In a shocking event that unfolded on a major U.S. Army base, an active-duty sergeant opened fire on his fellow soldiers, leading to a series of legal proceedings that have captured national attention. The incident, which occurred in August 2025 at Fort Stewart in Georgia, involved Sgt. Quornelius Samentrio Radford, who is accused of wounding five service members with a personal handgun. As the case progresses through the military justice system, new details have emerged about the response, the charges, and the background surrounding this tragedy.
Fort Stewart, the largest Army installation east of the Mississippi River, serves as the home to the 3rd Infantry Division and thousands of soldiers. Located about 40 miles southwest of Savannah, the base is a hub for training and deployment activities. On August 6, 2025, what began as a routine day turned into chaos when gunfire erupted in an office building within the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team area.
Authorities reported that Radford, a 28-year-old automated logistics sergeant assigned to the 703rd Brigade Support Battalion, used his personal firearm to target colleagues. The shooting left five soldiers injured, with three requiring surgery, though all were described as stable and expected to recover fully. A sixth soldier was targeted but unharmed as the shot missed.
Immediate actions by nearby soldiers prevented further casualties. They followed the sound of gunfire, subdued the shooter, and provided critical first aid, including using their hands to stop bleeding from gunshot wounds. This rapid response was later hailed by base commanders as life-saving.
The Incident at Fort Stewart
The shooting took place in a supply unit workspace, where soldiers encountered hazy gunsmoke and found wounded victims scattered on the floor and in adjacent offices. Brig. Gen. John Lubas, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division and Fort Stewart-Hunter Army Airfield, detailed how the event unfolded during a press conference shortly after.
Radford was quickly disarmed and restrained by fellow troops until military police arrived. Staff Sgt. Aaron Turner, one of the responders, recounted walking past a warehouse when he spotted Radford in a hooded sweatshirt over his uniform, holding the handgun after shots had been fired. Turner disarmed him, describing the situation as requiring immediate action akin to a combat scenario.
Lt. Col. Mike Sanford, commander of the 703rd Brigade Support Battalion, emphasized that the soldiers treated the incident like a battle drill, drawing on their training to act decisively. He noted knowing Radford personally and expressed surprise at the turn of events, as no prior indications of such behavior had surfaced.
Timeline of Events
The sequence began around midday on August 6, with reports of an active shooter prompting a partial lockdown of the base. Gates at Fort Stewart, Wright Army Airfield, and Evans Army Airfield were temporarily closed as a precaution. By the afternoon, the all-clear was issued, confirming the suspect was in custody.
Two victims were transported to Memorial Health University Medical Center in Savannah, while three received treatment at an on-base Army hospital. The Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) took over the probe, coordinating with the FBI’s Savannah office for support.
Just prior to the shooting, Radford sent text messages to family members. One to relatives read, “I just want y’all to know that I love y’all, and I tried my hardest to be the best I could be.” Another to his aunt stated that he “loved everybody, and that he’ll be in a better place because he was about to go and do something.” These messages have been part of the ongoing investigation.
Victims and Immediate Response
The victims included four soldiers and one civilian worker, with one identified as Radford’s intimate partner, which factored into the domestic violence charge. Their identities remain unreleased to protect privacy, but officials confirmed all are on the path to recovery.
The heroic efforts of responders were highlighted in the aftermath. Soldiers applied tourniquets, pressure to wounds, and other first-aid measures under stress. Brig. Gen. Lubas credited these actions with preventing loss of life, stating that the training and composure displayed were exemplary.
To recognize their bravery, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll visited Fort Stewart on August 7. He awarded Meritorious Service Medals to six soldiers involved in subduing Radford and treating the injured. During a news conference, Driscoll praised their quick thinking under fire, noting it “absolutely saved lives from being lost.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also commented on the incident via social media, stating, “Today, a cowardly shooting at Fort Stewart left five brave Soldiers wounded. Praise God they are all in stable condition. Our prayers are with them, their families, and the entire Fort Stewart community in the aftermath of this attack.”
