Is this truly necessary?

[DevinWKuska]

Hmm, I see many good points posted here, but all views are valid none the less. My opinion is who cares if there are snipers on the roof? Besides these pics I have NEVER heard anyone say they saw a sniper @ the Superbowl, or any other major event. I have also never heard of anyone starring down the barrel of said sniper rifles(probably because of the former). Situations like the superbowl(as someone else pointed out) make FANTASTIC targets for terrorists or nut-cases. To me knowing there are "eye's in the sky" so to speak makes me feel a little bit better. Especially when I go to say Safeco Field in seattle and see overweight old police with guns that appear to have collected dust.

Regarding the DHS, aren't those the guys all over the news/radio for purposely allowing mexican cartel to purchase firearms illegally? The same firearms used to shoot federal agents, civilians, and police? Not very comforting IMHO. Someone mentioned we would be safer if DHS acted on every what if scenario, I really hope that was joke. Saddam Huessein did that, shot his own family and cabinet members to avoid the what if scenario's. If DHS acted on every what if scenario martial law would be declared and Radio shack's, and firearms would go bye bye.

 

[PALO]

if you have gone to many public events, of the magnitude of the superbowl, you have probably gone to some where there were LEO snipers present. in many cases, you were just unaware. it really is not uncommon for major events. snipers are like fire insurance. there is a very small chance they will be needed, but when and if they are needed, they are good to have.

 

[Gil223]

Regarding the DHS, aren't those the guys all over the news/radio for purposely allowing mexican cartel to purchase firearms illegally? The same firearms used to shoot federal agents, civilians, and police?

You have the DHS confused with the DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Another fine example of the lack of our government's inefficiency and ineffective use of energy expended. They only lost track of about 75% of the firearms they were supposedly tracking. (But then, if they had actually had a handle on things, and arrested and prosecuted those who were illegally purchasing and/or tranferring firearms, it wouldn't help the governments case for establishing stricter controls on firearms, would it? )
Pax...

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

Hmm, I see many good points posted here, but all views are valid none the less. My opinion is who cares if there are snipers on the roof? Besides these pics I have NEVER heard anyone say they saw a sniper @ the Superbowl, or any other major event. I have also never heard of anyone starring down the barrel of said sniper rifles(probably because of the former). Situations like the superbowl(as someone else pointed out) make FANTASTIC targets for terrorists or nut-cases. To me knowing there are "eye's in the sky" so to speak makes me feel a little bit better. Especially when I go to say Safeco Field in seattle and see overweight old police with guns that appear to have collected dust.

Regarding the DHS, aren't those the guys all over the news/radio for purposely allowing mexican cartel to purchase firearms illegally? The same firearms used to shoot federal agents, civilians, and police? Not very comforting IMHO. Someone mentioned we would be safer if DHS acted on every what if scenario, I really hope that was joke. Saddam Huessein did that, shot his own family and cabinet members to avoid the what if scenario's. If DHS acted on every what if scenario martial law would be declared and Radio shack's, and firearms would go bye bye.

So you are all for giving up freedom for security? Thanks for selling us out! I have a serious problem with snipers on the roof at any venue. I'll worry about my own security, you worry about yours. I don't need big brother to do it for me.

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

I'd be interested in you elaborating a bit on the phrase highlighted in red. Haven't heard this one before, and I thought I'd heard it all.

It's very simple, you just have to learn to play connect the dots like a kid with a crayon. The people who were behind the terrorists attacks are related by blood to those who run the DHS. They are related to the people who own the media. They are related to the people who run Hollywood. They are related to the bankers. They are related to the wall street swindlers. They are related to the people who run the White House, the Senate, Congress, the Judicial system, our universities, and everything else around us. There is a common link between all of these people, and it's very easy to uncover. Start by looking at who owns the media. Then look at who owns the non-federal no-reserves private bank which prints our money. Then look at who runs the DHS, FBI, CIA, etc. Start connecting the dots. I don't know why people don't do this on their own, because it's very simple really.

