Huh. She engages the bad guy once he starts shooting, pumps 4 rounds into him, and somehow ends up shot IN THE BACK??? Not to get into my tinfoil haberdashery here, but that certainly sounds like there were multiple shooters.

Zombiedigger, my condolences on your loss.

Me thinks he shot her first.

ABC EVENING NEWS stated the gunner shot someone and was about to finish them off when the officer appeared and fired at him to divert attention from the victim. They exchanged fire and the officer was shot twice IN THE LEGS, she then fell to her back and continued to exchange fire with the gunner until another officer showed up and participated in the gunfight until the shooter was disabled.



Thats what was reported by ABC News this evening.

Seems like no one has a fucking clue what happened. Everyone is still reporting something different.

Unless things have changed a great deal from when I was growing up in the military, there's servicemember on servicemember violence almost every day. Homicide doesn't happen every day, but it's not exactly an extremely rare occurance, unfortunately.

Every single base I ever lived on had incidences of stabbings, beatings, rapes, attempted homicide, ect. A lot of it was between servicemembers in the barracks or in the apartment slums around the base or domestic violence situations though. And I would say that there was a murder involving the military community (not necessarily ON the base) every year or two. This was on and around Air Force bases, BTW, so not exactly the most he-man me Rambo type of environment (unless you count the crazy-ass fighter pilots. That's a different sort of he-man testosterone expression though. ;>). I anecdotally heard that it was "common" on the other branch bases, but frankly that could have just been intra-service bitching, I bet in all but the largest bases it's probably about the same.

Not everyone who joins the military is a good person, or a person with impulse control, or a mentally healthy person. That was true even before the branches started lowering their standards.

Back to the original subject, I think that perhaps people are discounting the effect of dealing with other people's trauma can have on the observer/worker. I have watched social workers become mentally ill from the absolute hell of dealing with severely traumatized people. Does it happen to everyone? No. But I do know that psychiatric trauma specialists burn out really really quickly, at least in the civilian world. I cannot imagine that it's different just because you're in the military. I could see a case being made that it may be worse, since unlike a civilian job you may not be able to just up and give your 2 week notice when you're hitting your breaking point, and you also may very well be penalized for seeking psychiatric help yourself. Nothing excuses what this guy has done. He had other options. He could have gone awol. He could have committed suicide. He chose to take the easy way out, and didn't give a crap about what happened to the people whose lives he took or destroyed, which pretty much negates anything good he might have done in his life in my opinion. So I don't have sympathy for him. However, it is kind of irritating to read people saying that just because someone hasn't seen combat means that they're just some kind of pansy limp wristed idiot who can't possibly have experience any kind of mental trauma. Now that is bullshit, if that's what folks really mean. People can be, and most certainly ARE traumatized by bearing witness to other people's extreme suffering up close and personal. That's why there's such a high burnout rate amongst professions involving a lot of personal contact with deeply traumatized people. I was never raped by my daddy, nor was I ever the victim of extreme neglect--but let me tell you, after working with and helping children who were, I most certainly have internal scars that I'm going to carry to my fucking grave. I was just smart enough that when it just got to be too much I did the right thing and got the hell out. One person's experience is one person's experience. If you work with certain populations you obviously don't have the trauma that any one individual has, but you do carry small bits of many different people's trauma and over time it can really fuck you up.

That being said, again, I'm not excusing what this guy did. And for all any of us know, he only treated mild cases, or didn't give a fuck about any of his patients anyway, ect. But murderous, evil assholes aside, can we please not denigrate the people who work with traumatized folks? It IS hard. It IS traumatizing to the support people. (ask any caregiver, professional or not). You DO actually have to be quite tough to survive in that profession long term. And it does require bravery, honor, and commitment. There's more than one way to be tough and to see a lot of difficult things. The actual battlefield is one path. There are others. And most people who do this work day in and day out don't go out on a rampage even when they can't take it anymore. :/

Here is the real hero. A 145lbs female cop charging into the gunman exchanging fire (and being hit in the process). This woman should be given the highest of honors.

KILLEEN, Texas — The police officer who brought down a gunman after he went on a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army base was on the way to have her car repaired when she heard a report over a police radio that someone was shooting people in a center where soldiers are processed before they are deployed abroad, authorities said on Friday.

As she pulled up to the center, the officer, Kimberly Munley, spotted the gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, brandishing a pistol and chasing a wounded soldier outside the building, said Chuck Medley, the director of emergency services at the base.

Sergeant Munley bolted from her car and shot at Major Hasan. He turned toward her and began to fire. She ran toward him, continuing to fire, and both she and the gunmen went down with several bullet wounds, Mr. Medley said.

She received two wounds in each thigh and one to her right wrist. The base’s fire chief applied torniquets to stop her bleeding, and she was taken to a hospital that the officials did not identify, where she was reported in stable condition on Tuesday

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07police.html?_r=1

A quick "fuck yeah" for her, fine work.

Damn right my friend. I hope the muslims in our foe territories know it was a WOMAN that brought this guy down. Slap in the face to you asshats!!!!!! Cover your women in cloths while our women take your cowardly asses out!

I didn't have time to read all the post or if this has been pointed out.
I hear that they are not allowed to carry guns in these buildings where this happened. CCW is not allowed. These are trained military but are not allowed to carry a gun. This could of been be resolved much quicker and way less deaths and injuries. Bueracracy at it's worst

You missed a few comments on that. Here's my take on the idea:

azombieattack, check your PMs.

