Female Police Officer a Hero in Ft. Hood Massacre
November 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.As we all know by now, carnage erupted at Fort Hood army base in central Texas on Thursday. Allegedly, an army psychiatrist opened fire on enlisted men who had lined up for inoculations and eye tests. When it was all over, 13 people were dead and 38 injured. Of the 13 dead, the names of 10 are known; seven are men and three are women.
And it could have been worse. According to eye witnesses, the alleged shooter was in the process of trying to finish off an injured soldier when he was distracted by pistol fire from civilian police Sergeant, Kimberly Munley. He turned his fire on her hitting her at least three times in the legs and wrist. But Munley disabled him with a shot to his torso ending the rampage. Another officer, Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, fired at the shooter, but it's unclear whether any of his rounds struck their target. Read about it here (Houston Chronicle, 11/7/09).
Munley is described by police colleagues as 5'2" tall, and "very, very, very physically fit and very capable, especially with firearms." She is still in the hospital awaiting the removal of a bullet from her thigh. Those on the scene call Munley a hero for her actions in bringing down the shooter. Chuck Medley, head of the police and fire departments at Fort Hood said she eliminated the threat the shooter posed to others on the base and saved "countless" lives.
So let's all raise a glass to Sgt. Kimberly Munley. She exhibited great courage, resolve and competence. She risked her life to save others.
That makes her yet another good argument for women in military combat. Is there any doubt that a woman like Sgt. Munley could serve effectively in military combat? Not in my mind and not, I suspect, in the minds of anyone who knows her. There are many women serving in the armed forces who understand that they'll never receive the equal respect of male service personnel until they take the same risks the men take. Sgt. Munley's example makes it clear that women's equality in the armed forces is not only a matter of right and duty, it's a matter of common sense.
"));
19 queries. 0.343 seconds.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Thank goodness for Sgt. Munley. She definitely saved lives and proved once again (as if it needed to be.. hah!) that women CAN handle weapons for good. However, to extrapolate from that to putting (as opposed to letting) women in military combat is not going to happen and I am not sure I want it to happen either, but then I am not beating the drum of equality. I am sure I do not want the rest of the persons to be legally disarmed on the army base (as the rest of the victims of the berserk Army Psychiatrist were) or anywhere else for that matter.
November 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Actually, not to belittle the actions of Officer Munley, there was a male officer involved, and as of Friday evening, the Military is not saying which officer actiually fired the first shot, or which officer actually disabled the shooter.
BOTH officers should be commended, and with equal support, we should not seek to make this only an exercise in congratulating Officer Hunley becaause of gender.
November 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
The gender feminist media circus has begun. When they disproportionally represent women and girls as the heroes of the world...compared to very little media attention given to men who save others (at risk to their own lives)...it furthers their overall message to young boys.."That women save others..while men are selfish and narcissistic..and look out for nobody but themselves!!"
Is the message for young boys that.."Women save others..while men are selfish and narcissistic..and save nobody but themselves" is this media spin statistically accurate??
I thank this women for acting on her duty, but is the overall message being sent by the media circus that.."women and girls Save others..while men are selfish lazy narcissists that "NEVER LOOK OUT FOR ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES" is this statement based on any reality??
November 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I remember watching the press conference. The press kept asking about her, asking leading questions like, "So, the female officer did save the day...". The general kept telling them that it appears she did a fine job, etc.. but they needed more info but the press kept pushing it, like they did with Jessica Lynch. Props to this woman or anyone else there that did anything brave or selfless but, for God's sake, this exhalting anything and everything gyno is out of hand. Wait for the specifics to come out.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Regarding combat: In order to keep our chivalrous male soldiers from hurting the mission (and themselves and other male soldiers) by protecting women first, I suggest we have segregated platoons -- male-only and female-only. Oh, I'd send them both into combat, but for the women-only platoons, they'd need to fend for themselves without a man to "protect" them.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
i'm not looking forward to hearing about the woman soldier being a hero from media..over and over and over gain....then the spin offs...how are women better....over and over and over again.....
November 7th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
While I'm slightly in favor of women in combat, we have to take a step back and go through what would happen should a woman soldier be caught by the enemy side, and we all know what I'm talking about: rape.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Is the danger of rape for women any more of a danger than torture for men? Let men get their balls electrocuted before letting a woman get raped? Both unimaginably wrong but why not give them equivalence.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
good point !!!
....by its pat
November 7th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Pierre: I've never been in the military, but many soldiers seem to form close, almost familial bonds with the other men in their squad. Who's to say that the risks they take for them would be any less than they would take for a woman?
