Possible snipers seen at OSU. Administration says they're not snipers but should be treated like they are.
cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/11490010
Update, yes there are snipers:
871
Comments266cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/11490010
Update, yes there are snipers:
"Geez, they're not snipers! They're just using the sniper scope as a telescope! They're not for use as actual snipers! We just gotta use them to look at the evil protestors!""
“These are not weapons trained at your precious little foreheads, they’re Democracy Spreaders™’. You go to class & learn all about democracy & when you exit the building, we use these to spread all that democracy stored up in your brains all over the wall behind you.“
Managed democracy is a joke too close to reality.
Managed democracy is not a joke.
The fact that a rifle is attached to the telescope is just a funny coincidence
https://y.yarn.co/53f53882-2972-4938-90a1-62bb6eda910e_text.gif
Just a matter of time before we have another Kent State.
My fear is that the next one will be worse.
With the artillery that’s out there these days, it’s almost a certainty.
Plus the police which seem even more bloodthirsty
Police have been taught that the only way to deal with anyone who doesn't immediately comply is through violence. And increased militarization doesn't help. We live in a police state but the narratives created by the ruling class have made people forget it
But what if a nuclear bomb drives a truck through the crowd and stabs everyone?? Please disregard the police beating and gassing people over there, think about how horrible it would be if a bad actor made it in there!
And happen because a foreign country willed it so.
It was really close at UT. State police, city police, and national guard called in by spineless university president (Jay Hartzell).
Fuck Jay Hartzell. Hope he gets recalled. No golden parachute.
The fact that no charges are being filed should result in a strong condemnation and accountability for the administration and the cops. You put everyone in danger when no crime was being committed. There won't be, but there should be.
Don’t forget about Jackson State.
These reactions by the US to a student protest are nothing new and the fact they haven’t sent in the army and killed anyone yet shows it’s not even as bad as it historically has been.
Not everything a shithole like America does dictates what the rest of the world does.
To be worse than Lukashenko is real achivement.
In the future?
Ask any student population in the past who were shot, beaten, tasered, hosed down with water cannons, and jailed what they thought would happen to future protesters.
The shape of silencing unrest, especially anti-war or liberal unrest, hasn’t changed at all. And it will look just the same a decade from now.
If those snipers were to shoot someone, the protests would be twice the size the next day.
Look what happened when Nixon, Reagan and Trump escalated violence in response to protests.
Nixon's in songs for killiing Ohioans.
From Wiki, sadly: "President Richard Nixon, who is criticized in the song, won a landslide reelection in 1972, which included winning the 1972 United States presidential election in Ohio by a margin of over 21%."
Nation-level gerrymandering
You can't gerrymander the presidential election. There are no districts in that election.
You can however influence it with bribes, coercion, and intimidation.
*in countries where voting for president means voting for president, not voting for someone who maybe will vote for president
States.
True.
Yes. That was the election Nixon was actively cheating in, given that the Watergate commission was able to trace it right up to the president.
Yes but it would be nice if the government would listen to us before someone dies.
It would totally be nice. That's why it's enshrined in the first amendment that you have the right to petition your representatives for the redress of grievances. Sadly, they do not act on those petitions (Professor Lessig has studies, and crabby calls and letters to your Senator have a net zero effect) which how protests escalate to civil disobedience (to sabotage and eventually civil war).
But it's interesting how quickly police are turning to anti-riot responses, and our government officials are supporting them. It's noted in COIN (counter insurgency) that brutality against protests only increases public sympathy and support for the movement (which has been consistent with incidents in the past decade, the US unrest and protests after the killing of George Floyd in 2020 being a run of examples.) I suspect it's less 4D chess and more like Trump being angry and wishing to assert his authority.
But our officials, the plutocrats they serve and law enforcement all regard the US Public as the enemy, and have been consistent about it since the 9/11 attacks. It's one of the factors that's been driving us towards civil war, or the end of our democratic features and one-party autocracy.
This shit has been going on for decades. I went through the Pittsburgh G20 more than a decade ago. Same shit.
No one should allow their children to attend that school. Everyone protesting should unenroll and switch to better school.
Also the administration should be fired and arrested for allowing school shooters on their fucking roof. What the fuck.
They don't really have say. Blame the state government.
They asked police to come on campus and forcefully end the protests.
You can always count on a demented righty, often an off-duty cop, to show up dressed as a lefty to light a fire, break a window, or shoot someone. That's why they're always using that exact accusation against leftists, because they're actually doing it.
It has happened before, and will happen again
too late
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
Four dead in Ohio
Gotta get down to it, soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been gone long ago
What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
For those who don't know it. https://youtu.be/h-w_V0ikniA?si=oacP4alhBgcRGBrq
minus tracking link
https://youtu.be/h-w_V0ikniA
Thank you. I am an idiot.
yt's been sneaky about it lately-- when you copy the link even if it doesn't show the ?si= part when you copy it can appear when you paste
makes vaguely angry noises Noted for the future.
Thanks! I am 43 and had no idea that Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young had ever collaborated.
Pretty sure Nixon was napping
Never has been. National anthem notwithstanding the United States has always been land of the richest getting what they want.
Hell the entire history of the United States is basically, we want something so we're going to have it, and if there's inconvenient people in the way then those inconvenient people will go away or die. The US had race separation until as recently as the 1960s. Wherever was the freedom?
It's like it was almost designed for the rich to begin with.
Name a country where it is not the case that your first paragraph is true.
humans are naturally power hungry in everywhere and all the time. nothing will change for the benefit of the people and even if it does, it's probably propoganda.
Isn't USSA the land of religions? They even have it in their motto.
That's a remnant of the previous Cold War that we engaged in, it wasn't supposed to be that way. The founding fathers specifically separated church and state.
Really? All of this religiousness of brain is because other side of the Pacific Bathtub wasn't religious?