- The first responder group included individuals who heard gunfire and rushed toward the danger, demonstrating the Army’s emphasis on readiness and teamwork. Their actions not only stopped the threat but also stabilized victims until medical help arrived, showcasing the effectiveness of military training in real-world crises.
- One soldier used personal clothing items as improvised bandages, highlighting resourcefulness in high-pressure situations. This approach prevented excessive blood loss for at least two victims, according to initial reports from base medical personnel.
- Coordination with local emergency services ensured swift transport to hospitals, integrating military and civilian response protocols. This seamless collaboration minimized response time, contributing to the positive prognosis for all injured parties.
- Psychological support teams were deployed immediately to assist witnesses and responders, addressing the mental health impact of the event. Such measures reflect the Army’s growing focus on holistic care following traumatic incidents.
- Security protocols were reviewed post-incident, leading to temporary enhancements in base access controls. These changes aimed to prevent similar occurrences while maintaining operational efficiency for the thousands of personnel stationed there.
- Community outreach followed, with base leaders communicating updates to families and local residents. This transparency helped alleviate concerns in the surrounding areas, fostering continued support for the military installation.
- Training simulations were intensified in the weeks after, incorporating lessons from the shooting. Units across the base practiced active shooter scenarios, reinforcing preparedness and response strategies.
Profile of the Suspect
Quornelius Samentrio Radford, born in Jacksonville, Florida, enlisted in the U.S. Army in January 2018 as an automated logistical specialist. He was assigned to Fort Stewart since 2022, serving in the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team without any combat deployments.
Radford’s military record showed no prior disciplinary actions within the Army, though he had a DUI arrest on May 18, 2025, by Georgia State Patrol outside the base in Liberty County. Staff Sgt. Melissa Taylor, a career counselor at Fort Stewart, had reenlisted him previously and reported no red flags during that process.
Following the shooting, Radford was booked at the Liberty County Jail before being transferred to pretrial confinement at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.
Military Career
As a supply sergeant in the 703rd Brigade Support Battalion, Radford handled logistics and inventory management, a role critical to unit operations. His position required reliability and attention to detail, qualities that colleagues noted he generally displayed until the incident.
Base officials described him as integrated into his unit, with no overt signs of distress leading up to the event. However, investigations revealed underlying issues that may have contributed to his actions.
Radford’s father, Eddie Radford, shared that his son had not exhibited unusual behavior recently. He mentioned complaints about racism at the base and efforts to secure a transfer, though specifics were not detailed publicly.
Personal Background
Reports from fellow soldiers indicated Radford faced relentless mocking for a speech impediment from early in his career. This harassment, detailed in media accounts, painted a picture of workplace bullying that persisted over time.
One soldier messaged Radford during the lockdown to check on him but received no response. Such anecdotes suggest a complex social dynamic within the unit, though no direct link to the shooting has been officially established.
Radford’s family described him as dedicated to his service, with no prior indications of violent tendencies. His text messages before the incident hinted at emotional turmoil, prompting questions about mental health support availability on base.
Charges and Legal Proceedings
On August 12, 2025, the Army’s Office of Special Trial Counsel formally charged Radford with 13 specifications. These included multiple counts related to the attempted murders and assaults, reflecting the severity of the allegations.
Michelle McCaskill, a spokesperson for the prosecuting office, confirmed the domestic violence charge stemmed from one victim’s status as Radford’s intimate partner. Under military law, attempted murder can result in life imprisonment.
Radford made his initial court appearance at Fort Stewart on August 12, where a hearing officer ordered continued pretrial confinement. He was represented by Army defense attorneys, including Lt. Col. Dylan Luck, who declined comment on the case.
- Two specifications of attempted premeditated murder, indicating planning or intent in the attacks on specific individuals. These charges carry the heaviest penalties and require substantial evidence of forethought.
- Four specifications of attempted unpremeditated murder, covering actions taken in the heat of the moment without prior planning. This distinction in military law allows for nuanced prosecution based on circumstances.
- One specification of domestic violence, added due to the relationship with one victim. This charge highlights the intersection of personal relationships and military conduct, often leading to additional scrutiny.