November 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Scott, I don't know, either. I am basing my prediction on the inane conduct of civilian chivalrous men who are as bad as the feminists in wanting to bestow special favors on the "fairer sex." They are feminism's useful idiots, and I don't trust them to do the right thing anywhere.
John: ". . . we have to take a step back and go through what would happen should a woman soldier be caught by the enemy side, and we all know what I'm talking about: rape."
Um, right. It's like when we read a story about war atrocities -- the story leads with how the women in the village were raped. Ten paragraphs into it, the reporter mentions that the men of the village were murdered -- but the atrocity was the rape. Puh-lease!
November 7th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Chuck Medley, head of the police and fire departments at Fort Hood said she eliminated the threat the shooter posed to others on the base and saved "countless" lives.
That makes her yet another good argument for women in military combat.
I agree.. but it is SO hard for so many men and women to see this. Even in World War II women served in combat positions in Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military
Women in the Russian and Soviet military, as in other nations, have played an important role in their country's military history, in particular during the Great Patriotic War. Despite performing various duties in the armies throughout Russian history, it was in the 20th century that women began to be given a more prominent role. Women of Russia and the Soviet Union played a significant role in World Wars, especially during World War II; arguably a greater role than in other combatant nations, although attitudes towards their contribution was occasionally paternalistic and reluctant.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:49 am
@NE I didn't bother reading the wikipedia article, but I'm guessing you're refering to the partizan squads that formed in Russia during WWII. I can tell you for a fact that in the rest of Eastern Europe there were no women in the military or serving any other kind of role. And there never will be. This is not a put down, I'm just stating the facts.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:17 am
@Noobius
Research your history in Russian during World War II it was a FACT that women served in several combat roles including fighter pilots, sniper, etc...
This is sad for 2 reasons first men don't want to give these women their due which is really sad. Second, it proves women are capable of combat roles.
It seems to me that when it comes to women in combat roles both men and women tend to be sexist about it that is the only thing that tuns me off about the MRAs
November 8th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Robert and Glenn there is a MRA member here I read about that is a History Research GURU can you call on him to perform a detailed search and article about women in combat in Russia and other places in history?
November 8th, 2009 at 9:32 am
NE,
Yes, Russian women did engage the invading Germans as snipers and fighter pilots (and are noted to have been very effective at those roles). However, Noobius is taking you for a ride by talking about eastern europe... not Russia.
Afghan women too have participated in the liberation of their homeland from the Soviets, operating as spies and placing bombs to kill Russian troops in their bases. While there are cultures and people too chivalrous and arrogant to let women fight, when pressed into desperate situations, you will see women in combat - but only out of desperation. But when a foreign army is about to take over your homeland, and men have already died trying - women do fight.
For me, this is not a bad thing. Every person should reserve engaging in violent action ONLY as a last resort. If anything women's role in combat satisfies the rules of just war and men should learn from that.
Lets not confuse the goal to fight male disposability and make it into fighting female disposition. Lets address male disposability - but not advocate FOR female disposability. In a entering-male-shoes kind of way, it might help .. but the costs are just too high and the benefits accrue to the warmongers who already are for sending young men to war. We might inadvertently pave the way for them to send young women too, instead of limiting treating men as throw-away human lives.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:05 am
i suggest cutting women only govt programs on politicians facebook page...others respond and agree...hey if the politician sends me an invitation on face book...don't i have the right to share my thoughts!!?...even if i'm just a man...in away a ... second class behind women when it comes to govt and courts protection
November 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Pankaj Says:
Thank you Pankaj.. :)
Also lets not forget the women that also fought for the vietcong in Vietnam against the American forces there... There too is yet ANOTHER example of women in combat...
November 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Let be honest here, I worked in a department with only guys we all got along great! Then we got a women in the department and everything changed for the worse! We had to be careful what we said and did around her in fear of offending her and loosing our jobs, and women in the military I read somewhere that 1 in 10,000 women could do the job requirements. Meaning if a man is injured during battle most women could not lift a male body up and bring him to safety and that is why I don't think it's a good idea. They have to be able to pass ALL requirements to be put on the front lines and still they would have to walk on egg shells around her. Being good with weapons just isn't enough on the battlefield and saving lives. Sorry that's my opionion.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
The only -- only -- reason a female civilian cop stopped the assailant that day is because soldiers are forbidden -- absolutely, 110% not allowed -- to be around weapons on post. If the government wasn't so gun-phobic this shooting could have been stopped earlier (by a soldier who was himself armed).
November 9th, 2009 at 3:07 am
"Noobius is taking you for a ride by talking about eastern europe... not Russia."
I actually live in Eastern Europe (Romania to be more precise) and I know a thing or two about how things work here. While there were russian women serving in partizan brigades (mostly guerrila style warfare done during the invasion) I doubt they were allowed to fly planes or participate in front line combat.
