What constitutes a "hero"?

[mossrose]

Here's why I am asking this question.

Maybe 10 days ago, or so, 2 Mounties made a routine traffic stop for a vehicle with a light out or something. The driver shot both officers, one in the head, and then later in the day killed himself.

The one officer was treated and sent home, the other was in a coma for several days and his family decided to take him off life support. He died shortly thereafter.

His funeral was yesterday, and I watched a bit of it, as it was televised. The whole time he was in hospital, the word "hero" was bandied about, and the banner across the bottom of the screen during the funeral was "honouring a hero".

Now, I am saddened by his death, but in my eyes, he did nothing heroic. The most heroic thing that happened was that his wife donated his organs and tissues to 35 people, but that was not him, it was his wife's decision.

I am frustrated by this naming of "hero" to this man. I am thankful for the choice he made to "protect and serve", as I appreciate all police officers. But this, to me, is a sign that something is wrong in our culture.

The other officer who was shot, who took the same risks as Constable Wynn did every single day, has barely been mentioned in the news at all, and certainly he is not being referred to as a "hero" for the risk he took right by Wynn's side.

Am I in error to feel this way?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle22646418/

Oh. A year or so ago one of the city police dogs was killed in some sort of police action. The dog is also hailed as a "hero", and there have been calls for the person who killed the dog to get a life sentence.

I just don't get it. But I guess the dog is a different question for another thread.

[Cow Poke]

Here's why I am asking this question.

Maybe 10 days ago, or so, 2 Mounties made a routine traffic stop for a vehicle with a light out or something. The driver shot both officers, one in the head, and then later in the day killed himself.

The one officer was treated and sent home, the other was in a coma for several days and his family decided to take him off life support. He died shortly thereafter.

His funeral was yesterday, and I watched a bit of it, as it was televised. The whole time he was in hospital, the word "hero" was bandied about, and the banner across the bottom of the screen during the funeral was "honouring a hero".

Now, I am saddened by his death, but in my eyes, he did nothing heroic. The most heroic thing that happened was that his wife donated his organs and tissues to 35 people, but that was not him, it was his wife's decision.

I am frustrated by this naming of "hero" to this man. I am thankful for the choice he made to "protect and serve", as I appreciate all police officers. But this, to me, is a sign that something is wrong in our culture.

The other officer who was shot, who took the same risks as Constable Wynn did every single day, has barely been mentioned in the news at all, and certainly he is not being referred to as a "hero" for the risk he took right by Wynn's side.

Am I in error to feel this way?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle22646418/

Oh. A year or so ago one of the city police dogs was killed in some sort of police action. The dog is also hailed as a "hero", and there have been calls for the person who killed the dog to get a life sentence.

I just don't get it. But I guess the dog is a different question for another thread.

I think I tipped my hand in my previous post -- a lot of this is based on emotion, and maybe even guilt. Without media pressure, this officer probably would not receive any more commendation than "shot in the line of duty" which is, understandably, quite sad.

It brings to mind, however, the officers who were gunned down in their radio car in NYC -- what heroic act did they perform?

The problem here is that once a public servant is declared a "hero" by the media, anybody who questions that can be seen as unpatriotic, or an ingrate, or whatever.

[mossrose]

I think I tipped my hand in my previous post -- a lot of this is based on emotion, and maybe even guilt. Without media pressure, this officer probably would not receive any more commendation than "shot in the line of duty" which is, understandably, quite sad.

It brings to mind, however, the officers who were gunned down in their radio car in NYC -- what heroic act did they perform?

The problem here is that once a public servant is declared a "hero" by the media, anybody who questions that can be seen as unpatriotic, or an ingrate, or whatever.

Yup.

[Christianbookworm]

Getting shot while doing your job just makes you a victim. Not a hero. Unless you were heroically saving someone else from getting killed.

[mossrose]

Getting shot while doind your job just makes you a victim. Not a hero. Unless you were heroically saving someone else from getting killed.

