Is this truly necessary?

[Jack House]

so far all i have seen is emotion laden screeds, and speculation based on not the slightest bit of empirical data or rational thought processes.

You can not prove that something doesn't exist.

Mind pointing out where my posts have been 'ladened with emotion?"

 

[.40S&W]

I bet there have been thousands of instances where there have been police snipers at sporting events among other public gatherings and not a single soul knew and/or cared. The only reason this is such a firestorm is because it was in the media recently. That's what media does, report on topics they know will be controversial. It's how they get their ratings.

 

[marshaul]

that aside, if your primary concern is that you believe snipers will be pointing gunz at you , you may be interested to know that many snipers work with seperate scopes and/or spotters with scopes. i have no idea if these police snipers are scanning with the scope ON their rifle, or a seperate one.

Of course they have spotting scopes. That doesn't mean the use them exclusively, sitting up their in their perch, nobody paying much attention. I'm sure that some are pretty good about it. I'm equally sure there are adrenaline-junkie cowboys (this stuff is better than sex, doncha know) who just love scanning a crowd with a rifle, and do it whether they "should" or not. It's a predicable result the feeling of authority and the inflated sense of impunity their job gives them, and the exaggerated sense of importance that any such gig inevitably makes a person feel ("zomg I am teh sniper, gunna shoot sum terrirists if they **** around"). It's the security guard effect, only on steroids. Oh, it doesn't happen to every one of them I'm sure, but the fact that their job self-selects for the type to whom such behavior would be too tempting to resist (as we've seen countless times), gives plenty of reason to limit these snipers to instances of need.

do you? i suggest you don't, because none of the objections to cops with rifles oh noes in this thread have come from a position of educated concern.

so, if your objection is your belief that police snipers will be pointing their rifles at people without due cause, why not RESEARCH that and see if it's ACTUALLY the case before making much ado about ... what is apparently... nothing

Did I mention I've seen it occur before?

If I've seen it, it's unlikely to be all that rare an occurrence. I may be more observant than most, but I don't spend a lot of time where police snipers hang out either.

I bet there have been thousands of instances where there have been police snipers at sporting events among other public gatherings and not a single soul knew and/or cared. The only reason this is such a firestorm is because it was in the media recently. That's what media does, report on topics they know will be controversial. It's how they get their ratings.

So if the people don't know, it's totally fine? And if they find out, and it generates "controversy" because now all of a sudden they do know and they don't like it, it's all the media's fault?

You can not prove that something doesn't exist.

Mind pointing out where my posts have been 'ladened with emotion?"

He's grasping at straws. Notice he's avoiding making rebuttals to any number of points, and instead seizes upon some minute detail he feels he can twist into an appeal to emotion, and offers nothing further. He's hoping nobody will notice that there have been plenty of "why not" arguments provided, and he himself can't come up with a reasonable "why".

Which really leaves this nothing more than the thoughtless apologia I identified it to be earlier.

 

[PALO]

Of course they have spotting scopes. That doesn't mean the use them exclusively, sitting up their in their perch, nobody paying much attention. I'm sure that some are pretty good about it. I'm equally sure there are adrenaline-junkie cowboys (this stuff is better than sex, doncha know) who just love scanning a crowd with a rifle, and do it whether they "should" or not. It's a predicable result the feeling of authority and the inflated sense of impunity their job gives them, and the exaggerated sense of importance that any such gig inevitably makes a person feel ("zomg I am teh sniper, gunna shoot sum terrirists if they **** around"). It's the security guard effect, only on steroids. Oh, it doesn't happen to every one of them I'm sure, but the fact that their job self-selects for the type to whom such behavior would be too tempting to resist (as we've seen countless times), gives plenty of reason to limit these snipers to instances of need.



Did I mention I've seen it occur before?

If I've seen it, it's unlikely to be all that rare an occurrence. I may be more observant than most, but I don't spend a lot of time where police snipers hang out either.





So if the people don't know, it's totally fine? And if they find out, and it generates "controversy" because now all of a sudden they do know and they don't like it, it's all the media's fault?





He's grasping at straws. Notice he's avoiding making rebuttals to any number of points, and instead seizes upon some minute detail he feels he can twist into an appeal to emotion, and offers nothing further. He's hoping nobody will notice that there have been plenty of "why not" arguments provided, and he himself can't come up with a reasonable "why".