I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I just think this is more of feminist revisionism rather than historical fact (or did i not understand the "taking you for a ride" expression?)
One thing you should keep in mind is that here the word sexism doesn't exist. When people talk about war it's understood that it's the men's job. It isn't about denying women's rights or not giving them their dues it's just how things are.
And as a last side note: if people in Eastern Europe had had a choice back then they would have supported the germans over the russians any day of the week. It's kinda hard to do that when they threaten your family instead of just you.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:44 am
For starters, I raise my glass in response to Robert's invitation and commend Sgt. Munley for her sacrifice in the line of duty irregardless of whether she was the one who disabled the shooter or not.
But that said, the other commenters have a point in that this is another example of how women's bravery is given headlines and disproportionate coverage and indirectly takes away earned honor from men. In the case of Jessica Lynch, for example, another soldier who had fought to the last bullet, Sergeant Donald Walters, was given merely a bronze star for his bravery but later upgraded to silver possibly due to public outcry.
In addition, the situation raises the question as to whether even when the women serve as the same capacity as the men, would their casualties be treated with disproportionate and even harmful levels of public concern and media attention? Consider the possibility if it was nearly all men who had died in the attack and only a few men. In some ways, I have to ghoulishly observe, this would hopefully "call the bluff" of feminists who claim to want equality.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Noobius,
I am not disagreeing with you - despite you trying to make it so about Eastern Europe.. female participation and all. But there are soviet women who have been decorated as snipers and fighter pilots during WW2. If you have a problem with that - and I don't trust Soviet history (which was always changing) - but there is no reason for me to question that there indeed were some women fighting as partizans, fighter pilots and snipers. Their bravery - is upto question or not, just as the bravery of Soviet men who fought the Germans.
As to Eastern Europe preferring Germans over Soviets, that actually has a grain of truth to it.. the only problem being no one was asking them for a choice AND their governments (and later their occupiers) had disarmed them enough to not resist (militarily and effectively) first the German occupiers and later the Soviets.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
First, three cheers to both Todd and Munley for a job VERY well done!
Todd and Munley are partners, according to the latest news, and it was reported that it was Todd’s shot to Hasan’s chest that brought Hasan down. But if it hadn’t been for the joint effort of Todd and Munley God knows how many more people we would have lost.
I say “we” because I live and work at Ft. Hood. No, I don’t have any inside information. All I know is what the public knows from the news. I also was not on-site when it happened. Thankfully, I work a few miles away from the Soldier Center. When Ft. Hood is described as huge it is not an understatement.
As for the government being afraid of Soldiers carrying weapons daily on-post, there is no reason for it. Please do not use this one incident as an argument that this is the reason. What happened Thursday is out of the norm. We have active duty MPs and civilian police on-post. Just as it is off-post with local police departments this is sufficient for day-to-day life.
What we need to be looking at is why this Soldier was still performing his duties, especially as a head doctor to troops returning from war zones who need help working through the issues they have. And why was he permitted to purchase a firearm, locally I might add, when he was reportedly on a watch list. Once again, the signs were right there and in this case might as well have been lit in neon, yet no action was taken. That is inexcusable.
I left post early today to avoid the traffic mess of the president’s visit so I have yet to hear his part of the memorial service. I am going to watch it on-line and I hope somewhere in there both police officers were given due credit.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Found on local news website KWTX.com. Direct quote taken from the full text of President Obama’s portion of the memorial service:
“One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers - Mark Todd and Kim Munley - saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic - Francisco de la Serna - treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.”
Site address for the full text version of the speech:
http://www.kwtx.com/news/misc/69684012.html
November 10th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
JeanB,
I think folks here were questioning the sensibility in disarming soldiers at base. (Not suggesting that it should be so.) And indeed all nation-states are afraid of the soldiers carrying weapons inside their controlled territory is because they know they do soldiers wrongs and fear retribution from them. Even at the risk of loosing lives to another mad man's rage, the soldiers at Ft. Hood will continue to be legally disarmed - The only lesson you learn from history is that you don't learn from history.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Now that the MSM has come forward and publicly acknowledged that Sr. Sgt. Mark Todd fired the round that stopped the masacre, I would like to ask, "who fired the 1st shot?", "how many shots were fired by each officer?", and maybe even get an indication of the shots fired by each officer, I.E. what percentage of shots hit the intended target, and how well was each able to control their accuracy while under fire.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Oh, but early reports may apparently have been inaccurate. New eyewitness accounts indicate that Sgt. Munley, hit three times, never even got a shot off and that her African American Male partner, Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, was the hero who took down the gunman.
Jessica Lynch Syndrome anyone?