Casualties Confirmed in Fort Hood Shooting UPDATE: Shooter Identified as Soldier with ‘Mental Health Issues’

 
FortHoodMainGate


Details are still emerging concerning the shooting that has taken place at Fort Hood, Texas. While little is confirmed at this time, a law enforcement official revealed that he believed that one shooter had been “neutralized” and that there may be another active shooter.

At the time of this report, those on the Fort remain sheltered in place and law enforcement officials consider the shooting active.

With details emerging and staff still in lockdown, confirmed injuries are scarce but Fort Hood officials released an immediate statement, claiming, “There has been a shooting at Fort Hood and injuries are reported. Emergency crews are on the scene. No further details are known at this time.”

Fort Hood’s Department of Public Safety has confirmed casualties, but has not yet released how many.

The order to “shelter in place” came about via the Fort’s Twitter feed and Facebook.

“Injuries are being reported. Be AWARE!! If you are in the Ft. Hood Post area there is an on-going active shooter,” the Waco Police Department also tweeted.

Details continue to emerge on the shooting and TPNN will provide updates as they become available.

Update: Fox News has reported that a senior Department of Homeland Security official has claimed that the shooting was a “soldier-on-soldier” incident with no terrorism link.

Fox News reports:

A shooting at Ft. Hood that reportedly left three injured Wednesday was a “soldier on soldier” incident without any terrorism link, a senior Department of Homeland Security source told FoxNews.com.

The source, who stressed the information was preliminary, added that there was “currently no [counter terrorism] nexus” and said it appears the shooter “killed himself and three soldiers were wounded.”

But there were conflicting reports on how many shooters may have been involved, and what happened in the incident.

Update: A senior DHS official has reported that at least four are dead, including the gunman, with 14 injured.

Update: Reports are indicating that the shooter was a soldier with mental health issues and has been identified SPC. Ivan Lopez. He was reportedly armed with a Smith & Wesson .45.

Army Lt. Gen. Mark Milley indicated that this was not linked to terrorism, but claimed he was not “ruling anything out.”

Lopez had reportedly served four months in combat in Iraq in 2011 and as receiving treatment for mental health issues.

 

 

 

 

Comments

  1. Well…whadaya know! Another gun-free zone shooting!! Thank you Bill Clinton!! No way to protect themselves thanks to Democratic legislation. Liberals have blood on their hands…again!!

    1. Bill Clinton in March of 93, Wayne. Though Jimmy very well may have had the same ideas…he eviscerated our Navy..

    2. Actually Clinton had nothing to do with it at all. This was done in Nixon’s era and then revisited by HW Bush. It came into effect after Clinton took office. Clinton had no part it it.

  2. Reports say the shooter was one of those obama dreamers, a Ivan Lopez under 30 years old
    Should’nt obama be arrested for being an party to murder as it is he would gave them this country and anything else for free ?

  3. The dept of non justice (except for terrorist and muslims) has declared their usual drivel.

  4. This would have ended with the second shot, had Democrats not disarmed soldiers on the base. The first shot would have been from the shooter and the second shot would have at the shooter. End of incident. In fact, there would likely have been no incident on the base, since the potential shooter would not have chosen to shoot up a base full of armed soldiers where he would be almost certain to die before he got off a second shot. If the soldiers on the base had been armed and the shooter was really intent on shooting a lot of people, he would have chosen a gun-free zone, like Luby’s.

  5. This is a military base and the soldiers are disarmed ? WTF…did we not learn anything from the terrorist hasan who murdered 14 people on that very same base and our soldiers were unarmed once again…more stupidity from the keystone kops who are in control of nothing…obozo…the greatest gun sales woman of the last 6 years…just bought a re-loader myself…LMAO…

    1. I’m planning that my next purchase will be a black powder revolver. Nice to know that I can always mely down car tire weights for ammunition if needed.

    2. Checked your wheel weights lately? The epa has required all new wheel weights be steel or zinc. You cant even buy wheel weights anymore because businesses must dispose of them per epa regulations.

    3. The president has already said that former military who served in the MidEast, and conservative Christians are all potential terrorists…

  6. You could never carry weapons (POW’s) on a military Base, I entered active duty in 1965. I could own one but it had to be kept in the Arms Room. I could sign it out to go to the Rod and Gun Club range to target practice. This was in place before any of those presidents were even thought about.