Which really leaves this nothing more than the thoughtless apologia I identified it to be earlier.

there is no apologia because there is no suspicion of wrongdoing.

you can't apologize for something that isn't even being accused of being misconduct

the emotional appeal has been to what a cop with a rifle COULD DO (oh noes he COULD shoot innocents) which is of course true. it's also true of anybody with a firearm, legal or otherwise, and a ridiculous "argument"

as for the you can't prove a negative FALLACY, this is one of the most misused ideas in analytical reasoning. it is constantly repeated "you can't prove a negative". it's also false.

it's an example of "pop logic". people love to use it, because it makes them sound clever (they think). it's like when (usually libs) use the "fire in a crowded theater" meme, not realizing that that case (schenck) is no longer the relevant case law, since it was superseded by brandenberg (sp?) and also was the "logic" used to prosecute a WAR protester.

anyway, here' a brief article explaining that the "you can't prove a negative" claim is ... false. great example of pop logic... iow, sounds "smart" but is in fact wrong.


http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

 

[Aknazer]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why they need it. And before you bring up that this is an "anti" arguement, that too has already been addressed with how the government doesn't have "rights" while the antis are trying to suppress the natural rights that are simply affirmed by the Constitution and its amendments.

You also haven't addressed the bigger issue with cops and how this is but one thing that adds to the issue.

 

[PALO]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why they need it. And before you bring up that this is an "anti" arguement, that too has already been addressed with how the government doesn't have "rights" while the antis are trying to suppress the natural rights that are simply affirmed by the Constitution and its amendments.

You also haven't addressed the bigger issue with cops and how this is but one thing that adds to the issue.

for the umpteenth time, i have NEVER claimed they NEED snipers at the superbowl.

i similarly don't claim people NEED to OC or CC.

so, i am not going to prove what i neither believe nor claim.

nor have i claimed the govt. has rights. govt. does not have rights (the utility of the term "states' rights as a proxy for federalism notwithstanding). govt has authority (and imo often TOO much authority due to specious reading of the COTUS by our SCOTUS etc.) based on consent of the governed, rule of law, seperation of powers, and constitutionally enacted structures, responsibilities, etc.

are you SO ignorant of my argument that you believe i claimed we NEED snipers at the superbowl, or are you devolving to trolling?

have you even read what i wrote? i wrote plenty. i specifically said we don't NEED snipers at the super bowl. that is ENTIRELY tangential to my belief that snipers at the superbowl are a "win" in the costbenefit analysis equation, and that the "arguments" (for loose definition of same) against police snipers have mostly been emotion laden screeds rife with logical fallacies.

 

[marshaul]

You're talking in circles, and ignoring points that have already been made. Perhaps if you choose to address the arguments before you, the discussion can continue.

You yourself are a blatant committer of the argumentum ad logicam fallacious appeal. You have yet to actually identify a single instance of a logical fallacy (your singular attempt merely demonstrated an inability to discern subtext & nuance, as well as to make obvious connections), and declaring something "emotion-laden" does not, by default, make it so. Neither tack constitutes a compelling rebuttal to the variety of arguments you've been presented with.

Furthermore, I suggest you look up the definition of "apologia".

 

[georg jetson]

SNIP

the emotional appeal has been to what a cop with a rifle COULD DO (oh noes he COULD shoot innocents) which is of course true. it's also true of anybody with a firearm, legal or otherwise, and a ridiculous "argument"

Slow down... deep breaths...

Lets keep it simple. The reason the "could do" argument applies to an agent of the government is because as acting agents 's they don't have "rights". The reason the "could do" does NOT apply to a citizen privately is because rights are being exercised. Can you acknowledge an understanding to this?

 

[PALO]

Slow down... deep breaths...