Really not sure what you're asking, but yes, the current wave of fundamentalists and evangelicals is a backlash because the USSR was a non-religious state.
Huh. Takes phrase "to spite mom I'll freeze my ears" to new level.
France?
Liberté, égalité, fraternité
This seems so incredibly ill-advised. If students become martyred by trigger-happy snipers, these protests will boil over into open violence. Imagine thousands of videos flooding social media in an instant showing student corpses. I fear that gasoline has been poured and matches are being lit everywhere.
There won't be any meaningful amount of violence. People in the US are total bitches when it comes to actually fighting the system. At worst, there will be a riot, where the most predominant activity is looting, and then the National Guard will be called in and everyone will roll over like they always do.
To be fair it's kind of hard to not roll over to the National Guard
I think we could deal with the National Guard if people were motivated enough. Even I'm surprised with the shit some people get their hands on here. There's plenty of people that treat the Second Amendment like a religion, and plenty of others that love blowing shit up for fun.
Username checks out...
We'll get some kickass industrial songs about it in 15 years though.
There ain't gonna be a 15 years from now.
Sir, this ain't the exciting dystopia, this is the boring dystopia.
Totally not true lol. Jan 6th, LA riots of the 90s, the various riots during the height of BLM movements, Seattle, Unite the Right rally both sides.
People are upset, they cause damage and even sometimes try to assassinate people. The US probably faces more domestic terrorism than most places.
We have a very strong police state
The People didn't cause damage in Portland as much as the fucking pigs lit fires and defaced buildings to then blame the protestors for it, FYI. Caught on video from multiple angles and everything, yet still nothing in the way of consequences. "Police state", you say? It's fascism in a candy wrapper.
Lol okay my point stands people are constantly in the streets fighting.
Fascism is a police state, a police state is fascism.
Why are you fuckin mad? lmfao
People are not "constantly in the streets fighting", you nonce.
There is also more to "fascism" than simply "police state".
Are you purposefully stupid, or just lazy? Smart money's on you thinking your username was spelled with an "e" when it's correctly spelled with an "a".
you're being dumb yes they are we can literally sit here all day and go through different ways people have attempted to resist the government from Waco and MOVE to the many many many many many domestic terrorist attacks. We can talk about civil rights movements from MLK to Black Panthers to BLM. Occupy Wall Street, Unite the Right Rally(counter protestors), numerous school demonstrations from Kent State to walk outs to what's happening today for Palestine.
They're always fighting.
What is it with Ohio and murdering college protesters? (See: Kent State)
We should treat them like snipers? ie. We should rush them and neutralise the threat they pose?
Rocket jump up there and disrupt them, that's your job as a soldier
As a former pyro main: w+m1 with a back burner.
Use jetpack
When you play as pyro, do you get the rainbows and song?
That would be foolhardy: I so want to take this one step further for imaginary karma but don’t want to be on a list
I mean, obviously question: how does one treat them as if they are?
(Make them say the quiet part out loud)
Ideally, countersnipers
If everyone's a sniper, we're all safe.
That's literally how it works, and the Black Panthers proved it a long time ago. The cops stay peaceful when the protesters are heavily armed and heavily organized, because cops are fucking cowards who don't want an actual fight
Reposting this because it’s relevant here too: A scenario like this is what led to the formation of the Black Panthers during the civil rights era, and subsequently led to gun control laws being started by republicans. During the civil rights protests, people quickly realized that peaceful protests were violently broken. But heavily armed peaceful protests had police nervously watching from across the street.
Because police had no qualms about firing into an unarmed crowd to get people to disperse. But when the entire crowd is armed to the teeth and can immediately return fire, the police are suddenly okay with watching from afar. This was the start of the Black Panthers; a group who organized heavily armed protests.
When conservative lawmakers saw a bunch of heavily armed black people (and allies) on their front steps, and saw the police unwilling to break the protests, those conservative lawmakers got really fucking sweaty. So instead, they gave the police tools to arrest individual protestors. The Mulford Act was drafted and quickly passed. At the time, it was the most restrictive gun control law the country had ever seen. It was written by Ronald Reagan (yes, the same Ronald Reagan that the right uplifts as a paragon of conservative values,) and was supported by the NRA, (yes, the same NRA that lobbies for looser gun control laws in the wakes of school shootings.)
This gave the police the power to arrest individual protestors after the fact. Instead of firing into the crowd to disperse the protest, they would wait for the protest to end, follow the protestors home, then kick in their front doors while they were having dinner with their families. (Remember all of the “don’t bring your cell phone to protests because police will arrest you a week or two later if your phone was pinged nearby” messaging during the pandemic protests? Yeah…)
This led to the Black Panthers diving underground. They realized what was happening after protests, so they took efforts to guard their members’ identities. They pulled tactics straight out of anti-espionage textbooks. Randomized meeting places, so police couldn’t set up stings ahead of time. Code names, so arrested members couldn’t rat even if they wanted to. Fragmented info, so no one person (even the leaders) could take down the entire operation if busted. Coded messages. Dead drops. Et cetera, et cetera…
We’re on a rocket trajectory straight down that same pipeline now.
Yup. I knew all that, but I'm glad to see it posted concisely for people who don't
The joke was more an extension of the argument ammosexuals like to make about everyone being safer when everyone is armed. A bit of a non-sequitur, but those are nice from time to time.
Lmao
I don’t know if it would go like that these days. Cops now have equipment to beat a small army. It’s insane that we let it get like this.
We were so innocent back in the day - my bit of activism was protesting campus security getting certified as a police force. Did no good, so now every incident has someone bringing guns and looking to escalate
The US military with the fanciest equipment in existence at the time couldn't even conquer Vietnamese or Afghan farmers. If protestors took the Black Panther approach and the cops did start shit, the cops would lose.
