A military judge at Fort Stewart, Georgia, convicted Army Sgt. Quornelius Radford of attempted murder for opening fire with a personal handgun last August and wounding four fellow soldiers and his then-fiancé. The verdict, handed down after a two-day court-martial, carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment under military law.
Radford, 29, had already pleaded guilty in March to aggravated assault and domestic violence. He admitted carrying out the shootings but insisted he never intended to kill anyone. Army prosecutors rejected that claim and pressed ahead with the attempted murder charges, a decision the military judge ultimately endorsed.
The case lays bare a chain of failures inside the largest Army post east of the Mississippi. A soldier with a prior DUI arrest unknown to his chain of command walked a personal weapon into his unit's office building, shot five people across two offices and a conference room, and was stopped only because unarmed colleagues tackled him and wrestled the gun away.
How the shooting unfolded
Fort Stewart sits roughly 40 miles southwest of Savannah and is home to thousands of soldiers assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division. Radford served as a supply sergeant in the division's 2nd Armored Brigade. He enlisted in 2018.
Last August, Radford's then-fiancé, Raekwon Smith, followed him onto the base. Smith testified at trial that he feared Radford was suicidal. Before entering his unit's office building, Radford shot Smith in the torso.
He then moved inside, walking to two offices and a conference room. Prosecutors alleged he targeted leaders of his supply unit. Along the way, he told other people he encountered to leave, a detail that both sides later used to argue their version of his intent.
Four soldiers were hit. A radiologist, Dr. Morgan Williamson, examined X-rays of their injuries and testified that one soldier was shot in the face and another in the chest, while bullets struck other victims in the back and abdomen. Any of those wounds, Williamson said, could have been fatal.
Fellow soldiers ultimately restrained and disarmed Radford. Military police then took him into custody. Brig. Gen. John Lubas, the 3rd Infantry Division's commanding general, later described the response: "Once the shooter was identified and a threat was identified, we had soldiers that immediately raced and tackled that soldier, wrestled the gun away, and subdued him." He added simply: "No one hesitated."
The battle over intent
The central question at trial was whether Radford meant to kill. His defense team argued he was suicidal and opened fire to provoke a lethal police response, a so-called "suicide by cop" scenario. Lt. Col. Dylan Mack, one of Radford's Army defense lawyers, put it bluntly:
"Radford only wanted one person to die that day, himself."
Prosecutors countered with Radford's own military training. The Army teaches soldiers never to aim a weapon at another person unless the intent is to kill. Radford had years of that training. He aimed at people's faces, chests, backs, and abdomens, and pulled the trigger five times across multiple rooms. That pattern, prosecutors argued, spoke louder than any after-the-fact claim of suicidal motive.
The military judge agreed. Radford was found guilty of attempted murder. He had opted to have a judge decide his case rather than a jury of fellow soldiers.
His sentencing hearing is scheduled for Monday. Life in prison is on the table.
Red flags the Army missed
The conviction closes one chapter but opens harder questions about how Radford reached that office building with a loaded personal handgun in the first place. Newsmax reported that Radford had a prior DUI arrest that was unknown to his chain of command. Brig. Gen. Lubas acknowledged after the shooting that the Army would "have to determine how he was able to get a handgun to his place of duty."
The incident is far from the only recent case of misconduct eroding trust within the ranks. Four Fort Hood soldiers were arrested in a Texas sting targeting online child solicitation, another grim reminder that criminal behavior inside the military demands constant vigilance from leadership.
Before the shooting, Radford sent an ominous text message to a relative. The New York Post reported that he told an aunt he "loved everybody" and would "be in a better place" because he was "about to go and do something." His father later told reporters that Radford had been trying to get a transfer and had complained of racism at the base, as well as a history of depression.
None of that excuses walking into an office building and shooting five people. But it raises the question of whether anyone in Radford's chain of command saw warning signs and failed to act.
Accountability, and the soldiers who earned it
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the shooting a "cowardly" attack. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll praised the six soldiers who physically subdued Radford, and AP News confirmed the court-martial verdict matched the prosecution's case that Radford's training and actions demonstrated intent to kill.
Driscoll said the Army is "constantly" reviewing security protocols on bases domestically and abroad. That review cannot come soon enough. A soldier with a known criminal record and visible signs of distress brought a personal weapon onto a major installation and shot five people before anyone in a position of authority intervened.
The heroes of this story are the unarmed soldiers who rushed an armed man and ended the attack themselves. That kind of courage deserves more than praise, it deserves an institution that does its job so they don't have to.
The broader pattern of betrayal within the military, from a Navy sailor allegedly plotting with ISIS against fellow service members to Army recruiters stealing the identities of potential enlistees, underscores a persistent failure to police the ranks before the damage is done.
What comes next
Radford's sentencing hearing will determine whether he spends the rest of his life behind bars. The facts presented at trial, five victims, wounds to the face and chest, a methodical walk through multiple rooms, make a strong case for the maximum penalty.
The military judge has already rejected the defense's core argument. Radford said he didn't mean to kill. The judge looked at where the bullets landed and concluded otherwise.
Fort Stewart's leadership still owes answers about how a soldier with a DUI record, signs of mental distress, and a personal handgun walked past every safeguard the Army claims to maintain. A guilty verdict holds one man accountable. It does nothing to fix the system that let him get that far.
Five soldiers and one civilian are alive today because unarmed men tackled a gunman. The Army should be grateful, and deeply embarrassed that it came to that.
