Comments on: A New Face: Officer Kimberly Munley

By: Michael Breault

Michael Breault — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:24:22 +0000

I would absolutley consider Kimberly Munley a hero. Who knows how many more people that crazed gunman would have killed if Munley had not gotten to him first. Many people say that since that is her job she isnt necessarily considered a hero. I believe a hero can be anyone. A doctor that saved somebody’s life just by prescribing a medicine is considered a hero to me. No the doctor didnt do anything heroic necessarily but he did make the difference between that person living or dying.
To go after a gunman that had already fired off several rounds at innocent people and put your life on the line (whether its their job or not) is absolutley courageous and I do not see how anybody could discredit Musley as a hero.

By: C. Silva T/R 102B

C. Silva T/R 102B — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:27:55 +0000

Munley’s actions and intentions were truly heroic, but are we labeling the wrong Sergeant with the prestige of being an American Hero? Is this another embellished story similar to that of Jessica Lynch scenario for PR and politcal purposes because “Woman Saves Ft. Hood” makes a better cover story? According to the New York Times and Time Magazine, a witness has come forth stating that the shots that took down Nidal Hasan came from Sgt. Mark Todd. Munley was almost instantly shot, and as the suspect was reloading a magazine Sgt. Todd took fire, and cuffed Hasan. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120360644)

Early interviews indicated that Munley took down Hasan, and I actually watched her interview on Oprah. Munley did all the talking and Todd remained rather quiet. Later reports states “Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd, another civilian officer in Fort Hood’s police force, are credited with shooting Maj. Nidal Hasan to end the Nov. 5 shooting spree” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121061127)

Again, and never the less, Munley’s intentions were heroic, but if this new information is factual–regardless of what her intentions were during the shoot out–taking the recognition from the man who performed the heroic acts in which she is being credited for will tarnish my opinion of her.

By: Leyden Daniels

Leyden Daniels — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:02:52 +0000

I think the term “Hero” is used loosely, but with good reason. These stories on the news, web, or by word of mouth do more for the community than for the person who committed the heroic act. Munley’s actions were brave and this deserves the title of hero. But I do believe her story, the stories of soldiers who come home, or any other individual of valor play a key role in boosting national morale. Today we live in a world that operates within the realms of sarcasm, pessimism, and cynical ideas. So in a sense Munley’s true heroic deed is not that she saved lives but that she serves as a representation of hope. She is a hero because she is now a source of inspiration.

By: Haley Schimmer

Haley Schimmer — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:05:37 +0000

I think Kimberley’s act can certainly be called heroic. Just because she is a women and her act may be justified as doing her job, doesn’t mean that it didn’t take courage to step forward and fire her weapon. If it were a male police officer, people would still be calling him a hero. I don’t think it would be looked over as many may think it would. However, I don’t know if I would go as far to say “a new era” because I believe that women have always been capable of heroic acts, and it wasn’t until the past few decades that women were able to join the police force. Maybe it is considered a new era because people love to blow up the story of a woman saving the lives of men, and that of course could also be the result of how women are still depicted by some vulnerable, fragile, kind, etc. Especially by today’s media

By: Randy phil 102b

Randy phil 102b — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:30:59 +0000

What Kimberly did that day was no doubt a great thing indeed but as has been mentioned before, she was just doing her job. She was doing what she was trained to do, what she gets paid to do, and what she was expected to do. And you know what, she was on a base that had thousands of individuals that would have or may already have done what she did. Like it was mentioned in the article, if those soldiers had had access to their weapons they would have done the same thing. But these were soldiers who served in Iraq and Afganistan, they’ve been through combat, and endured it for months and months but they wont get anywhere near the publicity that Kimberly is getting. And if you ask them if they think they are heroes they all will tell you the same thing, “I was just doing my job.”

Did she do a heroic thing? Yes. Is she a hero? No more than the combat soldiers that were wounded, the medics and doctors that fought to save their lives, or the numerous other people that go unrecognized. So if you are going to label someone a hero you should also realize that their were many more that day.