I strongly disagree that not wanting an actual fight is cowardice. Turning up armed to intimidate unarmed people is cowardice.
Being willing to attack people who can't or won't fight back, but being afraid to attack people who will fight back (especially if they will do so effectively), is basically the definition of cowardice
Ah well you should've said that to begin with, because I agree with that!
This is what 2nd ammendment absolutists say, but unironically.
They, unironically, are not wrong. The problem is that they are usually on the fascist side, even or especially when they insist otherwise
Counter-"clearly not at all snipers"
Laser pointer into the scope.
It would have to be coordinated, lots of people from varying angles
Ooh, I like that one
Heavy artillery? FPV drone?
Hell yeah
FPV drone with mine from fields of Ukraine.
Love how the narrative went from “nah those can’t be snipers definitely spotters” to “snipers are commonplace at big events!” once it was confirmed. Also the fact that only msn and snopes have published anything about this (or is that just a search indexing problem?).
Yeah, that is why it fits here. The response from Americans is depressing.
I think it is a search index issue, I can find a few things on this. The arrests are also a thing.
There is also the wayback machine to watch in real time the changing of story by the school:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240426123527/https://www.thelantern.com/2024/04/university-confirms-there-are-no-snipers-on-the-ohio-unions-roof/
https://www.thelantern.com/2024/04/faculty-speak-out-against-universitys-continued-arrests-of-protesters-on-campus-look-toward-university-president-ted-carter-jr-for-response/
Can't wait for a headline about them accidentally shooting an innocent person and then admin goes on the defensive, claiming that the snipers were only doing their job. That, or hush the grieving family by either paying them to shut up or flat out erase them by buying off the police.
Is that bitch wearing a mask to hide their identity?
Maybe pantyhose? Are we sure these are the police? It is getting very hard to tell.
I don't know why but this amuses me. An amateur can easily hit a target at 200 yards the size of a baseball using a 6.5 Creedmore. These snipers are extremely visible and exposed. I'm guessing an attacker or a mass shooter would probably not be thinking about taking out snipers though.
I think they felt safe and being seen was the point.
True, I guess the point is to make a show of it
They are visible on purpose. They're there as a message
I think those are to protect from psychos that want to kill the protesters.
Think about it, it would be idiotic for any crowd control “measures” and doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
Oh you sweet summer child.
No. The cops ARE the psychos that want to kill the protesters.
Just look at the past century of protests in America and how much “good” cops did vs how many innocents they hurt.
Maybe touch the grass. No, seriously. Break from tankie doomerposting in some insane web bubble.
I am scared to think how you must feel on a day to day basis if you believe they will do what exactly?
It must suck to be you honestly.
Doomerposting is all the rage nowadays but while I acknowledge things aren’t going that great some people take it a lil bit too far. Bordering on mental illness. I blame twitter
Triggered much, kitten? 🤣
lol that’s kinda cute thanks
This is fucking cope... I guess you lived in a cave during the BLM protests
Or lived in saner country.
EDIT: for some reason I typed "like was" instead of "lived"
OK, so lets think this out. These are pointed at the crowd correct so lets assume the threat is from the crowd.
You have some Ne'er-do-well in the crowd who is planing some type of trouble, you notice this person looking "dastardly" from your sniper nest. You radio in and get the go ahead to take the shot with your trusty Remington M700. You shoot centre mass as you have been trained to do and the villain drops like a puppet with its strings cut.
You saved the day right? Oh no that is just the start, since the round fired was a 7.62x51mm NATO (there is no "rubber" round for this firearm) it went straight through the torso of that protester with a box knife and into and then back out of at least a few other people in the dense crowd (must be their fault for not wearing better body armour). The gunshot is still noticed even with the police issued silencer and at seeing the carnage the crowd does what crowds do, they stampede.
After the chaos settles down the body count will be a lot higher then that one person with a box cutter could ever manage (not that you can even say they where going to do anything).
These are not there to protect people, that is not their role, this is not an action movie.
I imagine there are situations where benefits outweigh the risks. Probably not your interestingly creative scenario. But congratulations for your vivid depiction.
The issue is I can not even with my vivid imagination can think of a scenario where shooting into a crowd (where these teams have their rifles pointed) would have benefits that outweigh the risks.
The use for sniper teams on roof tops is in VIP protection (as in fuck all the little guys as long as the important one is safe) and offensive actions.
I don’t need to go back in time by far. Moscow shootings. One or four well positioned snipers could save some lives there.
Probably someone in a car driving over protesters, someone shooting an automatic weapon. Any person or humanoid unleashing high explosive fragmentation devices.
In all these cases the teams would have to reaim outside of the crowd, and also unless they have been given permission to shoot at their discretion (oh please no) they need to call it in. Not really a great solution where the benefits outweigh the risks.
And since no snipers saved the day in Moscow it does not really work as an example of snipers being used to defend a crowd. I also doubt with what we now know about the internal workings of the Russian federation I kinda doubt their snipers would have been fully capable.
And yet they are always present during such events so some people that aren’t random internet experts, like us, must see the benefit.
Your yearning for fitting this into narrative got the better out of you this time around. I blame twitter.
Never had a twat account, sorry. I am more coming at this from a gun nuts thinking, Oh and the complete absence of any evidence of sniper teams being used to save a crowd. But maybe I just am not looking hard enough.
Or you know, like, deterrence.
From protesting or attacking protesters? Its getting hard to tell.
Yes and probably yes. But that answers why they are there.
I think you either overestimate overpenetration at range or underestimate the training a sniper has on that very subject.
As someone who has shot this round, no I don't think I am overestimating the penetration. Also as it turns out police (I think state troopers in this case) snipers operate at ranges of 100 yards or less according to the police https://www.police1.com/swat/articles/a-first-of-its-kind-effort-describes-police-sniper-use-of-force-engagements-in-us-j7JjrYjYZmPtsoMt/. I know of no way to magic a bullet fired into a crowd to not over penetrate and yes I checked if there was some sort of less lethal or low pen police round (I found none).