Of course, if you believe the official version of events from 911, then I can't help you, nor can anyone else. The illusion is so vast, that most who are confronted with it simply can not believe it's even possible anyways. 911 was a hollywood production, put on by the mainstream media to make you think it's cool to go kill Arabs. Nothing more, nothing less. It's been 11 years now, so expect more from them soon. WWIII (the show) must go on!

If you really want some answers, then message me, because this forum, like dozens of others, will ban me within 10 seconds of posting the truth.

 

[PALO]

So you are all for giving up freedom for security? Thanks for selling us out! I have a serious problem with snipers on the roof at any venue. I'll worry about my own security, you worry about yours. I don't need big brother to do it for me.

please explain to me what freedom is being infringed by having snipers on the roof.

your freedom is no more infringed by snipers on the roof than some other person's freedom is infringed when they notice you open carrying

there is no such freedom "you have the right not to see or know about snipers on the roof during the superbowl"

you can have all the "serious problems" (iow feelings) about snipers on the roof, just like people can have "serious problems" with us open carrying. in neither case does that limit those activities.

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

please explain to me what freedom is being infringed by having snipers on the roof.

your freedom is no more infringed by snipers on the roof than some other person's freedom is infringed when they notice you open carrying

there is no such freedom "you have the right not to see or know about snipers on the roof during the superbowl"

you can have all the "serious problems" (iow feelings) about snipers on the roof, just like people can have "serious problems" with us open carrying. in neither case does that limit those activities.

How about my freedom to move about freely without having a gun pointed at me? Why don't we just put a sniper on every street corner with his gun trained on us, you know....just in case! So, what happens when Mr. Trigger Happy sniper thinks he saw something fishy and slaughters your wife, your mother, your daughter, or even you?

I am not about to accept living in a police state under constant surveillance. Maybe we should have cameras at every corner, snipers on every roof, and then if you step out of line, the camera can spot you, the sniper can take you out, and the world will be safe!

Freedom does not involve having snipers watching over you. That is the definition of tyranny.

 

[PALO]

How about my freedom to move about freely without having a gun pointed at me? Why don't we just put a sniper on every street corner with his gun trained on us, you know....just in case! So, what happens when Mr. Trigger Happy sniper thinks he saw something fishy and slaughters your wife, your mother, your daughter, or even you?

I am not about to accept living in a police state under constant surveillance. Maybe we should have cameras at every corner, snipers on every roof, and then if you step out of line, the camera can spot you, the sniper can take you out, and the world will be safe!

Freedom does not involve having snipers watching over you. That is the definition of tyranny.

sorry, but this is not even a remotely logical argumenT

first of all, snipers aren't (generally speaking) pointing their weapons at YOU unless they have identified you as an active threat.

if and when you can point to all these rampant examples of police snipers slaughtering your wife, daughters, etc. then get back to me
sure, on exceptionally rare occasions, police snipers have been problematic (see: randy weaver's wife), just like on exceptionally rare occasions, lawful CPL holders/open carriers hjave committed crimes with their guns

you are being as reflexively hysterical about police snipers, as the average anti-gunner is about open carriers. i can smell the IRONY

iow, tough for you. your right to carry should not be infringe because some whiners feel uncomfortable about it.

don't like snipers at the super bowl? tough. having them there doesn't make this a police state, and if you spent 10 minutes in an actual police state, you would recognize the absurdity of your statements

i just find it hilarious that your FEELINGS based argument (for loose definition of "argument") is a funhouse mirror version of those used by anti-gunners against us

it really is ironic, alanis

 

[ncwabbit]

im sorry, but having individual(s) who has the authorization to shoot someone at a public venue causes me extreme concern as much as no knock warrantless searches...who is the bad guy? is the bad guy someone who might have run afoul of some nameless person who is trying to make a name for themselves politically?

