personnel were sent to treat the victims at 11:09 a.m., the post said.
The unarmed soldiers who intervened 'prevented further casualties' by tackling Radford, allowing police to arrest him, said Brig. Gen. John Lubas, Fort Stewart's senior commander.
The soldiers handled the scene like a 'battle drill,' according to Lt. Col. Mike Sanford, the commander of the 703rd Brigade Support Battalion.
Active shooter training instructs soldiers on what to do before, during, and after shootings — including helping others evacuate, not moving the wounded, creating barricades and, as a last resort, using 'whatever means possible to overpower the subject to save further lives.'
Military bases have strict regulations on the possession and storage of personal weapons.
'I'm not sure by allowing soldiers to carry their personal firearms with them in a professional capacity while they're doing their jobs prevents what happened at Fort Stewart,' Capovilla said.
'Our military personnel that live and work on military installations, by and large, I would consider them to be in highly secure and safe facilities.'
The November 5, 2009, shooting at Fort Hood by an Army psychiatrist with radical Islamist beliefs forced the military to evaluate 'not just the tactical-level response that happened at Fort Hood specifically, but also the processes and systems and policies that were in place for the Department of Defense as a whole that could have led to what happened,' Mary 'Chris' Frels, deputy provost marshal for US Army North said one year after the shooting.
After Fort Hood, Frels said, the military reevaluated its risk assessment process to consider both internal and external threats.
A huge part of the training involves teaching service members to identify behaviors in colleagues who may be spiraling — which could be early warning signs of a potential 'insider threat.' The risk indicators range from declining performance rating to demotions, from threats of violence to suicidal ideation to criminal behavior.
Authorities this week would not speculate about Radford's motives. He had not deployed to a combat zone and had no known behavioral incidents on his military record, Lubas said.
The general acknowledged Radford was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence in May. Radford's chain of command was unaware of the arrest prior to Wednesday's shooting, Lubas said.
The suspect's father, Eddie Radford, told The New York Times he had not noticed unusual behavior by his son recently. He did not know what might have motivated the shooting, but said his son had complained about racism at Fort Stewart and had been seeking a transfer, according to the Times, which did not cite any specifics. CNN has reached out to Eddie Radford for more information.
Fort Stewart declined to comment on the racism allegation and whether Radford had requested a transfer. 'The circumstances that led to the events today are currently under investigation,' a spokesperson for the 3rd Infantry Division told CNN.
Authorities are unsure how Radford got his personal firearm through the base's high security before carrying out the shooting, although personnel with authorized access are typically not searched en masse unless an installation has increased its security posture in response to potential threats. Carrying personal firearms on base is typically prohibited.
'From a company, battalion, or brigade commander's perspective, I think it would be very hard to enforce good order and discipline if the soldiers were allowed to carry their personal weapons with them at all times,' Capovilla said.
Radford had texted his relatives at least 20 minutes before he began shooting, his uncle, Joe Mitchell, told CNN affiliate WTLV: 'I just want y'all to know that I love y'all, and I tried my hardest to be the best I could be.'
Radford's military career began in 2018. Around the same time, he started being bullied over his stutter, two former coworkers told NBC. Sneh Patel, an attorney who represented Radford during his DUI case, also confirmed to CNN that Radford 'has a stuttering condition,' although he wouldn't disclose much more due to client-attorney privilege, he said.
'He got bullied a lot,' Sgt. Cameron Barrett, who became friends with Radford during an Army training program, told NBC. 'It was very bad to the point where he could barely talk.'
In a video training course by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, which handles security and risk management across the Defense Department workforce, the narrator warns: 'It is up to all of us to be aware of potential signs and report what we see. You are your organization's first line of defense against someone who could do harm.'