Know your target and what is beyond it. This is basic firearm safety, but that seems to not be common in the US of A.
There are a million low pen rounds, they're called expanding hollow points or fracturing rounds. They are designed to dump all their energy in soft targets, they are ubiquitous in hunting.
(And practically everyone has fired a 308 or equivalent, 300 win mag they are not)
Funny you should compare the round I am assuming they are using (just went with the current most common police rifle) to a 308 but not a 300 win mag. They use both the 308 and the 7.62x51 NATO from what I can look up.
The 7.62x51 nato has more punch then a 308 and a bit less vilocity then a 300 win mag. Now if you where to compare it to a 30-06 or a 7.62x54R then yeah sure. The point is the police are not using anything more fancy then hollowpoint according to what little I can find https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/doc/documents/policy/section-04/040106aa.pdf and I don't know any even slightly competent shooter (hunters more so) that would take the risk of that hollowpoint stopping at the first target with a 308 or hell even a .223.
I think we are getting lost in the weeds but my point is you don't set up sniper teams to protect people, you set them up to take people out or intimidate.
You absolutely set up sniper teams to protect people, such as every US president in a long time and most major sports games. Obviously there is a risk in taking someone out like that and that risk is weighed before giving an order to fire. And I'm not comparing 308 to 7.62x51NATO arbitrarily, they are virtually identical rounds like 5.56 and .223
Welp, thankfully you have a very easy way to identify if you're right or if you're wrong.
If you wake up tomorrow morning and 24h news cycles are megaphoning the murder of innocent protestors, you were right.
If nothing happens, you'll learn you were wrong, and hopefully you'll learn from it.
How does this make me wrong? All I see is 40ish arrests so far and unless they save the day with some sniper shot my point still stands. I am not sure how you think if the police don't kill people somehow that is an own. This is not a rational response to a protest unless you are in a place with very poor civil unrest or one that is not very free.
I was unaware 40 protestors have been arrested. nonviolent?
Looks like they just grabbed them. I was reading it might be the biggest mass protester arrest since the Vietnam era, but I am waiting for the final picture.
High angle means it would likely go into the ground. Also could use hollow point though, I don't know if police use hollow point on rifles.
They use various soft point rounds (you can't really use hollow points on high velocity rifles). The rounds are basically hollow points with a plastic ballistic tip.
I would not want to be behind someone shot with a .308 fragmenting round or not.
Here is a video showing the sort of penetration at 100 yards (what distance police snipers shoot from)
https://piped.video/watch?v=qB5OizvSPG4
it depends on how densely packed the people are and how high the approach angle of the bullet is, at 45 degrees, in center mass, it's only grazing a foot or two before being at knee level lol.
They're just business men with business plans. They're totally not cops.
Too many assholes in this country think they are the American Sniper.
this is the monthly post of someone realizing that crowds of people in public venues, particularly large ones, draw snipers.
Love to see it.
No, not here. Must be an american thing.
yeah idk distinctly american, much like our mass shootings.
I think they might be related. Not sure.
Happens here in the uk, used to see them all the time at big events.
It happens, usually for the protection of the crowd
Snipers flock like birds.
French know how to protest.
wouldnt be a comment about snipers if someone didnt post furry tf2 i suppose
Da fuck? Not a furry. He is wearing the hat Sir Shootsaloot. TF2 is hat simulator, not a furry simulator.
wait until you figure out the lore
Halloween magic except Medic which "experimented on his own head".
oopsie
Let's hope they're fond of Mondays.
they have plenty of lasagna, im sure they'll be fine.
In other parts of the world, snipers would draw in the authorities but I guess in the US they are LEO themselves
they're paid to be there :)
Well yes, I knew that snipers are routinely deployed at large crowds. That is why this is posted here.
i think you should post again but this time include all events this year that have had snipers at them, would be a fun little game of statistics i think.
I wanted to find a list where deployed snipers where used to a positive effect in a crowded area. So far no luck.....
I could not find many good current reports on deployment in general. Here is some older info (2004) so the number is likely a wee bit higher now.
https://www.policemag.com/special-units/article/15349350/swat-snipers
some bits of note are:
"The ASA study, which is titled “Police Sniper Utilization Report 2005,” revealed that contrary to the old 70-yard myth, the average range at which police snipers engage suspects is actually 51 yards."
and is funny when combined with:
"The overwhelming majority of SWAT callouts do not result in shots fired by the SWAT team. ASA estimates that there are 10,000 callouts per year. Nationwide for the 20 years included in the study that adds up to about 200,000 deployments. ASA calculates that out of those 200,000 callouts only 172 incidents have ended with a SWAT sniper killing a suspect.
The survey also shows that police snipers don’t always kill suspects that they fire upon, nor do they always intend to. ASA documents 219 SWAT sniper shootings. Of these, it’s known that 104 struck the suspect in the head or neck, 104 in the body, seven in the arm or hand, and two in a leg. The suspect died of his or her wounds in only 172 of these incidents.
ASA notes that even some of the suspects who were shot in the head and neck survived their wounds. However, none of these suspects were shot in the brain or spinal cord. Instead, they were hit in the jaw or mouth."
that's certainly interesting, i just meant a generic list of all the times it's happened, though more stats is always welcome, i'm sure they don't exist yet though.
Are you saying that it is not dystopic? or it's not comonplace enough to be boring?
I'm glad we dont have/need (probably can't afford) that shit where i live.
Do they have them at sports events and carnivals, music festivals and stuff like that too?
i'm just saying that this is really common, and i've seen it like 4 times the last few years.