what on earth caused our society to need a sniper for at a sporting event? did i miss a new article where a sniper might have prevented such a loss of life they need this level of surreptitious protection? are they expecing another munich olympic incident like 1972? what would a sniper do per se against a bomber? shoot the beer/hotdog/peanut vendor for not giving the right change? the ref for making the wrong call?

i have heard folk out here state the sniper could be local which causes me even more concern...some yahoo deer hunter who might be a friend of someone higher on the pay scale on the force who feels the sniper is of sound mental capability and skill to shoot john q public?

sorry not sure we need this kind of police oversight yet do not know how to cause a cease to the practice and it seems it is getting worse as now they are talking about how pleased law enforcement is of having camera drones to keep an eye on the public.

wabbit

ps: my luck, the sniper is told to blow away the bloke in a yellow ball cap, which is the same color i am wearing...sigh!!

 

[PALO]

im sorry, but having individual(s) who has the authorization to shoot someone at a public venue causes me extreme concern as much as no knock warrantless searches...who is the bad guy? is the bad guy someone who might have run afoul of some nameless person who is trying to make a name for themselves politically?

what on earth caused our society to need a sniper for at a sporting event? did i miss a new article where a sniper might have prevented such a loss of life they need this level of surreptitious protection? are they expecing another munich olympic incident like 1972? what would a sniper do per se against a bomber? shoot the beer/hotdog/peanut vendor for not giving the right change? the ref for making the wrong call?

i have heard folk out here state the sniper could be local which causes me even more concern...some yahoo deer hunter who might be a friend of someone higher on the pay scale on the force who feels the sniper is of sound mental capability and skill to shoot john q public?

sorry not sure we need this kind of police oversight yet do not know how to cause a cease to the practice and it seems it is getting worse as now they are talking about how pleased law enforcement is of having camera drones to keep an eye on the public.

wabbit

ps: my luck, the sniper is told to blow away the bloke in a yellow ball cap, which is the same color i am wearing...sigh!!

what do you mean by "he has the authorization?" he is limited by constitutional law, case law, etc. just like we ALL are.

having a gun, whether a sniper rifle, a concealed carry handgun or an open carry gun doesn't mean one has different RIGHTS vis a vis force.

a long gun is just a tool, just like a handgun

the former is preferable for precision shooting at distance.

a handgun is a compromise - for cops AND nonleos, because it's unwieldy to walk around with a rifle. however, handguns have inferior stopping power and accuracy.

that's why cops carry them,. not because they are a superior force option. they are inferior, it's just not practicaly to carry a rifle at all times, and it's less preferable for close range shoots

you are also engaging the "need canard" which is what anti-gunners do to us. "why do you need to open carry?"

again, it's astonishingly ironic. you are using illogical, emotion laden "gunz are evil derp derp" arguments

i'm not even going to address your "yahoo deer hunter" rubbish, since it's AGAIN exactly the argument that anti-gunners make when they see us open carrying

if you cannot recognize how you are a funhouse mirror version of an anti-gunner, i can't help you

 

[ncwabbit]

palo quote: what do you mean by "he has the authorization?" he is limited by constitutional law, case law, etc. just like we ALL are. unquote

and i bet you truly wrote that w/a str8 face and w/o laughing out loud or chuckling...R E A L L Y?

oh wait...the federal agencies and the massacres they have participated and initiated assured the constitutional rights of their victims were kept intact...how many federal agents were jailed for those atrocities they commited... oh wait they were were exempt by constitutional law, etc.?

oh wait...the constitutional rights given up from the passage of the patriot act and those 'secret' govenmental proceedings against john q public give me a warm fuzzy too on having a sniper in the rafters knowing they follows consitiutional law and case law and etc., to assure the poor bloke(s) sniped and killed rights are intact?

forgive me, but everyone has failed to provide a viable explaination why such an individual is necessary for what situation(s), and who controls the actions of the sniper and what activities activate the sniper to violate ppls constituational rights.