Punisher, I can see the point you are trying to make. Now, if these had been average civilian workers in some sort of work uniform you would have more of a point about the problem responding officers would have in positively ID'ing the shooter. But in this particular instance many (although not all) of the people milling about we're combat veteran's getting ready to re-deploy. They actually have training on how to respond to an ambush, and while the attack coming from such an unsuspected quarter would add to the disorientation the odds are that one of the soldiers present would have ended this quickly had they been armed. I'm not saying that still may have left the responding officer with a great deal of confusion to deal with, but I don't think "not confusing the responding officer" is sufficient grounds to say these soldiers should not be allowed to go armed.

The first responder would have nothing to be confused about becasue if guns were allowed and soilders carrying them the threat would have be nutulized before the first responder even arrived.
If I have to trust someone with a gun in a shooting situation I want it to be battle proven soilders, but thats just me

The rules are simple. Even if you have a CCW in the state where the base is you CANNOT carry on post. Off duty MP's cant carry their sidearm when not in uniform. The only ones who can are undercover CID or civilian employes of the Department of Defense that are allowed to such as contracted police.

Us regular guys only get ammo at the range and thats right before we go to the fireing line. Theres good reasons for most of the rules in place. a lot of shit would hit the fan if you had armed personel in uniform conceled carrying... Theres simple rules that go back to the consitution that limits us to the use of weapons on home soil. In katrina they wouldn't issuse ammo even though soldiers had been shot at by looters. Its just to much of apossibilaty of a potential incedent.

Due I think its crappy that I cannot carry in uniform on post yes. But I also understand the reason behind it. At that point am I a American make use of the rights I have earned and been given by the constitution? Or to someone else am I an armed American soldier on US soil.

Absolutely. However, once she's back on her feet, I'm willing to pitch in $25 to send her to Front Sight or Thunder Ranch or a similar establishment.

At a minimum, you will likely see more armed Military Interior Guards on bases. I think this will be a direct result of this incident. I don't think local commanders will ever green light chl for military and base workers on base. Base police cannot be everywhere at once and even a very good 3 minutes response time, as in the Case of the Ft. Hood attack, was obviously not good enough. If armed sentries were more numerous throughout the base, fewer people would have died in IMHO. If someone with a chl was nearby, I think it would have ended even sooner. But, even with more armed sentries (barracks guards, armed Officers w/ sidearms), you still have the problem of military and civilian personnel that have to drive on base everyday. As one of these people, I am forced to be unarmed not only while on base but during my commute to and from the base. This really sucks but it is what anybody who works on base has to do to earn a paycheck. For now, I guess I will just have to rely on my maglite, harsh language, an my cell phone to deter people suffering from sudden jihadi syndrome or the more mundane everyday garden variety "going postal" threat.

My thoughts and prayers are with all the people who have been affected by this atrocity.

Why do you say that? It sounds to me like she did awesome. No one's saying she was shot in the back anymore. I mean, the whole "moving forward while taking fire" just seems like the utmost in "Above and Beyond" type behavior to me. I can't even blame her for the the shitfuck's survival. I figure she just shot to total threat neutralization, and the Rapid Response team was already there to save him. Even then, he's still in a coma.

That's one helluva sheepdog. Wish she patrolled my neighborhood.

They said she's also a firearms instructor on ABC news.

She did do well, and I certainly am not faulting her in any way for her response. She definitely has a big brass set of balls, and I'm positive that I couldn't have done better, given my physical condition. That being said, she fired and hit him 4 times and still didn't manage to make an immediately lethal shot.

Yeah

Really? Some people honestly surprise me on a day to day basis. The guy is on a ventilator and reported in a coma. You can shoot someone in the head, neck, chest, stomach or any number of other places and it wont kill them. She did neutralize the threat... he's down. She did exactly what she was supposed to do.

Some people on this forum can be absolutely ridiculous. Until you've been in a shooting (up close and personal like this), under the same circumstances, been shot but still carry on the fight to bring down the target... shut your mouth. She did fine.

Why do you say that? It sounds to me like she did awesome. No one's saying she was shot in the back anymore. I mean, the whole "moving forward while taking fire" just seems like the utmost in "Above and Beyond" type behavior to me. I can't even blame her for the the shitfuck's survival.[/quote]
That being said, she fired and hit him 4 times and still didn't manage to make an immediately lethal shot.[/quote]

Really? Some people honestly surprise me on a day to day basis. The guy is on a ventilator and reported in a coma. You can shoot someone in the head, neck, chest, stomach or any number of other places and it wont kill them. She did neutralize the threat... he's down. She did exactly what she was supposed to do.

Some people on this forum can be absolutely ridiculous. Until you've been in a shooting (up close and personal like this), under the same circumstances, been shot but still carry on the fight to bring down the target... shut your mouth. She did fine.[/quote]

Agreed. I think she did an excellent job and showed great courage under fire. She probably saved many lives. She is a hero. She put 4 rounds into the jihadi, at least one was a chest shot that put him down for the count and severed his spinal cord. That's pretty good shooting if you ask me.

Yeah, but....she was also getting shot. Not shot at, mind you, but SHOT AND HIT in her actual parts.

Far as I know, there are FEW immediately lethal shots on earth. The ones I can think of would be penetrating brain trauma, brainstem shot, left or right ventricle (I'm not sure even a hit in the atrium would be immediately lethal if you had a team standing by), aortic arch, any direct and gaping hole in the aorta (think hitting a garden hose tucked neatly next to the spine, behind all the organs, and think you'll have to blow a WIDE hole in it with a direct hit, while getting shot).

Naw, I say the reason he wasn't instantly dead is 99 1/2 % the trauma team's fault and maybe 0.5% her fault.

It's 0.0% her fault. She did incredibly well. I couldn't have done better. Still, additional training never hurts.