It's pretty dystopian, but so is everything. There is nothing that isn't dystopian in life lmao.
Homie they build sniper nests in stadiums. This is a pretty commonly done thing. I'd be surprised if they weren't at the majority of large events that ever happened.
That does sound crazy.
I'll not complain so much about the odd bag checking queue and occasional half hearted patdown/grope we get over here any more.
lol, yeah it's definitely something. It's nothing compared to the TSA though, which is a such a blight on humanity it's done less than letting a horny 12 year old work the job solo instead lmao.
Administration speechcraft level 100
The trick is to say something very confidently and ambiguously in as few words as possible. And also lie.
"Those are leftover telescopes from the solar eclipse. And yes they are loaded."
Civil war speedrun any%
Is there a better source than a screenshot of a tweet?
To my knowledge no. I asked and was downvoted to hell for trying to prevent disinformation (yet again) before an election to verify.
And then the person (mod of Midwest social Ohio or something) posted another picture w/o source
shrug take that as you will
I also couldn't find anything. The screenshotted tweet is from someone who's not even there
edit: updated article https://www.thelantern.com/2024/04/university-says-officers-had-readied-firearms-directed-toward-protesters-from-ohio-unions-roof-once-arrests-began/
Why aren’t they going to where the lawmakers are to protest? /s
Oddly enough as the world saw a few Januarys ago, that might have less of a police response.
The US saying how free it is compares to a small guy telling you how much of an alpha male he is. Unreliable narration
https://youtu.be/l1PrUU2S_iw?si=ueID1BDedP2OOZvK
So we need to get on the roof and detain the snipers.
I put this in the other thread but they have these guys out for EVERY football game. I believe its their standard practice for crowded events. Have your own options, but its not like this is a unique situation. Like I see people talking about trigger happy snipers and shooting kids but that just isn't something that had happend dispite being frequently deployed.
Those don't look like rifles from this angle. They appear to be monoculars.
Yeah, a monocular with a bipod attached. The first picture ok maybe, the second one is 100% a rifle.
I didn't see the 2nd picture. Nevermind what I said then.
I agree. Look at the dude's clothes and kit. That's someone who's out for a shoot.
An eagle never misses
So I have a question I sort of posted in there too but figure I’ll bring the conversation over here (in a more respectful way)
These are called spotters/marksman and they have them at football games, the Olympics, presumably political events, etc. to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats
How should we handle these threats without police intervention/snipers to quickly take out a bomber?
Looking for civil discourse if at all possible, but I also understand this is a high stakes discussion and directly affects some more than others
Edit: Asks a legitimate question, without ulterior motives, literally just trying to steer the conversation to a productive, constructive discussion: is bombarded with bad faith arguments, downvotes, accused of being down right disingenuous, and minimal attempts (1 as of this edit) to actually address the conversation. Psychotic experience this was.
“These threats” what threat?? People protesting? These snipers have never once protected protestors from the violent freaks that show up to run people over or shoot people.
Poignant point
The most likely reasoning is also the saddest.
The tensions about israel/palestine are real. Theres a non zero chance that someone who is very pro-israel and very unhinged might decide the pro-palestinians need shooting. You know how I know this? Because this is an American school, people get shot because someone feels that they need to shoot some people, they dont need a wildly divisive issue to spur them on. One anonymous email talking about how the "terrorist supporters are going to get whats coming to them" and the school/police have to do something. If they do nothing and it does happen everyone will be screaming that "They were warned and did nothing! They wanted this to happen!"
But you see that’s not what they’re doing, right? Tearing down protest encampments and arresting everyone isn’t protecting them.
They can want the protests to go away (or make them) AND not want to deal with the bad press of failing to at least pretend to protect them on campus. Even if the protest is unauthorised by administration they still dont want " Nothing was done to prevent OSU mass shooting by police or administration" to be a headline.
Both things can be true.
Both things can be true, but that doesn’t really make it better? Both are completely self serving reasons that trample on the constitutional rights of the students.
From my point of view/questioning, it's the threat of suicide bombers and other terrorist efforts (acid, dirty bombs, driving through a crowd of people) when it comes to protesting middle eastern matters in the states. Hell we have American terrorists doing terrorism here too, how do we better prevent that or are we stuck only responding?
This is a complete distraction. The only people spilling protestors’ blood on American soil right now are cops. And your response to it is to try to justify why they need intimidation snipers on top of that?? Absolutely not.
You did not address what they said and instead made a slew of assumptions about their intent. They actually had a question
That was answered, like several times. I don't care about the intent (from ether party), but what does grind my gears is the wilfully ignoring any answer that does not fit the weird fear mongering position that this guy is here to protect anyone:
What a liar
Who?
You keep posting this picture, can you share where you got it?
And your response to a credible threat that is solved with the exact same means at other public gatherings, is to not use them, because you feel safe without them? If you apply this way of thinking to other security measures, why would you have a lock at the door? People won't steal from you (until they actually do because you didn't have a lock in your door)
This isn't even true (we literally just had several parades/protests where a driver DROVE through the fucking crowd), you completely dodge my question, and then in bad faith tried to paint me like I'm some sort of crazy person who thinks intimidation is somehow a good idea.
I'm done with this conversation. I don't have to tolerate bad faith arguments when I've repeatedly shown I want to have civil discourse. Next time, don't respond if you can't act like an adult and treat someone who's trying to improve themselves and act like an adult.
OK, dude wringing his hands about what if someone brings in a dirty bomb while cops bash in heads. 🙄 The grandstanding like I didn’t bring up violent freaks running over and shooting protestors first is a cute touch, too.
If you want to be treated as a serious person to have a serious conversation with then be fucking serious.
I've repeatedly said that cops using snipers/spotters is not a good solution, and that cops are part of the problem, but okay believe whatever lies you wanna tell yourself I suppose. Thats your prerogative
Actual prevention of terrorism comes by building a just society. People who have basic needs, healthcare, education, and justice do not become terrorists.