Lets keep it simple. The reason the "could do" argument applies to an agent of the government is because as acting agents 's they don't have "rights". The reason the "could do" does NOT apply to a citizen privately is because rights are being exercised. Can you acknowledge an understanding to this?

except this is about neither rights NOR needs. that's a framing problem with those who are opposed to copz with riflez at the SB

the issue is - SHOULD cops have snipers at the SB?

i say - it sounds like a good idea, but i am certainly willing to change my mind given compelling arguments and/or compelling evidence or statistics.

none of those have been forthcoming. instead, it's mostly emotion, fear of police, and people who say they don't want snipers pointing gunz at them, without even a reason to believe that WILL be case (again, have they checked on the usage of spotting scopes etc?)

i have personally been present at numerous events with police snipers - both secret service events with 2 presidents, and events like N30, WTO, etc.

in no cases have i seen any reason to distrust or be alarmed by police snipers, and i recognize compelling reasons to have them present at such types of events as a longer distance, more accurate force option given a very unlikely, but very compelling IF needed scenario

also, depending on where the SB will be , cops will be working with event security etc. and a lot of people will have a say/input/ etc. into how and why the snipers will be deployed. these are rarely kneejerk ad hoc decisions

again, if somebody can present a compelling argument, heck ANY decent argument against cop snipers at the SB, i'd love ot hear it. as of now, i haven't

 

[marshaul]

the issue is - SHOULD cops have snipers at the SB?

i say - it sounds like a good idea, but i am certainly willing to change my mind given compelling arguments and/or compelling evidence or statistics.

Most reasonable thing you've said yet.

Perhaps you should consider that we're equally eager for compelling evidence or statistics that there is even the remotest chance of a sniper being useful.

Intuition doesn't cut it any more than it does for our arguments, if you insist on data. Where's yours?

Personally, I'm inclined to think the risk is higher of one of these cowboys accidentally shooting someone than of them ever being useful. Of course they don't think that, because they think they're elite operators. But I've seen way more trigger happy cops than I have sniped terrorists.

And I can just as easily be the one to call you paranoid. Sniper-necessitating terrorists at the super bowl? lulz. Hostage-takers requiring an elite headshot before they ransom the entire event? extra lulz

they don't want snipers pointing gunz at them, without even a reason to believe that WILL be case (again, have they checked on the usage of spotting scopes etc?)

Seen it happen.

 

[PALO]

Most reasonable thing you've said yet.

Perhaps you should consider that we're equally eager for compelling evidence or statistics that there is even the remotest chance of a sniper being useful.

Intuition doesn't cut it any more than it does for our arguments, if you insist on data. Where's yours?

Personally, I'm inclined to think the risk is higher of one of these cowboys accidentally shooting someone than of them ever being useful. Of course they don't think that, because they think they're elite operators. But I've seen way more trigger happy cops than I have sniped terrorists.

And I can just as easily be the one to call you paranoid. Sniper-necessitating terrorists at the super bowl? lulz. Hostage-takers requiring an elite headshot before they ransom the entire event? extra lulz



Seen it happen.

i apparently use a different metric. i have seen what happens (WTO , LA bank robbery shooting, etc.) when we fail to assess event/infrastructure dynamics, and just use the "well it hasn't happened YET, so we shouldn't prepare for it " dynamic.

this is the "logic" that brought us the munich olympics, and countless other disasters

the SB is a high profile, extremely crowded event, that is exactly the type of event that attracts the kind of **** that snipers can help neutralize

given good intel, hopefully we will NEVER need to use them

that's entirely tangential to my weighting of the costs and benefits which tells me there are far more benefits vs. costs in having cop snipers at the SB

again, most people who OC realize there is a TINY chance they may need it, but they choose to carry it. to exercise a right that infringes on nobody else

well, a cop sniper infringes on nobody's rights. it may bother some people, but tough ****. i'm bothered by fat people in spandex, doesn't mean i want to ban them

 

[marshaul]

i apparently use a different metric. i have seen what happens (WTO , LA bank robbery shooting, etc.) when we fail to assess event/infrastructure dynamics, and just use the "well it hasn't happened YET, so we shouldn't prepare for it " dynamic.

this is the "logic" that brought us the munich olympics, and countless other disasters

the SB is a high profile, extremely crowded event, that is exactly the type of event that attracts the kind of **** that snipers can help neutralize

Yeah, because A: we can put snipers everywhere, B: terrorists go out of their way to select places with obvious snipers, and C: you can stop a jet plane with a sniper.

 

[PALO]

Yeah, because A: we can put snipers everywhere, B: terrorists go out of their way to select places with obvious snipers, and C: you can stop a jet plane with a sniper.

ah, the "perfect is the enemy of the good" fallacy.

keep em comin' man. it beats the emotional ones

by this "logic", we should equip cops with armor piercing rounds in a duty gun large enough to handle them, because if and when presented with a suspect in heavy armor, a .40 S&W will be useless

see, i can do the logical fallacies too!!!

win!