Which neither Mountie was doing.

[Carrikature]

I'm curious why you would think this.

A few reasons, I suppose. I'm from areas where most of the firemen are volunteer. There are still the inevitable politics, but at least there's a common commitment to help protect/aid their community. From where I sit, the roles that firemen play in the community also point to a higher likelihood of commitment to help protect/aid. These are people that are effectively active defenders of the public. I did say 'most', though, because I've no way of knowing that it extends to all of them. Still, I expect that the types of people firefighting attracts are more likely to be hero caliber. I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Ostensibly police and military have some commitment to protect/aid, but what I see far more often of those two (from those I've known/encountered, not just tv) is quite the opposite. Sure, there's a level of protection involved with fighting crime, but I don't see that as the driving force behind most police. For all that they're supposed to 'protect and serve', the cops I've known by and large pose their own threats, be it through reckless driving or blatant violations of the laws they're sworn to uphold. Military is its own can of worms, with people like my cousin effectively being forced into it because the alternative is jail (or worse), or people who don't have the skills to succeed elsewhere. The actual roles that are available in the military don't necessarily include a sacrificial aspect, either. The slew of mechanics and administrative personnel aren't in that position, and many of them are only serving because it's an 'easy' way to get college paid for, not to mention free housing, clothing, and discounts practically anywhere you go.

[Carrikature]

The problem here is that once a public servant is declared a "hero" by the media, anybody who questions that can be seen as unpatriotic, or an ingrate, or whatever.

Which is pretty much where I come in, since I've no problem getting labeled as such.

[Sparko]

I think people use "hero" when referring to police, soldiers, and firefighters to mean someone who has dedicated themselves to putting their own lives at risk every day in order to protect the public. For some pretty lousy pay. It may be their "job" but you won't see me risking my life day after day to help others for not much more than I could make flipping hamburgers. So while they might die not doing something particularly heroic like a traffic stop, they are putting themselves at risk every day just because of their chosen profession.

[Cow Poke]

A few reasons, I suppose. I'm from areas where most of the firemen are volunteer. There are still the inevitable politics, but at least there's a common commitment to help protect/aid their community. From where I sit, the roles that firemen play in the community also point to a higher likelihood of commitment to help protect/aid. These are people that are effectively active defenders of the public. I did say 'most', though, because I've no way of knowing that it extends to all of them. Still, I expect that the types of people firefighting attracts are more likely to be hero caliber. I'm willing to be corrected on that.

I understand your reasoning - thanks. Lemme give this a mull.

Ostensibly police and military have some commitment to protect/aid, but what I see far more often of those two (from those I've known/encountered, not just tv) is quite the opposite. Sure, there's a level of protection involved with fighting crime, but I don't see that as the driving force behind most police. For all that they're supposed to 'protect and serve', the cops I've known by and large pose their own threats, be it through reckless driving or blatant violations of the laws they're sworn to uphold. Military is its own can of worms, with people like my cousin effectively being forced into it because the alternative is jail (or worse), or people who don't have the skills to succeed elsewhere. The actual roles that are available in the military don't necessarily include a sacrificial aspect, either. The slew of mechanics and administrative personnel aren't in that position, and many of them are only serving because it's an 'easy' way to get college paid for, not to mention free housing, clothing, and discounts practically anywhere you go.

OK, I think I understand. The fire fighter is less in a position to abuse his role, so by the nature of the job, it's less likely to draw candidates who would do so.

Unfortunately, I've known SOME communities where the volunteer fire fighters position is more of a "boy's club", giving guys an excuse to get away from their wives for "training" and "practice", when all they do is drink beer and watch porn. Just like "bad cops", however, I don't think the role of fire fighter is defined by the bad apples in volunteer fire departments. In fact, we have some EXCELLENT and professional volunteer fire departments around us.