And how do you expect a sharpshooter team to stop a suicide bomber, acid attack, or dirty bomb? Even stopping a crowd-driving-maniac would require significant luck. This isn't an action movie.
Yeah, you think all those people on January 6th weren't having their basic needs met? No, terrorists are not logical people fed up with the system. They're fanatics and psychopaths, and in Gaza it's a revered profession. They literally don't have their basic needs met because they are spending all their money and resources on violent extremism. They've been doing it so long their economy depends on it; if they stop killing Jews, they stop getting money from their benefactors in Iran and Qatar. Panislamism, which includes Hamas and its allies, is an ideology of violent repression of non-muslims and infidels, it's not a freedom movement, it's MAGA for Islam.
I never made this claim... I was asking the question literally, which you answered and lead with, before going back to say I was implying something else. I'm confused how we ended up here, but I think we both agree that snipers are a threatening, and apparently not that effective means to prevent these things from happening. And even in reacting, snipers are overkill.
dirty bombs are movie plot threat, bombers, suicide or not are not an issue in usa because alternatives are more easily available. your take sounds weird and disingenuous
We've had several bombings, including suicide bombers in the us. Not everything is pushed into the news cycle by the media state because "it encourages copy cats" or whatever other bullshit they'll come up with to only report what they want to push.
San Bernardino Attack (2015): 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured (mass shooting and attempted bombing)
Boston Marathon Bombing (2013): 3 people killed and injuring several hundred, including 16 who lost limbs. (bombing)
Times Square Car Bomb Attempt (2010): Attempted car bombing, non injured
Nashville Bombing (2020) - Suicide RV Bombing
Your take is ignorant.
Your take is just fear mongering and pushing the narrative that the police in the US are being militarized to protect people. You are talking about a 14 year period where 18 people died from 2 successful attacks, and hundreds injured. A stat line that is eclipsed by the number of people killed and injured by police every year. In case you are wondering that would be >600 killed and 250,000 injured per year.
https://policeepi.uic.edu/u-s-data-on-police-shootings-and-violence/
The idea that this cure is better then the illness is just not born out in data.
It's very obvious you aren't even reading my comments anymore, I think we can be done now. I'm not going to participate in bad faith discussions. Obvious troll at this point. See ya.
Or I am taking my time responding as I just woke up.
But don't let me stop your victory lap. Clearly you are not at all projecting.
The fact you Americans think this is normal for a protest says more then anything I can comment.
A good test is to think of a private entitiy doing this and if that passes the smell test. I don't think deploying snipers at events has ever saved anyone (correct me if I am missing an incident) and in this case if they are there to protect the students why does the school not hire their own sharpshooters?
You bring up a good point. The prevention part - snipers are seemingly ineffective. The reaction/response portion however, does point to guns being used to prevent further damage. 2016 dallas shooting - police used a bomb to take out the shooter after the fact. LA airport shooting in 2013 - taken down with regular guns.
Overall, I think you make a good point, they're ineffective at prevention, and even response can be handled w/o the need of long range or automatic weapons. There's always the argument that "well there aren't any attacks because we have these" that I can see people making but that feels fallacious somehow, just not sure how exactly.
I am still left to wonder, how do you actually prevent the bombing and other attacks from happening. What is effective?
I think you might be mistaken as to the point of the police being on site. Its not really the job of police to protect (and extra so for protesters). The risk of a terror attack on any large group of people is a weak excuse for this sort of response from police.
Something about those who give up liberty for safety deserve nether....
I sorta agree, but wanted to ask for some clarification - what liberties do you see being given up here? They didn't really take anything away, they were just there. It's definitely intimidating, and nobody trusts the police (for good reason, namely lack of appropriate oversight, action, and training) but I can't see how anything was taken away or given up here for the illusion of saftey that the snipers would hypothetically be providing, know what I mean?
You have normalized a police state where as a people you now think it is normal to have things like sniper teams set up at all major events with a lot of people. This has been done as you have stated; "to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats" even though sniper teams have almost no ability to stop or even just not make the situation considerably worse.
The thing about trading liberties for extra safety is not only about the liberties lost but that it is a fools journey since the things done for safety are more likely to be ether useless, or just bad (think TSA vs militarizing the police).
You are not stopping a mass casualty event at the time and place of the event itself but well before it. This show of force is just control, theatre, a waste of taxpayer money and in the worst case the cause (ironically enough) of a mass casualty event.
Well said. Thank you.
Dude I'm not gonna repeat myself. Go through my comments. I've said time in and time out that I don't agree with this practice. Why is this so hard for people to grasp lol
Edit: And you didn't even answer my question: what liberties are lost by having these snipers there
I did answer you question and have been the only person willing to engage with you politely. So I will break it down at a lower level, all caps:
YOU DO NOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS BY SENDING ARMED GOONS.
YOU HAVE TO STOP THESE THINGS BEFORE THE EVENT NOT DURING.
YOU HAVE ARMED GOVERNMENT AGENTS POINTING LOADED FIREARMS AT PEOPLE WHO ARE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THIS HAS REMOVED THE LIBERTY OF THE STUDENTS BY CHILLING THE ABILITY TO PROTEST (A RIGHT) AND ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED ASSOCIATION WITH PEOPLE WHO SHARE THE SAME POLITICAL VIEWS (THIS IS ALSO COVERED IN YOUR CONSTITUTION).
The very idea you could not pick up on the liberties at direct risk here has me thinking you are ether so oppressed that you don't even know what basic human freedom is, or more likely you are not arguing in good faith and know full well what is going on.
No one (other then I guess your police and governor) wants this stupid, useless, dangerous, Patriot act level show of force.
