Super Bowl Sniper - Indianapolis

[J_Wales]

There is now law or rule cops are to fire a warning shot before you get shot.

The people who feel the snipers at the super bowl was wrong are the first people to call 911 when something happens, then whine because the police did not have more security and let it happen. It's part of life in the 21st century, Just be glad they were there.

The people who feel snipers at the super bolw was wrong are the first people to call 911 or whine because the police did not have more security?

Really?

Pretty broad brush you're painting with there.

My only comment towards the snipers at the super bowl was that I think it is complete and utter bullsh*t that the state is permitted to be armed for their protection while in lucas while law abiding citizens are not.

But, I know.... the police state is just part of life in the 21st century. I should just be glad the state is there to keep me safe. Liberty be damned.


BTW, we don't call 911 unless it is for a clean up.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say StreetStrip01 meant "shots of vodka"

That's how I took the comment

 

[Roadie]

The people who feel snipers at the super bolw was wrong are the first people to call 911 or whine because the police did not have more security?

Really?

Pretty broad brush you're painting with there.

My only comment towards the snipers at the super bowl was that I think it is complete and utter bullsh*t that the state is permitted to be armed for their protection while in lucas while law abiding citizens are not.

But, I know.... the police state is just part of life in the 21st century. I should just be glad the state is there to keep me safe. Liberty be damned.


BTW, we don't call 911 unless it is for a clean up.

You dont think the Founding Fathers ever placed armed guards in places with a high potential for attack? The only difference is that they would have allowed the People to be armed as well.

Just because it is a travesty that Citizens are forced to be unarmed, it doesnt make it also a travesty that someone else was armed, in an area where much damage could be done by someone with ill intent.

 

[J_Wales]

You dont think the Founding Fathers ever placed armed guards in places with a high potential for attack?

Just because it is a travesty that Citizens are forced to be unarmed, it doesnt make it also a travesty that someone else was armed, in an area where much damage could be done by someone with ill intent.

"The only difference is that they would have allowed the People to be armed as well."

That would be consistent with the point I was making, Roadie. Perhaps you missed my comment which was...

"My only comment towards the snipers at the super bowl was that I think it is complete and utter bullsh*t that the state is permitted to be armed for their protection while in lucas while law abiding citizens are not."

That said, that citizens are forced to be unarmed while the state is armed is indeed a travesty.

Frankly, I could not possibly care less that citizens would be carrying at an event like the sb.

I do care that I would be forced to be unarmed and forced to rely on the state for my safety.

 

[TheWabbit]

I don't how long ago it's been since their SWAT team trained with military, but LA has their own training and facilities these days, or so I'm told by a relative working there. I was stationed at 1st MARDIV, right by the sniper school and never saw any non-military coming in for training. A number of special forces from other countries would visit every so often to train, but not LEO's that I ever saw/heard of.
Although, I'm sure they maintain a close relationship with personnel all over the base because it seems like practically every building on the base that had a public billboard had flyers for LAPD trying to recruit Marines discharging.

If you carried a Kimber .45 as a Marine, thank the LAPD

 

[24Carat]

They were saying on FOX 59 this morning that these pics were pulled from FB because of the outcry. I for one, am not the least bit surprised that this was going on. I personally have mixed feelings about it.

Shhhhhhhh! They are still up on my Facebook page . . . . .And on my hard drive . . . . . . Do I hear helicopters ?????

 

[esrice]

My only comment towards the snipers at the super bowl was that I think it is complete and utter bullsh*t that the state is permitted to be armed for their protection while in lucas while law abiding citizens are not.

While I certainly agree that disarming Average Joe isn't right, do keep in mind that the "Super Bowl Sniper", along with all the other armed officers there, were armed in part for the protection of those Average Joes. I'm not saying that inherently makes Joe 100% safe, but its not like the cops were carrying solely for their own protection.

I'm for arming both police AND citizens, not robbing the police of their arms simply because we can't carry ours.

 

[J_Wales]

While I certainly agree that disarming Average Joe isn't right, do keep in mind that the "Super Bowl Sniper", along with all the other armed officers there, were armed in part for the protection of those Average Joes. I'm not saying that inherently makes Joe 100% safe, but its not like the cops were carrying solely for their own protection.

I'm for arming both police AND citizens, not robbing the police of their arms simply because we can't carry ours.

I am for citizens being armed at least as well as the state...

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

its just you!!!

what does it hurt for there to be skilled law enforcement there protecting the average joe that spent thousands of dollars to be there?

Protect the 'average joe' from who or what? If the full/naked body scanners are doing what we have been told that they are capable of doing and all the law-abiding citizens are un-armed, what need is there for sniper protection?

Could it be that there might be lawbreakers at the game? If that is the case why not allow law-abiding citizens to be armed as well?

This has always been my point...

 

[LPMan59]

my wife works with the sniper's wife. Says he's a super nice guy and a real tough cookie.

 

[the1kidd03]

I am a HUGE hater of playing "what-if's" because they are never ending, but I understand your reasoning. I do agree with the principle that the state should not be allowed to disarm law abiding citizens, but let's run through a very general example to show everyone WHY it's necessary to disarm the law abiding citizens in such a situation.