- Three specifications of aggravated assault inflicting grievous bodily harm, pertaining to the serious injuries sustained by victims. Prosecutors must prove the use of force likely to cause death or severe injury.
- Three specifications of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, focused on the handgun’s role in the incident. This underscores the prohibition of personal firearms on base and the risks involved.
- The charges collectively address the targeting of six individuals, including the missed shot. This comprehensive approach ensures all aspects of the event are covered in the legal process.
- Military prosecutors emphasized the evidence gathered by CID, including witness statements and physical forensics. Such details form the backbone of the case moving forward.
Court Appearances
Radford waived his Article 32 hearing, a preliminary step where evidence is reviewed to determine if a court-martial is warranted. This waiver expedited the process, leading to the case being referred to a general court-martial on December 12, 2025.
On December 19, 2025, Radford entered a not guilty plea during his arraignment at Fort Stewart. The brief hearing, lasting about 15 minutes, set the stage for a full trial, though no date has been scheduled yet.
The general court-martial represents the highest level of military trial, handling serious offenses with potential for severe punishments. Proceedings will occur at Fort Stewart, allowing for unit involvement if needed.
Military Justice Process
In the U.S. military, cases like this follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice. After charges, an investigating officer assesses evidence, but Radford’s waiver skipped this. The convening authority then decides on trial level.
Trials involve a panel of officers or enlisted members, with the accused able to request a judge-alone hearing. Appeals are possible through military courts, ensuring due process.
This system balances discipline with fairness, often incorporating elements unique to service life, such as command influence safeguards.
Investigations and Motive
The Army CID continues to investigate how Radford brought a personal handgun onto the base, where such weapons are typically prohibited. Brig. Gen. Lubas noted the presence of armed guards at gates, raising questions about security protocols.
Officials have refrained from speculating on motives, citing the active probe. However, public reports have shed light on potential contributing factors.
Ryan O’Connor, CID Special Agent in Charge, confirmed Radford’s interview post-arrest, but details remain confidential.
Reports of Workplace Issues
Accounts from soldiers suggest Radford endured ongoing ridicule for his stutter, starting from basic training. This environment may have fostered resentment, though not officially linked to the shooting.
His father’s statements about racism complaints and transfer requests indicate possible dissatisfaction with the base. Fort Stewart declined to comment on these allegations, deferring to the investigation.
No evidence of broader systemic issues has been presented, but the case has prompted discussions on military culture and support for personnel facing harassment.
Recognition of Heroes
The awards ceremony on August 7 highlighted the valor of those who intervened. Driscoll’s visit underscored the Army’s commitment to honoring quick actions in crises.
The six medal recipients included Turner and others who treated victims. Their stories have been shared as examples of soldier resilience.
Sanford praised his battalion’s response, noting it mirrored overseas combat readiness, reinforcing the unit’s cohesion.
Broader Implications
This incident has raised questions about firearm policies on military installations. Regulations prohibit personal weapons in workspaces, yet breaches occur, prompting reviews of enforcement.
Domestic violence in the military context adds another layer, with the charge highlighting relational dynamics among service members. Resources like family advocacy programs exist, but their effectiveness is under scrutiny.
The event also spotlights mental health support, especially for those experiencing bullying or discrimination. Bases like Fort Stewart offer counseling, but access and stigma remain concerns.
As the largest post in the eastern U.S., Fort Stewart’s handling of the aftermath sets precedents for other installations. Community relations with nearby Hinesville and Savannah have been strengthened through transparent updates.
Conclusion
The Fort Stewart shooting of August 2025 stands as a stark reminder of the challenges within military communities, from security lapses to interpersonal conflicts. Sgt. Quornelius Radford’s not guilty plea marks the beginning of a legal journey that will seek justice for the victims while examining the circumstances that led to this tragedy. The bravery of responders and the resilience of the affected unit highlight the strength of the Army, even in adversity. As proceedings continue, the focus remains on healing, prevention, and upholding the values of service.