By: Olivia De Ramos Phil 102B

Olivia De Ramos Phil 102B — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:06:38 +0000

I would definitely say that Kimberly did a heroic deed and that she should be praised and called a hero. The definition of a hero is this: a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. In my opinion, anyone who is brave enough to risk their own life to save others definitely fits into the “hero” category. Most people in her situation, knowing that there is going to be a person on the other side of the door with a loaded gun would think twice, maybe three times before they run in to danger. They strange thing about the word “hero” is that we only call someone a hero when they do something worthy enough for the title. But the dangerous jobs like law enforcement or firefighters, all though are indeed a heroic job because they’re meant to help anyone in need, should be always referred to as hero jobs. Why isn’t it that we don’t call them “Police hero”, or “Fire hero”, but instead we just call them “fireman” or Police man”

By: Charlotte Ferguson

Charlotte Ferguson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:30:04 +0000

I think the lady officer was a hero. Then she was trying to save her own life as well as the rest of the peolpe on the base. I think she might have been scared to react. I know being an officer your job is to shot to kill. I think alot of men were upset that it was a women who took the guy out. I know alot of men think women can’t kill or shot anyone because we get to emotional. I glad she was not to scared to do her job plus save her own life. I don’t know if I could do her job everyday. Not knowing what may come at you . Could you have been ready to deal with the crazy shotter. I don’t know if I really could of. But we never know what might happen. So we need to always be ready. Yes she is a Hero for being on her toes and not being scared to do her job. She was trained to deal with all problems that may occur and she listen and did her job.. Go girl..

By: Joey LiMandri

Joey LiMandri — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:02:26 +0000

If I were to write an article about this officer, I wouldn’t use the word hero. I felt what she did was an extremely heroic deed. Let’s say the gunman went on an hour-long shooting spree. If she was sitting on the sidelines for 45 min, then decided to intervene, would she be called a hero then? It takes tremendous courage to do what she did. By not calling her a “hero” I’m not underestimating her heroism; I’m simply not designating such a powerful word for a service any one of those men would have performed. However, this is where it gets interesting. Could she be called a hero if she was indeed the only one to act out of her group of soldiers? Plato once asked, “Do we think the wives of our guardian watchdogs should join in whatever guardian duties the men fulfill, join them in the hunt, and do everything else in common?” I’d say yes. It doesn’t matter who you are; as long as you perform a noble service, it should be acknowledged. On second thought, she is a hero. Firefighters do their jobs everyday and are called heroes, so why can’t she be called one?

By: Vanessa Islas

Vanessa Islas — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:18:30 +0000

I agree with Richard, I think if you ask her yourself if she thinks she’s a hero I’m sure she would say she was just doing her job. But considering the situation she could’ve just ran in the opposite direction of where the shooter was hoping that she wouldn’t get shot, instead she “rushed into the building and confronted the shooter as he was turning a corner.” Yes she was doing her job but think about how many people would actually run towards a shooter who had already killed many people and risk getting killed themselves? I believe Kimberly is a hero. What I don’t understand though is that in the NewsPostOnline it states that “Munley and her partner responded within three minutes of the gunfire.” Her partner? Why didn’t her partner get recognized as well? Or anyone else who were involved in saving the lives of those who have been injured? It goes to show that society doesn’t recognize everyone who should be considered a “Hero.”

By: Nina Rosenstand

Nina Rosenstand — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:34:56 +0000

Crystal and Richard,
Perhaps the designation “Hero” can only rightfully be applied to people who gracefully decline the title, claiming that whatever extraordinary thing they did wasn’t much, or that they were just doing their job. And indeed, those people generally go about their everyday business, being just as reliable and quick-thinking in the smaller things—it’s just that they don’t show up on the radar unless they become the buffer between other people and tragedy. That’s in effect Aristotle’s theory of the virtuous person: not just in extreme situations, but in all of life’s aspects.