 

[Aknazer]

for the umpteenth time, i have NEVER claimed they NEED snipers at the superbowl.

i similarly don't claim people NEED to OC or CC.

so, i am not going to prove what i neither believe nor claim.

nor have i claimed the govt. has rights. govt. does not have rights (the utility of the term "states' rights as a proxy for federalism notwithstanding). govt has authority (and imo often TOO much authority due to specious reading of the COTUS by our SCOTUS etc.) based on consent of the governed, rule of law, seperation of powers, and constitutionally enacted structures, responsibilities, etc.

are you SO ignorant of my argument that you believe i claimed we NEED snipers at the superbowl, or are you devolving to trolling?

have you even read what i wrote? i wrote plenty. i specifically said we don't NEED snipers at the super bowl. that is ENTIRELY tangential to my belief that snipers at the superbowl are a "win" in the costbenefit analysis equation, and that the "arguments" (for loose definition of same) against police snipers have mostly been emotion laden screeds rife with logical fallacies.

Neither, though you apparently fail pretty hard at reading comprehension to understand what I'm saying. You keep relating the "need" (or lack thereof) for snipers at the SB to the "need" (or lack thereof) to OCing or CCing and then using this improper pairing to not answer the question of "why do the cops need this?" The reason it is an invalid arguement has also been stated multiple times: because OC/CC is a right and thus the "need" to do it doesn't matter while the government has no such right and thus if the people are to tolerate it the government should have a valid reason for it. Obviously the government "can" just do what it wants until put back in it's place, but that helps to only make the people resent it and is but one step down a road that is best not travelled.

You have also failed to address the larger issue here, which is the overall militarization of the police force; which the more frequent deployment of things like snipers is but a symptom.

You also state that having them was a "win" but yet I don't think so. Just how much did it cost the taxpayers to have snipers there? And just what did they do to justify that cost? Personally I didn't hear about them till after the game, so then one can question if anyone who would have been deterred by them knew about them. And if they didn't and there still wasn't any attacks then again one has to question if the cost (both monetary and non-monetary costs) was really worth it. I would say it wasn't.


And while I know I'm jumping around a bit, but really what "logical fallacies" have I been stating? I haven't been "emotional" at all about this and I've stated a very reasonable concern. And that is the militarization of the police (for which these snipers are just a high-profile symptom of) and how that affects the overall force and helps to promote the "us vs them" mentality and cops treating the citizenry not as citizens but as enemy combatants to always be eyed with suspicion and contempt.

 

[PALO]

Neither, though you apparently fail pretty hard at reading comprehension to understand what I'm saying. You keep relating the "need" (or lack thereof) for snipers at the SB to the "need" (or lack thereof) to OCing or CCing and then using this improper pairing to not answer the question of "why do the cops need this?" The reason it is an invalid arguement has also been stated multiple times: because OC/CC is a right and thus the "need" to do it doesn't matter while the government has no such right and thus if the people are to tolerate it the government should have a valid reason for it. Obviously the government "can" just do what it wants until put back in it's place, but that helps to only make the people resent it and is but one step down a road that is best not travelled.

You have also failed to address the larger issue here, which is the overall militarization of the police force; which the more frequent deployment of things like snipers is but a symptom.

You also state that having them was a "win" but yet I don't think so. Just how much did it cost the taxpayers to have snipers there? And just what did they do to justify that cost? Personally I didn't hear about them till after the game, so then one can question if anyone who would have been deterred by them knew about them. And if they didn't and there still wasn't any attacks then again one has to question if the cost (both monetary and non-monetary costs) was really worth it. I would say it wasn't.