your leap of faith to irony seems to be displaced as when i oc/cc in my community, i understand and adhere to the case law of my community and i also acutely aware i am responsible for my actions so i can be thrown into the judical system because i used my firearm for my self defence...a nameless federal agent 'following orders' doing the biding of a zealous nameless government enforcer of the patriot act reminds me of shades of Kent state, MyLai and other instances of 'just following orders' incidents...(or other isolated incidents that occur regularly across our country)

wabbit

 

[PALO]

palo quote: what do you mean by "he has the authorization?" he is limited by constitutional law, case law, etc. just like we ALL are. unquote

and i bet you truly wrote that w/a str8 face and w/o laughing out loud or chuckling...R E A L L Y?

oh wait...the federal agencies and the massacres they have participated and initiated assured the constitutional rights of their victims were kept intact...how many federal agents were jailed for those atrocities they commited... oh wait they were were exempt by constitutional law, etc.?

oh wait...the constitutional rights given up from the passage of the patriot act and those 'secret' govenmental proceedings against john q public give me a warm fuzzy too on having a sniper in the rafters knowing they follows consitiutional law and case law and etc., to assure the poor bloke(s) sniped and killed rights are intact?

forgive me, but everyone has failed to provide a viable explaination why such an individual is necessary for what situation(s), and who controls the actions of the sniper and what activities activate the sniper to violate ppls constituational rights.

your leap of faith to irony seems to be displaced as when i oc/cc in my community, i understand and adhere to the case law of my community and i also acutely aware i am responsible for my actions so i can be thrown into the judical system because i used my firearm for my self defence...a nameless federal agent 'following orders' doing the biding of a zealous nameless government enforcer of the patriot act reminds me of shades of Kent state, MyLai and other instances of 'just following orders' incidents...(or other isolated incidents that occur regularly across our country)

wabbit

when you actually have a legal/logical argument get back to me.

this has nothing to do with leap of faiths, or other such rubbish, nor your hysterical cries of police state because god forbid there was a sniper (oh noe he has a rifle. they are EVUKL!!!!!!) present at a mass gathering. there were police snipers at WTO, n30, and have been for all sorts of gatherings. prettymuch everywhere the president goes there are snipers. etc. etc.

and again, your baseless hysterical EMOTION based arguments exactly mirror those of anti2nd amendment folks when they protest US having gunz

i'll remain living in the reality based community, thanks. you can continue living in fear of long gunz

i'll also note that the police need not prove "necessity" to have snipers any more than you need prove "necessity" to open carry.

snipers are not engaging in 4th amendment seizures merely by being present and ready to act, so there are no scrutiny standards (constitutionally speaking) and from a commonsens angle, we want snipers there and hope there are never needed

of course bad guys could NEVER do bad stuff at a sports exhibition. we can't justify snipers. i mean it's not like there was this little thing called the munich olympics or anythings (rolls eyes)

 

[09jisaac]

i have heard folk out here state the sniper could be local which causes me even more concern...some yahoo deer hunter who might be a friend of someone higher on the pay scale on the force who feels the sniper is of sound mental capability and skill to shoot john q public?

I am not saying I agree with a sniper at the super bowl but what does it matter if he is local police? He could have been trained by the military if you're implying that they are better people. A high percentage of LEO has military background.

 

[ncwabbit]

i apologize...

http://xkcd.com/269/

http://xkcd.com/391/



wabbit


ps: http://xkcd.com/229/

pps: no just an query on their qualifications, sorta like when someone uses the tazer incorrectly or when someone challenges those who use the radar gun and write your traffic ticket or

 

[Steeler-gal]

i have enough concern when law enforcement is walking around in plain sight...
but fortified sniper nests at the superbowl...truly?

http://deadspin.com/5883203/this-looks-like-a-fortified-snipers-nest-at-the-super-bowl

shades of syria, eygpt, etc....

wabbit

Are you surprised that this is at the Super Bowl or that it's manned by police? Considering the number if people you could take out at a stadium event neither fact surprises me.