(To those who may not know - many "volunteer fire departments" actually have a handful of full-time command staff, but rely on volunteers for the bulk of the grunt work)

[DesertBerean]

A good long while ago, we had a death in the workplace. The victim was electrocuted by equipment that carry tens of thousands of volts. As we are a small workforce, he was known by most of us, so his death was a great shock throughout the community. Our CO even directed a day of mourning, paid for the hearse that brought the bereaved family to the memorial service, and wore dress blues (this CO was not well liked, but we respected him that day).

He called us all heroes for our dedication to duty and our work on combat vehicles to keep our Marines safe, and paid respect to the fallen employee. I dunno...but we all were more aware of the potential dangers we were handling every day.

Emotionally, I'd say the Marines...and every other service member .... are the heros. Realistically, I agree with mossy.

[Carrikature]

I understand your reasoning - thanks. Lemme give this a mull.

Take your time.

OK, I think I understand. The fire fighter is less in a position to abuse his role, so by the nature of the job, it's less likely to draw candidates who would do so.

I was less concerned with the potential to abuse the role than with the reasoning behind accepting the role in the first place. Police officers can seek to 'protect and serve', but they may just want to put bad guys away, or carry guns, or whatever nonsense justifications they may have. I've known some that just did it because it's what their dad did. The military members I've known may not even have that much, or they may simply think it's a good way to shoot bad guys (regardless of what reality may be). I had an ex-Marine roommate who hated his time in Afghanistan and couldn't get out early enough, but he used every opportunity to milk his service (even to the point of keeping his dress cap in the rear window because it would get him out of tickets).

I see your point, though, and it's not an angle I had considered. I might say it's both, then: a limited potential to abuse a position and a limited scope of responsibility means the sorts of people that will be attracted to that role are more likely to be doing it for what I'd consider good reasons. If nothing else, it seems to me that the guys who are ready and willing to enter a burning building to save a life are pretty close to hero status already, even if they do have other faults.

[Carrikature]

I think people use "hero" when referring to police, soldiers, and firefighters to mean someone who has dedicated themselves to putting their own lives at risk every day in order to protect the public. For some pretty lousy pay. It may be their "job" but you won't see me risking my life day after day to help others for not much more than I could make flipping hamburgers. So while they might die not doing something particularly heroic like a traffic stop, they are putting themselves at risk every day just because of their chosen profession.

I agree, but I question whether or not the bolded is actually as true as most seem to think. I'd say it's not.

[Cow Poke]

I think people use "hero" when referring to police, soldiers, and firefighters to mean someone who has dedicated themselves to putting their own lives at risk every day in order to protect the public. For some pretty lousy pay. It may be their "job" but you won't see me risking my life day after day to help others for not much more than I could make flipping hamburgers. So while they might die not doing something particularly heroic like a traffic stop, they are putting themselves at risk every day just because of their chosen profession.

I understand, but then it seems we need "levels" of "hero".... and I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak. For whatever reason, the folks who sign up for the military, or police or fire know what they're getting into, for the most part, and accept the terms for the pay.

Then there are those who really go "above and beyond".

(I still have a bad taste in my mouth for the woman soldier from Fort Hood who enlisted in the Army, then when Desert Storm came along, pitched a walleyed hissy because they were making her "go to war", when that's "not what I signed up for".)

[Sparko]

I understand, but then it seems we need "levels" of "hero".... and I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak. For whatever reason, the folks who sign up for the military, or police or fire know what they're getting into, for the most part, and accept the terms for the pay.

Then there are those who really go "above and beyond".

(I still have a bad taste in my mouth for the woman soldier from Fort Hood who enlisted in the Army, then when Desert Storm came along, pitched a walleyed hissy because they were making her "go to war", when that's "not what I signed up for".)

There will always be people like that, and posers and fakers. I am talking about people who genuinely do the job and take the risk because they want to help people.

[Christianbookworm]

Has everything been said? Are there any more points to be made on this poor thread?