Editorial: Vandergrift decision on policeman’s banner insults all heroes |

Editorial: Vandergrift decision on policeman’s banner insults all heroes


What is a hero?

It’s someone who does what needs to be done, in spite of the cost.

But in Vandergrift, the borough council is arguing that doesn’t apply to late police Officer Robert Kirkland. Three weeks ago, a Hometown Hero banner was put up in the name of the local law enforcer who died in June of sepsis. You wouldn’t think that would be a problem.

Think again.

That’s what the council did, deciding despite the fact that the banner was already bought, already paid for, already up on a pole that this hero wasn’t really a hero.

They decided to change the rules in the middle of the game, voting to make the Hometown Heroes banners specifically for military veterans. Councilman James Rametta went so far as to call Kirkland’s banner an “insult to veterans.”

Let’s think about the difference.

A soldier wears a uniform. He follows a chain of command. He does a job that involves carrying a gun, following orders, protecting others. He is willing to put his life on the line to do that job. His family knows when he puts on that uniform and leaves for work that he may never come home.

If he does fall, his brothers in uniform grieve for him in a way that those who have not stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the trenches will never fully understand. Flags may be lowered. There are rituals and honors accorded that show deference to the fallen and give comfort to those who still stand.

How does that differ when a police officer dies?

It is not a question of whether an officer dies in the line of duty. In 2015, State College police Officer Bob Bradley died. Officers from various Pittsburgh area departments were among those from across Pennsylvania and other states who came to say goodbye, standing in the cold in a Bellefonte parking lot packed with patrol cars.

Is it that one serves his community while one serves his country? I would argue that serving your community does serve your country.

Is it that a soldier’s commitment is somehow larger? Grander? More important? But every police officer chose to make that commitment, where for many in the military, the choice was made for them with a draft notice.

It is ridiculous to say that one service is so different, so dissimilar, so separate from the other that it is offensive to compare. Military service and law enforcement seem like two shoes from the same very polished pair.

That is especially so as American law enforcement grows more militarized. We are not talking about crossing guards being compared to SEAL Team Six. We are talking about men and women who use similar equipment to face all too similar threats.

The Vandergrift council’s decision is the offense, something that should be objectionable to police, military and civilians alike.

And the most tragic part is the idea that Kirkland’s family, just three months after losing someone they love, will watch a banner with his face be discarded like trash while the people he worked for call him unworthy.

Heroes come in all shapes, all sizes, all stripes and all creeds. Some heroes are easy to identify, while some are quietly heroic every day.

It seems like the ugly decision of Vandergrift’s council did identify one hero, though. Councilman Casimir Maszgay voted against the decision to strip Kirkland’s banner from the streets he patroled.

Lori Falce is the Tribune-Review’s community engagement editor. You can reach Lori at [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.