    1. George, I was in the USMC. Weapons platoon, Delta Co. 1st Bn. 6th Regmt. Otherwise known as D-1-6. In 1961-62 we kept our M1 and then M14 rifles, .45 ACP sidearms, M60 machine guns, and 3.5″ rocket launchers in barracks at all times. We were expected to keep them clean and in top working order at all times. Inspections of such were frequent and unannounced.
      During my service there was never as single incident.

    2. We had weapons in our Barracks also, the weapons racks were opened by the NCO’s when we had BRM training, we did not get ammo until we were on the range which was preloaded in Magazines. I was referring to privately owned weapons. But then they moved all the weapons into a Arms Room because of a DOD Directive. I served my career in Combat Arms, The Cavalry (Recon), served three tour in Vietnam, we never had any shootings either. I was letting the blame the President crowd know that these rules existed before either guys were thought of. I don’t care for either of them, but truth is needed. I served almost 30 years, never had a shooting incident on a base I served on. But then we had people that was taught the value of life.

    3. the military is not a organization that operate without Regulations. They are used for order and discipline of personnel. It is not a trust issue, if it was no one would go to combat together. When bad apples use to be weeded out it as not a problem. The Major should have been kick out at Walter Reed. I don’t know anything about the recent soldier, except he recently lost his mother, and Grand Father. why was he seeking mental health? I know that the FM governing physical and Psychological signs of extreme stress is the lost of someone close. We have been at war for a long time, people have been scared deeply, it is going to take time for many to learn to live with those scars.

  7. I would suggest there is a large percentage of soldiers stationed there who have been or could be diagnosed with PTSD. I would also suggest that the nature of military life is such that a large percentage of these soldiers have problems not being addressed by themselves or their chain of command. Our Army can do better at taking care of soldiers so that soldiers don’t emotionally explode as this young soldier appears to have done.

    1. it is interesting to note that from what I have read, that PTSD was less common until Vietnam. In WWI, WWII and even Korea, it took significant time for the soldiers to get home, (many on ships), whereas now, they can go from active combat zone to home in less than 24 hours. The thought was that the extended dwell time, surrounded by others that had just been through the same experience, acted, in a way, as therapy, and helped them make the transition back into normal life.

      You are right, though, that WE need to do a better job taking care of those who answer the call to defend our country, rather than making them the butt of all cuts.

    2. That’s very interesting and makes a lot of sense. I suppose the knowledge that they weren’t “alone” helped a lot.

  8. I guess the loons will blame this on the gun and want to ban automatic rifles in the Army.

  9. No terrorist attack, isn’t that what they said last time? Probably wrong again

  10. aw hell….lets just outlaw liberalism as a damn cancer and rid them from our country…..get that damn smiling asshole Carter, Slick Willie, Oblammer and execute them first….deport the rest we do not condemn to death

  11. Bad guy has access 24/7 to a gun to do harm. Good guy sitting duck! Fake obama , you said” everybody gets a fair shot”!

  12. What do they have against posting his name? It’;s not like the publicity can do him any harm..Come on..get with the program. As he was a military member, he was being paid by us taxpayers. We have lost an employee. Identify him.

  13. Eventually it will come out that he was a liberal also. Being liberal and having mental health issues go hand in hand.

  14. Please note another GUN FREE ZONE…
    When will the people learn that a GUN FREE ZONE says,
    Have at it……SHOOT ME because I can’t shoot back!

  15. “soldier-on-soldier” incident with no terrorism link???
    That’s funny isn’t this what they said last time?

  16. I don’t understand how our military could be depressed. No respect from our Government, screwed up rules of engagement in combat, & pay less than burger flippers at the local Mc Donalds. These are the people that we trust to keep America free.
    Let’s stop stabbing the vets in the back & start treating the active soldiers like what they are. They are our hero’s. When they get sick, & they do just like the rest of us, treat them right. I’ve seen the strain & stress they put on soldiers that get sick. It’s almost impossible to get better until they are out of the service & out of the stress the military places on them.

  17. Most likely went over the edge waiting for treatment for combat related issues, like so many other military returnees/veterans are forced to do by the totals jerks running this country today. They never miss a benefit or pay raise, while everyone else is expected to tighten their belts and bear doing without. Anyone who thinks they’ll change voluntarily is a fool. Bet things would change very quickly the day that all politicians are forced to give up the armed stodges that protect them. I believe it’s the old “Do as I say, not as I do,” when it should be “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.” Only way to correct things is to make it mandatory that everyone be armed 24/7. Definitely couldn’t hurt, considering nothing that’s been tried so fat has worked, and many have died, while the “important politicians” have armed guards and/or pack weapons themselves. “Gun free zones” are nothing more than “kill at will” zones for terrorists and lunatic.