Posted on 11/06/2009 5:30:04 AM PST by Saije
Witnesses to Thursday's massacre at Fort Hood said alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was calm as he opened fire at a crowd of young soldiers, pausing only to reload before he was taken down by a female officer that many hailed today as a hero.
"It was very deliberate in his approach, they said that he was calm," Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, the base commander at Fort Hood, told "Good Morning America" today. "Several soldiers shot multiple times and were recounting how they were shot."
The attacker killed 13 people, mostly military, and wounded 30. The Fort Hood Web site today addressed the tragedy with a line reading, "Friday is Day of Mourning! -- The duty day will begin no earlier than 0900."
Sgt. Salvatore "Rico" Sanchez told "Good Morning America" today that he treated a captain who was nearby when the shooting started. Covered with blood that wasn't his own, the captain escaped unscathed, with only a mild case of shock.
"According to the captain that I was treating, [Hasan] was sitting down and he just stood up out of nowhere and started shooting," Sanchez said.
As the sound of gunfire erupted, Sanchez said he heard people yelling to call 911 and "all kinds of cries for help."
Cone said wounded first responder Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who exchanged gunfire with Hasan and managed to shoot him four times despite being shot herself, put a stop to the carnage with her quick thinking and willingness to go head-to-head with the gun-wielding officer.
"She was quite effective, one of our most impressive young policemen," Cone said. "She walked up and basically engaged him. I think, certainly, this could've been far worse."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
woulda, coulda, shoulda
I LOVE the idea that this Muslim loony-unes perp is still alive and will know that a FEMALE took him down!!
The ultimate disgrace. :)
Too bad she wasn’t carrying a pork chop at the time.
“But I believe that “fighting back” is exactly what we should expect from a group of well-trained soldiers, whether they are armed or unarmed. ‘
One would think so, but apparently that is not the case. That could be where mindset plays a role. If you are a fireman responding to a fire, you are prepared to act and your training kicks in. If you are a soldier sitting in a supposedly safe area and suddenly find yourself in a life or death situation, it may take a short time to respond. People talk about the fight or flight response, but there is a 3rd option, which is to freeze. When fighting is not really an option (against an armed gunman for example), or if fleeing isnt possible (no escape routes), people tend to freeze or hesitate). This made sense for primative humans faced with a lion, where they cant really fight and cant outrun it. Hunker down, stay quiet and hope it doesnt see you, then wait until the lion kills one of your tribemates and then escape while it’s busy eating. These days such a strategy is fatal since the predator has the means and desire to kill EVERYONE in the room. Fortunately, instincts can be overcome with training.
Not a trivial point.
The U.S. military is well-known for preparing after action reports and lessons learned. So let's hope they study this incident and learn from it -- just as they would from a regular "battlefield" engagement.
If they do so, perhaps there's reason to hope the next jihadi-in-uniform who tries something like this will be rushed and tackled after his first shot.
(And let's have no doubt: There will be other such incidents.)
“The fact is, keeping our troops unarmed while on base makes them sitting ducks.”
In defense of the military, it has never been necessary in the history of this country to arm troops in the barracks. Armed guards at the gates has always been sufficient. The fact that our troops are not safe in their own domestic base is a reflection of deficits in society and our government.
In fact, I would be against keeping our troops armed on base, it would set a bad precident. I don’t want any commander and chief in charge of an active domestic military. I say this as a war vet and conservative.
No, he meant the scumbag Whorealdo.
Even though it was a well known fact, I was surprised and shocked to learn the soldiers on Ft Hood are not armed. I just assumed they were all armed.
The deer in the headlight comment bothered me. It suggests (to me anyway) that each person in that room was paralyzed by fear.
Suggesting what the Army should do to make sure this never happens again is fine and fair game.
Would you expect the receptionist at the local FD to run into a fire? Would you expect the janitor of the local PD to run into a gun fight?
I'm guessing you have never been in the military. 90% of the military is admin/logistics/support. Only about 10% are trigger pullers who may be trained in unarmed combat against an armed and motivated opponent.
It's been 25+ years since I was on Ft. Hood, and that was only for a 2 week FTX, but the place in big, real BIG. There are places where if this incident took place it would result in an artillery attack being called in or maybe be met by a platoon of ground pounders just looking for some range time.
There are also plenty of locations where it would be the same as sitting in a Starbucks and reading a paper and it would be the local baby sitter who you are expecting to respond.
Sorry they didn't live up to your expectations. If you have ever run to the sound of the guns you may offer your opinion, if not just let it go.
This was a premeditated, calculated Islamic terrorist attack by a Palestinian Muslim enemy of America.
I am also a vet and I say again, keeping our troops unarmed is making them targets. Once upon a time we didn’t need our troops to be armed in on post, except for gate guards, things have changed. As for armed troops being dangerous to us, that is BS. Israeli soldiers not only go armed all the time, so do the civilians. The CIC would have no more power if our troops went armed then he does now. Our posts all have armories on them and the CIC could have these weapons issued if he wished to try a take over.