CNN's Amanda Musa, Dakin Andone, Alisha Ebrahimji and Danya Gainor contributed to this report.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Man Convicted of Killing Fellow Bus Passenger Because Victim Allegedly Bumped into Him and Didn't Apologize
James Richburg, 62, shot and killed William Womack, 30, on an MTA bus in Baltimore in 2024NEED TO KNOW James Richburg, 62, has been found guilty of second-degree murder, along with several firearm charges, after he shot a fellow bus passenger in 2024 The Maryland man shot the victim, William Womack, 30, after he allegedly bumped into him and failed to apologize Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for NovemberA Maryland man has been convicted on several charges after he shot a fellow bus passenger who allegedly bumped into him and then refused to apologize. James Richburg, 62, was found guilty on three counts — second-degree murder, use of a firearm in a crime of violence and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person — on Friday, Aug. 8, according to a press release from the Maryland State Attorney's Office. Richburg shot and killed William Womack, 30, in Baltimore on Nov. 30, 2024, "following a dispute" on a Maryland Transit Administration bus, according to authorities, per Law & Crime. Court documents obtained by WBFF reportedly state that Richburg and Womack were riding the same bus when Womack bumped into Richburg without apologizing while exiting at the rear of the vehicle. The men began arguing, and Womack then got back on the bus as the argument continued — at which point Richburg took out a firearm and shot the other man. Womback was taken to a local hospital, where he later died, CBS affiliate WJZ reported. Richburg fled the scene before authorities arrived, but he was later arrested on a bus without incident on Dec. 9, 2024, according to the outlet. "Our family got justice," Tamika Johnson, Womack's mother, said in a statement to WBALTV 11 regarding the conviction. "It has been long-anticipated. I've been going through up-and-down emotions. This is closure." Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases. 'This egregious act of violence is despicable and completely unacceptable and stands as a stark reminder that we must reject any form of brutality in Baltimore,' State's Attorney Ivan Bates said in the office's press release. He added, 'Since day one of my administration, I have been adamant that carrying an illegal firearm is an incredibly dangerous offense that I take very seriously because it leads to deadly outcomes like what we saw in this case.' Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for November, per WMAR. Read the original article on People


CNN
8 minutes ago
- CNN
A new law could have led to the Manhattan shooter's guns being confiscated. It went into effect a month before the rampage
Crime Gun violence Mental health Gun controlFacebookTweetLink Follow A new Nevada law that went into effect last month gives police officers the power to confiscate firearms from a person placed on a mental health crisis hold. Experts say it was designed to work in cases like the gunman who opened fire in a Manhattan office building on July 28. Shane Devon Tamura, 27, of Las Vegas, owned guns and was placed on a psychiatric hold in 2022 and 2024 after his mother reported to police her son was threatening to take his own life, according to records from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Tamura had a Nevada license to carry a concealed weapon when he killed four people at the 345 Park Avenue office building in New York and injured another before he died by suicide, police said. The key to the state's new law is it allows police to confiscate the firearms of someone experiencing a mental health crisis before a court's ruling. It authorizes a law enforcement officer who places someone on a mental health crisis hold to 'immediately confiscate a firearm owned or possessed by the person' and provide them with a notice detailing the procedures determining the return of the firearm. The state's earlier red flag law is similar to others around the country. It is intended to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others but requires a court process, after law enforcement or family members initiate a request to temporarily restrict their access to firearms. The earlier form of the law was the only available tool that could have led to the removal of Tamura's firearms after his two mental health crises, according to Thomas Chittum, former associate deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The two incidents were 'critical touchpoints' where the red flag law could have been triggered, and they represent one of the major indicators of future acts of violence, which is when those closest to the individual have tried to intervene, according to Christian Heyne, a gun violence survivor and the chief programs and policy officer at Brady, a gun violence prevention organization. 'These tools exist, but even when people are calling law enforcement, they may not be aware they have the ability to prevent them from purchasing firearms or possessing them or pushing law enforcement to pursue these tools as well,' said Heyne. The law is not widespread nationally, but states such as Texas, Florida and California have similar ones with variations. All 50 states have a legal procedure for taking a person into custody for a mental health crisis hold but not all of them have added a provision about what to do if they possess or own guns, according to Chittum. Depending on the circumstances of his psychiatric holds, which are still unclear, Tamura would not have necessarily been prohibited from obtaining his license in 2022 or buying firearms because of the holds alone, gun law experts say. Under federal law, only involuntary commitments or an 'adjudication of mental defectiveness' are disqualifying, Chittum said. The federal government and most states – with some variations – restrict firearm ownership in cases where a person was declared incompetent by a court, faced a restraining order, involuntarily committed or deemed a danger to themselves or others due to a mental illness, Chittum said. An extreme risk protection order, or red flag law, allows law enforcement or family members to petition a court to seize a person's guns in cases where they pose a danger to themselves or others. 