Sent using Tapatalk

 

[Jim675]

Police have been providing security around VIPs and major public events for some time. I support their right to be armed appropriately as long as their actions are legal, just as I support anyone else's rights to defend themselves and others.

In support of that aim, I'd prefer that 50,000 armed citizens in the stands provide backup to the 6 snipers on the roof. Or the other way around as the case may be.

 

[PALO]

Police have been providing security around VIPs and major public events for some time. I support their right to be armed appropriately as long as their actions are legal, just as I support anyone else's rights to defend themselves and others.

In support of that aim, I'd prefer that 50,000 armed citizens in the stands provide backup to the 6 snipers on the roof. Or the other way around as the case may be.

snipers are able to

1) present accurate fire at a distance

handguns are woefully inaccurate, even if you are a bitchen shooter, compared to rifles. snipers are a force multiplier, they offer a safety factor that NO amount of armed guys on the ground (cops or otherwise) could provide, and based on their vantagepoint, high ground, etc. it's a no brainer.

and god forbid we get a "bad guy" sniper at one of these events. the ONLY one who is going to have a good chance of taking him out is another sniper (recall in the texas tower shooting case years ago - armed students with rifles held him at bay pretty well from the ground fwiw)

people here are getting hysterical over nothing.

there is no privacy violation, no constitutional trigger whatsoever, no invasive search, god forbid no "rapiscan" like at the airport etc.

we are talking about having one or more cops in tactically advantageous positions with adequate long range firepower to arrest certain threats that are not easily handled from the ground

they OFFER also the ability to provide intel and overview info to the boots on the ground when and if the **** hits the fan.

i WANT PD's to be proactive, and to be well armed against the bad guys. i HOPE we never need to see a sniper take some ****** out, but if necessary, i'm glad he's there - for all of us

those who don't like it can boycott the SB.

 

[Jack House]

Are you surprised that this is at the Super Bowl or that it's manned by police? Considering the number if people you could take out at a stadium event neither fact surprises me.


Sent using Tapatalk

But who is going to do the taking out? There were no threats against the super bowl, there was no reason to believe there would be a need for snipers.


Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

 

[thebigsd]

But who is going to do the taking out? There were no threats against the super bowl, there was no reason to believe there would be a need for snipers.


Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

How do you know that there were no threats against the Superbowl? Not saying that there were, but that's a bold statement to make.

 

[PALO]

But who is going to do the taking out? There were no threats against the super bowl, there was no reason to believe there would be a need for snipers.


Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

this is CLASSIC reactive thinking, and thank god law enforcement doesn't always do it (although they do it too often)

we saw this at WTO in seattle, when they were unprepared for riots because according to the mayor (it never happens in seattle)

we saw it in columbine, when cops were trained (institutional cowardice) to stand by and wait for SWAT in an active shooter scenario (imo, they shoul dhave resigned in shame. kids are getting executed, you run towards the threat - cop or not)

we saw it in the LA bank robbery shooting when cops were so unprepared (since such a bank robbery had never happened before) that they had to run to gun stores to get proper firepower)

we see it over and over again

first of all, we very well MAY HAVE HAD thwarted attempts at such mass events before. you rarely read about it when the cops prevent it before it turns bad

what you do is look at POTENTIAL threat, and look at resources, etc. and you use common sense, cost benefit analysis and you prepare for what risk analysts refer to as "high risk low frequency" events

clearly, such events place people in vulnerable positions - packed together with difficulty in quick escape and potential for extreme casualties.

they are a good target for bad guys, and hopefully LEO's are sufficiently prepared that they harden the target enough to PREVENT such attacks

prevention is ALWAYS preferable to playing catch up

prior to the munich olympics, security was a JOKE and several security experts commented on it, and were given the same reaction "well, it's never happened before, so it's not a concern"

that sort of lack of vision and lack of risk analysis is exactly what i don't want from LEO's

if you are planning to create a climate of fear, you make threats

if you are planning on creating a massive tragedy, you DON"t MAKE threats, since that puts LEO's on guard. you WANT complacency.