cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/11490010
Update, yes there are snipers:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
A couple of thoughts.
Yes, these are the same people you see at football games (although they usually are better hidden).
- It is a bad PR move and looks bad for the university - ESPECIALLY a university in Ohio. They should also be more discreet and maybe realize that it looks like a damn gun instead of a scope.
- That being said, there may be a protocol that when x number of people are gathered in an area, they have to deploy these people.
- I just read that some of them WERE armed. https://www.thelantern.com/2024/04/university-says-officers-had-readied-firearms-directed-toward-protesters-from-ohio-unions-roof-once-arrests-began/
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