Edit: And I for one will repeat myself, over and over in different ways since you have stated no one has addressed your question when after reading the replies, they have, and done so in many nuanced and different ways. It just happens no one has given you the answer you are fishing for.
When the bomber intends to die in glory, there is no deterrent possible. Death isn't any deterrent. It can only be stopped before they get to the scene.
Why won't anyone answer my question, I know this.
What can be done to prevent
OK...
Reeducation or incarceratin of zealots. Large investment in mental health. Prosecution of group's and individuals that call for violence or have violent philosophies. Reduce access to weapons and materials. High bounties for reporting suspicious activity or behavior. Promotion / enforcement of a homogeneous society.
None WILL be done. Many are undesirable. But they can be used to prevent. Does that help you?
Yes absolutely. These are most definitely actionable and are also excellent conversational pieces that can be discussed further, which was all I wanted instead of outrage commenting basically.
I think healthcare in general (including mental health) services would be hugely impactful to the general population.
I also think our educational system is being eroded and a lot of kids are pushed away from continuing education (in any form, not just traditional university which fails a lot of people) in favor of blue collar work
Now I’m not saying blue collar work is bad, but I do think continuing education is important, especially as our life expectancies are increasing. It’s important people stay educated and continue to practice things like the scientific process so that we don’t lose that information and become disinformation spreaders.
Without solid education, we can’t possible expect a “bright” future imo.
What did you mean about the homogenous society? In what ways? Looking forward to any examples/explanation you could give!
In a homogeneous society, everyone has the same background. No differences of traditions, religions, art, music, etc. They all look roughly similar. They have no fuel to make another member into the "other". As I understand, Iceland has something approaching this. I expect the Sentinalese do, to. The ways to get to this from a large and diverse society are, of course, appalling.
I'm sorry people are being so reactionary and taking your questions as being pro sniper or whatever way they're taking it. Rational discourse is generally better on Lemmy than other places but is still on the Internet, so people don't actually give anyone credit for trying to be calm and rational about events like these.
And like, to an extent, I understand the outrage. I do.
But if people can’t act like adults, know they need to simmer down a bit before having these conversations, lemmy is in no way better than Reddit. It’s just a Reddit that’s wider and under the control of more people.
This interaction (while in the original thread my words were flung without frontal lobe usage, and that’s entirely my fault) I had hoped to reset after I had apologized but I guess a lot of people were still upset.
Maybe it was my fault. Idk. All I can do is continue to move forward and do better. Simple as that. Thank you for the empathy, I appreciate it.
The cops are the threat to the protestors.
Are they the only threat? If not, what do we do about the threat, as I asked, and have continued to ask
Oh come now, the point being made is the police ARE THE THREAT. There is no other threat at the level of the armed government goons on site pointing loaded firearms at students. You replied to the answer of your question with "But what about the OTHER threat?" And if you could read just a tiny bit between the lines by the fact that nether you or the person you have replied to have listed another threat (other then general terrorism), maybe you could figure out that there is no threat these police are there to thwart.
How are you gonna put parenthesis around the point that was literally counterpoint to the comment.
They were saying the police were the biggest threat, yet we have repeated terrorist events from regular Americans (not cops as well?)
People died from those incidents. I didn’t even include just injuries or anything like that. Dead. Not pepper spray, not rubber bullets.
Run over.
And eight year old was fucking shot and killed.
To say that police or the only threat to LIFE at these events is just outright disingenuous. period.
There exists real threats that we need to address if we’re ever to pull back our gross reliance on police being some kind of savior figure or whatever bullshit other people believe they are.
All the US needs to do is embrace Peelian principles, but instead it’s a corrupt, power groping free for all.
We both know even if taking a more community driven approach like what Peel did in London would take a herculean effort and the public at this point would not likely buy in. Maybe in 50 years.
The argument is not that there are not non police risks, its that they pale in comparison (at a degree that the non police risk is so low to almost be a rounding error) to police risks. Also the police have shown over and over in the US they are not willing to protect the public.
See that is something we can agree on.
There was an updated image that clearly shows the barrel of a rifle, so no. These are not for spotting. They are for sniping.
While it's possible that people shot by guns are bad people, there is very little reason to assume it is likely at a peaceful protest on a University Campus that is ALWAYS crowded. Especially with the current track record of US Police.
My understanding of the original comment was that it was a marksman/spotter. Those are two people who work in tandem to perform a function.
The spotter looks at the larger picture, usually with some kind of binocular or similar, looking for threats and scanning a large area. Their other function is to protect the marksman. So if a threat (or anything really) approaches their position, the marksman can continue to focus on their job, while the spotter defends their position.
The marksman is simply just a sniper. It's a fancy name for a sniper.
They deploy like this in pretty much every operation. Two man teams. The spotter providing protection and support for the marksman, and the marksman executing the mission.
I feel like people missed that, or maybe I misunderstood the poster? IDK.
Killing people is bad.
A needless inaccurate distinction obscuring what it really is, it is a sniper. It is not normal. These crowds existed before the snipers arrived and will exist long after the protests end.
Are they also not the students from the school? So they would have been on campus but not all in one place anyway.
Again with pointless and needless distinctions that attempt to lessen the sin being committed.
Umm, I think you have my point backwards...... unless you are implying the protesters are sinners?
I'm saying it doesn't matter if the people at the protest went to school there or not, that the sniper isn't warranted, but I do apologize that in a heated moment I accused you of intentionally aiding the opposition.
I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. The job title of a "sniper" is "marksman".
A marksman is basically a highly accurate Rifleman which is a type of infantry.
This is all military shit.
"Sniper" is just a more commonly used term for a marksman, but they're exactly the same thing.
The only point to my comment is that you seemed to think that the commenter saying it was a marksman meant it wasn't a sniper. They're literally the same job.