The police have "boots on the ground" observing and searching for signs of threatening activity. They also have intelligence feeds coming in from all sorts of sources such as FBI, CIA, DHS, etc. They all work together in law enforcement/security measures. For a common attacker, they don't necessarily care who they hit so much as doing as much damage as possible in a single strike. This makes big events such a good target.

They strip citizens of arms in these events to be able to identify a threat faster. If an attack occurred and you had 3-4 citizens pull their weapons to engage, it's going to make the sniper's job MUCH more difficult to identify who the real threat is and those citizens would be dramatically increasing the likelihood of innocent bystanders to get hurt. This is also ASSUMING that the armed citizen is going to be in the area that such an attack would be occurring. Who has a better chance of spotting/preventing the attack: average joe armed citizen who's there to have fun, or a large team of organized security who are being fed intelligence updates via radio communications?

 

[the1kidd03]

Protect the 'average joe' from who or what? If the full/naked body scanners are doing what we have been told that they are capable of doing and all the law-abiding citizens are un-armed, what need is there for sniper protection?

Could it be that there might be lawbreakers at the game? If that is the case why not allow law-abiding citizens to be armed as well?

This has always been my point...

the body scanners work WHEN in place....what's to say an employee isn't motivated to place weapons/explosives in hidden locations INSIDE the facility PRIOR to the sporting events when there are no scanners............as I pointed out in my previous post, a dozen armed citizens pointing weapons in different directions aren't going to help a sniper in identifying who the real threat is....not to mention they provide EYES more than anything....they get intel of a potential threat and start scanning for them and suspicious activity...if they see something, they report it back for ground guys to intercept.....so how would a civilian be able to handle this situation...they couldn't ...they can only be REACTIVE...not PROACTIVE in security measures

 

[J_Wales]

Well heck Kidd.... under that logic, we should just go ahead and be more proactive.

Let's increase surveillance cameras around town.
Let's use facial recognition to monitor where people come from and where they are going.
Let's track cell phones to see where folks are coming and going from and analyze the data.
Let's strip citizens of their arms and force them to rely on the state for their safety and well being.

Then, it will be easier to identify who the "threats" are.

;-)

 

[the1kidd03]

Well heck Kidd.... under that logic, we should just go ahead and be more proactive.

Let's increase surveillance cameras around town.
Let's use facial recognition to monitor where people come from and where they are going.
Let's track cell phones to see where folks are coming and going from and analyze the data.
Let's strip citizens of their arms and force them to rely on the state for their safety and well being.

Then, it will be easier to identify who the "threats" are.

;-)

you think they don't already do many of these things

the intelligence officers are being fed is coming from somewhere

in my scenario's, identifying the threats was more in terms of "one person poses a threat, citizens react with their weapons...then who are the police supposed to engage when they can't tell the difference?" OR better yet what's to say the citizens react fast enough to do any good...rather than a security team who has the intel coming in and can scan the crowds easily with sniper positions to look for suspects and catch them BEFORE they initiate their attack

 

[J_Wales]

you think they don't already do many of these things

the intelligence officers are being fed is coming from somewhere

Oh, I know it is already here.....


Here is an article that is almost 4 years old. If they had it then, you know it is even more prevelant today.


http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/05/chinas-all-seeing-eye


Such intrusions are only expanding....


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4tq2-NxmY[/ame]

Hey, if only the technology in the article at the first link above had a book full of faces with which to identify folks... you know, some sort of face book. Think how safe we could be kept then!


This is nothing but conditioning people to accept encroachment on individual liberty as an acceptable norm.


I really have little to no interest in surrendering my liberties to the state in the name of "safety". That is my point.

 

[the1kidd03]

Oh, I know it is already here.....


Here is an article that is almost 4 years old. If they had it then, you know it is even more prevelant today.


http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/05/chinas-all-seeing-eye


Such intrusions are only expanding....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4tq2-NxmY

Hey, if only the technology in the article at the first link above had a book full of faces with which to identify folks... you know, some sort of face book. Think how safe we could be kept then!


This is nothing but conditioning people to accept encroachment on individual liberty as an acceptable norm.


I really have little to no interest in surrendering my liberties to the state in the name of "safety". That is my point.

understood....and that's why we're armed and why we train

 

[Clay]

They strip citizens of arms in these events to be able to identify a threat faster. If an attack occurred and you had 3-4 citizens pull their weapons to engage, it's going to make the sniper's job MUCH more difficult to identify who the real threat is and those citizens would be dramatically increasing the likelihood of innocent bystanders to get hurt.

great hypothetical............ but if that really happened, then we wouldn't need the snipers

 

[J_Wales]

understood....and that's why we're armed and why we train

To whom are you referring to when you say "why we're armed and why we train"?


If you mean yourself, what are you training for? Stripping liberties from citizens? Protecting yours from being stripped?

Just curious... I am not sure I follow your comment.

 

[J_Wales]

great hypothetical............ but if that really happened, then we wouldn't need the snipers

 

[the1kidd03]

great hypothetical............ but if that really happened, then we wouldn't need the snipers

really?

so you can identify a man with a vest bomb wearing a heavy coat over it? Don't you think intel being fed to the snipers and looking for that specific person or his coat would be more effective than a bunch of random citizens going about their activities completely clueless as to the potential threat

people are imagining that they can identify and see all plausible threats....and it's simply not the case....citizens would fare well against an attacker with a gun...but a lone gunman is not the likely scenario for a large venue such as the superbowl