And while I know I'm jumping around a bit, but really what "logical fallacies" have I been stating? I haven't been "emotional" at all about this and I've stated a very reasonable concern. And that is the militarization of the police (for which these snipers are just a high-profile symptom of) and how that affects the overall force and helps to promote the "us vs them" mentality and cops treating the citizenry not as citizens but as enemy combatants to always be eyed with suspicion and contempt.

have you thought this through AT ALL?

most likely it costs the taxpayers nothing

cops work sports events as OFF DUTIES and their wages are paid (usually) by the event organizer. when cops work all star game, mariners, etc. it costs the taxpayers ZERO

this is how little you have thought through this

iow, as you keep confirming this is a kneejerk "i don't wanna see cops with rifles" emotional response

again, this is the SUPERBOWL. the NFL et al almost certainly PAY the cop's wages for event security (christ, just amazing)

as to the meta stuff (militarization etc. of cops) i am in general - against it. iow, i think it goes way too far. USUALLY. i certainly don't think a sniper or two during the superbowl is an example of overmilitarization. it's simply a good force option to have, hopefully never needed, but handguns are inefficient and a compromise at distance

also, as part of the meta, SWAT is VASTLY overused, especially in war on drugs ****, but i'm against the war on drugs. that's a different topic entirely.

i WANT cop snipers during the superbowl. you don't . fair enuf. i think it is a net benefit for reasons given - no negatives i can see, and much better ability to respond to an unusual but crticial incident of certain sorts

 

[Aknazer]

have you thought this through AT ALL?

most likely it costs the taxpayers nothing

cops work sports events as OFF DUTIES and their wages are paid (usually) by the event organizer. when cops work all star game, mariners, etc. it costs the taxpayers ZERO

this is how little you have thought through this

iow, as you keep confirming this is a kneejerk "i don't wanna see cops with rifles" emotional response

again, this is the SUPERBOWL. the NFL et al almost certainly PAY the cop's wages for event security (christ, just amazing)

Way to only focus on one bit while ignoring everything else, such as the militarization of the police force or the "need" of having snipers at such an event.

Also why would you expect me to know that the taxpayers AREN'T paying for this? It is not unreasonable for a citizen who isn't involved with law enforcement to believe that the taxpayers pay for "security" provided by law enforcement regardless of the location. Though I would guess that your knowledge of this helps to show that you most likely work for some LE organization.

 

[marshaul]

ah, the "perfect is the enemy of the good" fallacy.

Remember that whole thing about cost/benefit analysis?

You're like "the boy who cried fallacy".

Maybe you'll get it right one day. Trouble is, nobody will notice.

 

[ncwabbit]

palo...you missed the point of my comments.....
who is in charge...you keep stating the police and referencing the stupid english afterwards. i am afraid imho the local authorities lack that kind of in depth intel and high tech specialized equipment to pull it off successfully...sorry!!

why are they needed...you state to protect the 'citizens attending the event' from what type of threat per se? terrorists...so my taxpaying super spooks are protecting citizens again? lee harvey, robert kennedy, mlk, type ofprotecting US citizens? you also go into a tirate about an equation but as some mentioned what is the ROI?

again i go back to accountaility considerations..you stated these agents would act properly as outlined by our constitutional authority and laws....what governmental agency is going to step up when it is a failure....kinda like the iran hostage situation.....finger pointing abounded after that tragic event. and the list goes onfor governmental failures with nobody stepping up to be accountable...oh wait, there was one success...george prevented iraq from deploying their weapons of mass destruction....sorry mistaken yet again...drat

i am a firm beliver if it is needed so state publicly in the dreaded newspapers & other media as this would increase the deterrent signifacantly as the bg now know the place is 'protected by our finest federal snipers and those attending the event and let them decide if the want this oversight.

wabbit

ps tks for the unbiased cite...the interesting thing...not one of the actual news reports made reference about permits & the one comment was precious...."i saw it i know i did...he showed it to me"

 

[PALO]

Way to only focus on one bit while ignoring everything else, such as the militarization of the police force or the "need" of having snipers at such an event.

Also why would you expect me to know that the taxpayers AREN'T paying for this? It is not unreasonable for a citizen who isn't involved with law enforcement to believe that the taxpayers pay for "security" provided by law enforcement regardless of the location. Though I would guess that your knowledge of this helps to show that you most likely work for some LE organization.

i referenced the militarization. see the edit

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,, I say Wow!!

why is it insanity?
why?

give an actual reason, not just "derp derp derp cops with rifles derp derp"

I WAS,,, glad your were here... Now not so much..
When I saw this post I KNEW your time here would be very short,
just like other statist LEO that have come before,
your training and proffessional bias would overwelm
whatevber good sense you at first tried to comport!
FAIL;;; facepalm...

Remember that whole thing about cost/benefit analysis?

You're like "the boy who cried fallacy".

Maybe you'll get it right one day. Trouble is, nobody will notice.

+111111111111111111