Right, I have a feeling that the "spotting" thing and the "not snipers" is the university using some sort of literal definition to dodge the facts that there was a man with a rifle and scope on their roofs.
I don't agree with it, and as I said in the other threads (or maybe it was here, they're starting to blur), I don't think the police are even trained properly enough to handle traffic stops, let alone a rifle at a protest in a university. But I don't know how to reconcile the, very real threat based on rising tensions, and other terrorist attacks, that someone could walk into one of these protests and hurt a lot of people.
How do we prevent this from happening.
One person suggested that this is a systemic issue, that these attacks (both from outside and from inside from other americans) are solved with better living conditions, better mental health care, better health care period, etc. etc. That happy people don't do this stuff. But the fact is, that number is falling and very quickly and our only plan (in the states) is apparently to have a fucking sniper on a roof.
This is sickness manifest.
Do these snipers ever actually intervene ?
Also, the solution is simple : outlaw guns.
The police forces would never give up their guns, though.
I think people do not realize that for large gatherings where violence could break out this is pretty standard.
Most Sports stadiums have them.
I do not think it is wrong to be cautious, or at least have some pieces on the table in case something breaks out.
Which I am sorry to say, could very well happen.
1:5 Americans believe that an act of force is justified. RIght wing or left wing, that could be a terrifying concept if someone motivated by zealous anger to attack a protest they don't fully understand.
They made an earnest effort to get rid of guns in Northern Ireland. How'd that go down?
I'm actually not aware of this, what did happen?
Sensible gun control policies did fuck all to end The Troubles
I think there might've been a miscommunication - I was referring to the threat being suicide bombers and dirty bombs. How do you stop someone from walking into a crowd, pushing a button, and hurting many innocent people trying to peacefully protest?
The cops are literally the ones walking into the crowds hurting the protestors. So you get rid of the cops.
I already asked this but I'm gonna repeat it here for clarity, are cops the only people hurting innocent people at protests?
Charlottesville, Virginia (2017): White supremacist drives car into counter protestors
Minneapolis, Minnesota (2020): Tanker truck drives through a crowd of George Floyd protestors.
Seattle, Washington (2020): Police brutality protest, driver drives through a crowd yet again.
New York City, New York (2017): IED sucide bomber inspired by ISIS in the subway.
Portland, Oregon (2020): Several incidents regarding vehicle usage and other violence against George Floyd protestors
Seems not. People are violent and there are threats to peaceful protesters. I am not saying that police snipers are the solution to this threat, and I am not saying cops are innocent, but to try and pretend that the *only *problem is cops, is disingenuous to the innocent people who have died due to hateful people and I'm not going to let you pretend otherwise, knowingly or otherwise.
Say their names.
Heather Heyer
David McAtee
Horace Lorenzo Anderson Jr
Summer Taylor
Secoriea Turner (8 fucking years old.)
Garrett Foster
Anthony Huber
Joseph Rosenbaum
What a cute list, here is one for the police during only a 6 month period over one large event to show the stark difference between the dangers of strangers and the dangers of police at protests (who I might add where present at all your examples, so what was the point?)
(in case you want to double check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests) Sorry this might take a bit:
In late 2022, Justin Stetson, one of the officers who beat Stallings was charged with third-degree assault.[110] On May 8, 2023, prosecutors offered Stetson a plea deal allowing him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and avoid jail time, which Stallings objected to.[111] Nonetheless, a judge accepted the plea agreement. Stenson pleaded guilty to third-degree assault and one count of misconduct as a public officer, with the condition he never work as a police officer in Minnesota again.[112] Stenson had already taken a disability retirement in August 2022 and the plea did not affect his state pension.[111]
Alright, well, I'm gonna ignore the passive aggression, mostly because it doesn't contribute to the conversation and is only damaging to an attempt at civility.
My point, was that police aren't the only danger, and that plenty of others KILL innocent protestors. I didn't even include harming other protestors. Like I said in my other comments to you and to others, but you've clearly misunderstood that point based on the other comments you've made to me, so I'll reiterate here.
Super clearly:
"Police are undoubetdly part of, if not the majority of the problem. However, we face plenty of other threats from domestic and foreign terrorists in the state. I acknowledge that terrorism in the US has often been used as a scape goat (namely to invade the wrong fucking country - Afghanistan). However, I am identifying the issue of: How do we prevent these attacks and respond w/o the need for police. Which IS NOT implying that I think the police are the answer, but a call to constructive action to solve the problem w/o the need to OVER rely on the police as some kind of protector force. Which we BOTH agree, they are not."
Get it?
I don't know how many more times I can say that I believe the ACAB movement before it finally sets in for you. The police are not the only fucking problem we face. And to say otherwise is dangerous and misleading.
The point is the risk of heavy police presence at a protest is not worth the "protection" they do or don't offer.
Ban protests if you really want to as a nation but stop this "you totally can protest, it is your right! Oh watch out for the tear gas" crap.
OK, I will spell it out.
THE HEAVY POLICE PRESENCE AT PROTESTS ARE THE PROBLEM.
And if you just read the next several walls of text you can see that it is not even close.
God damn, owned.
Folks are being deliberately dense and not answering your question. I replied above, but I'll add that Sam Harris does tend to address this at length.
I can't say I'm a fan unfortunately. I didn't like the majority of his discourse on racial profiling, his fascination with Islam (despite more abrahamic religions being pretty violent and hateful, even if they try to correct w/ new testaments), and especially on his discourse regarding race and intelligence which is pretty classic nazi/skin head shit tbh
I mostly agree.
A couple of thoughts.
Yes, these are the same people you see at football games (although they usually are better hidden).
I wonder if they were loaded with live ammo or rubber bullets, either way - yikes.
in this thread we respect laws of physics. you aint sniping anything with a rubber bullet
Good point. Still wonder if live ammo was loaded