'It might have worked in this case if they had sought an ERPO, which goes into the background check system and would have blocked him from buying a firearm,' Chittum said of Tamura. Gun rights advocates who oppose such laws argue they deprive a person of their Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a crime, according to Chittum. The Nevada Firearms Coalition, a gun rights group, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee members, strongly opposing the bill and comparing it to the red flag law. 'The entire purpose and point of individual constitutional rights is that they must be protected by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government without due process,' the coalition's president Duncan Rand Mackie wrote. Mackie said rules around 'the confiscation and return of the firearms are vague, and both place an undue, unconstitutional, and expensive burden on the accused for the return of his property, ownership of which is a constitutional right.' Some law enforcement officers have expressed support for the new law because they wanted 'protection and clear direction on what they should do when they're dealing with people in a mental health crisis. It's not radical,' Chittum said. Data from the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety show 21 US states have implemented a red flag law, while at the federal level, a red flag bill passed by the House in 2022 has not moved forward. The bill would authorize and establish guidance for federal courts to issue extreme risk protection orders, allowing family members to request a federal court order which would remove access to firearms for someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others by the court. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of red flag laws, which is still an emerging area of law, Chittum said. 'We're still trying to figure out this issue where people have a constitutional right but at the same time, we know some people are dangerous.' 'Must we wait until they've committed a crime and been convicted? That's the tension – we've got to do something and yet we've got this right, so how do we protect it?' In previous high court cases where police took away someone's firearms under the 'umbrella' term of community caretaking, they were sued and the court determined such justification does not give officers blanket authority to seize them, according to Chittum. One of those cases is Caniglia v. Strom. Police confiscated firearms from a man they took for observation, and he later sued them for violating his Fourth Amendment rights of unreasonable seizure of property. While the First Circuit Court approved the seizure under the community caretaking function, the Supreme Court ruled it was not a 'blanket exception' and remanded, Chittum said. 'On remand, the court found the officers had qualified immunity because it wasn't settled law,' he added. In another case last year, U.S. v. Rahimi, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote historic laws 'confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.' The case is notable because it upheld a civil process for disarming a person – while most such mechanisms are handled in criminal court – and involved a process granting the subject a hearing before a court issued an order, similar to red flag laws, Chittum said. Nevada's new gun law compares to California's 5150 law, allowing an involuntary detention of someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others, during which authorities can temporarily seize their firearms and could lead to a five-year prohibition. 'That's a model that is trying to narrowly tailor a firearm prohibition for people who are at an imminent and immediate risk,' said Heynes. 'It's something that other states have leveraged and utilized too and has shown to be an effective way of preventing violence.' Most states barely touch on the area of mental health when a person applies for a gun license due to concerns over privacy issues and stigmatizing people who have mental health issues, CNN has reported. People living with a mental illness are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence than a perpetrator, said Heyne, who stressed the importance of not being 'broadly overinclusive' of individuals who are in the category of additional risk. 'These hospitalizations or involuntary commitments carry a lifetime worth of consequences,' said Heyne. 'The answer to gun violence can't be more hospitalizations. The answer to gun violence can't just be more commitments.' It is why tools such as extreme risk protection orders 'become critically important' to not just be enacted as law but 'heavily utilized by both law enforcement and families when appropriate,' Heynes added. 'That's a civil process. There may be people who don't need to actually be committed but you want to separate them from firearms.' Firearm prohibitions rooted in temporary holds, he added, can be the difference 'between life and death' for individuals who are at an increased risk of behavior, particularly around self-harm. CNN's Josh Campbell contributed to this report.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jury finds man guilty of multiple felony sex crimes against two children
( — The San Joaquin County Superior Court jury found Gerardo Juarez guilty on July 31 of multiple felony charges related to the sexual abuse of two minors. According to the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office, the verdict came after a lengthy trial that was prosecuted by the DA's office. Lucky Powerball player wins more than $700,000 in Sacramento County The jury returned with several guilty counts, such as lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14, assault, forcible lewd act upon a child, and forcible sexual penetration with enhancements being found that the victim was under 14 years old. The SJCDA said based on these convictions, Juarez faces a maximum possible sentence of 95 years to life in state prison, which includes a mandatory 25 years to life for the bodily harm enhancement under the guilty verdicts. 'This verdict brings justice for the survivors of these horrific crimes. I commend their bravery in coming forward and cooperating throughout this difficult case,' said San Joaquin County District Attorney Ron Freitas. 'I also want to thank Deputy District Attorney Victor Bachand for his tireless work in securing this conviction, and Detective Erika Gonzalez of the Stockton Police Department for her thorough and compassionate investigation. Because of their commitment, this predator has been held accountable, and our community is safer.' The case is scheduled to reappear in court on October 6 for a hearing on aggravating facts which could increase the severity of the sentence. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.