>> If you have ever run to the sound of the guns you may offer your opinion, if not just let it go. <<
You make a very valid set of points, and I understand exactly.
In fact, my conclusion in light of your comments is that the 90% of our military who are non-combat should be trained to fight back in such an incident, that is, to rush the guy, hit him with anything they have — belts, books, shoes — and take him down. One or two will of course be killed. But not 12.
Furthermore, to respond specifically to your last question, Yes, I have “run to the sound of guns.” I worked as a civilian in Saigon in 1967-68. One day a group of us civilians were leaving the office at about 6 p.m. when the sound of shots rang out. We all rushed for cover.
But an American soldier was in a guard box at the building’s entrance. He left his position of relative safety and went out on the street, where he kneeled and raised his rifle to a combat position. His training and sense of duty led him to step directly into harm’s way, while the rest of us followed the normal human instinct to run away.
Fortunately, nothing further came of the incident. The sound we heard might even have been nothing more than the backfiring of an old 2CV. But the image of the brave Amercian soldier is burned in my mind, as clear today as it was 41 years, and I hope I never forget this unsung hero.
I’m all for preserving the integrity of the military courts, but maybe they should just try Hasan for the 12 dead soldiers. After the Commander-in-Chief commutes his sentence (like Nixon with Calley), then Texas can try him for the murder of the civilian.
The other issue is more mundane.
Can you imagine the accountability nightmare of military weapons floating around 24/7. From the 18 year old kid facing administrative discharge for losing his weapon to the dirtbag looking for weapons to steal to the reporters jumping up and down in glee reporting weapons stollen or even better a crime committed with a stollen military weapon.
If the base wants to impliment a concealed weapons permit program with personal weapons, I would be fine with that. Government issued weapons of war should be in the armory when in CONUS and not being used for training or legal orders. Maybe I’m out of touch, but it just seems to go against military order and the whole concept of a military under civilian control to have our men carrying combat weapons routinely here in the states.
It’s not the weapon that I have a problem with. More the picture in my mind of armed military units walking the streets. It just feels unconstitutional. And yes I know we are not talking about the military walking post in our neighborhoods, but I’m trying to convey the essence of my discomfort.
By the way, when I was in the service, my military weapon was in the armory, but I usually had a .45 handy, not because I felt I needed it for self defense, thank God, but because we went out to the pistol range and shot most days after work.
We are quickly learning that women can act in tactical situations with tactical training, just like men. Whether it be in Iraq or here, women are proving that the idea that ‘no woman can tactically do what a man can’ myth is slowly withering away.
“I think you’ll find that the response was appropriate given the situation.”
I agree. I’ve already read that most if not all acted accordingly - evacing and assisting wounded to cover, blocking exits and moving targets away from the shooter. What the other poster asked for is hollywood. It was like a mortar attack for all intents and purposes - coming from someone in their own uniform and possibly coming from someone you knew well enough to think of as safe. We all wish we could act like the hollywood hero immediately, but it took only 3 minutes for the good sgt. to do so.
“We are quickly learning that women can act in tactical situations with tactical training, just like men. Whether it be in Iraq or here, women are proving that the idea that ‘no woman can tactically do what a man can’ myth is slowly withering away.”
I will need alot more evidence before I believe that. For example, I read that during the West Hollywood shootout NONE of the female officers fired a round.
“He left his position of relative safety and went out on the street, where he kneeled and raised his rifle to a combat position. His training and sense of duty led him to step directly into harm’s way, while the rest of us followed the normal human instinct to run away.”
Glad to know you are ok and thanks for your service.
Problem with this is that he was armed and on guard duty. Your first post you thought the unarmed personnel should have done a hollywood unarmed banzai attack. He had 2 weapons, and it was close quarters. He had an overwhelming advantage, and they were overwhelmingly disadvantaged. The danger was coming from someone in uniform, an officer, one whom they might already know, and in a ‘safe’ area. That is why he picked it - no immediate counter response.
From what I read they all acted accordingly and the sgt. that ultimately took him down did so too. She was tactically trained and armed, just like the guard in your story.
Just ask the National Guards who were kicking down doors in Iraq. Some of those women were first through the door and insisted on it. I guess your proof too is the young female sgt. who took down the shooter. It’s more the person and the training than the color, creed or sex. There’s always going to be more men in these stations as men are simply more hardwired that way. But discounting women is ignorant and may well get your butt kicked one day (by a chick).
“Just ask the National Guards who were kicking down doors in Iraq. Some of those women were first through the door and insisted on it. “
I’m sorry to bust your illusions, but the Department of Defense prohibits women from serving in assignments “whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.” I seriously doubt that women are kicking down doors in Iraq. Can you provide documentation for this assertion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.