As someone who’s worked large events and closely with police or other big wig officials, I am consistently surprised at how people are surprised about how high profile event security works.
The amount of work that goes into keeping people safe regularly is monumental. You’d also be surprised at just how much hard targets don’t get attacked when a limelight is cast on them compared to soft targets. It’s violence prevention 101 and easily the most important.
It seems insane to me because I’ve only met armed police once in my life, and that was at download festival in the UK after a spree of terrorist attacks across the UK and the rest of Europe.
That was quite entertaining however as the armed police kept having to run away from drunk people who wanted pictures taken with the guns.
Agreed, most of the responses here are ridiculous.
They bring snipers out anytime there’s a big event or a major public figure. Michelle Obama visited the University of Akron when I was going there, they had snipers all over the place.
They’re not bringing out snipers for some kind of perverted crowd control. It’s almost definitely so if someone shows up with a gun and starts firing into the crowd all the protestors don’t get shot.
Yep b3causr there’s absolutely no difference in armed defense when the president or first lady is visiting and when students are protesting, none at all.
He’ll might as well tell the students of tiananmen square that tanks are just a normal part of defence.
Have you considered what would happen if an active shooter, consider one that’s pro-Israel, showed up in that crowd and they didn’t have a sniper?
Tell me you wouldn’t be over here screaming “ACAB” when the cops are unable to get to the shooter (and have to risk firing through a crowd or do nothing) because there are hundreds of college students between where the cops are standing and where the active shooter is.
Having a sniper on the roof is in no way similar to a tank running someone over in the street. There is no practical application for a tank vs a civilian population. There is 100% a valid reason to use a highly skilled marksman to increase the odds that if something bad does happen, it’s stopped quickly, and you can get EMTs to the injured parties.
Your position is offensively wrong.
EDIT: Minor edit to remove a swear and switch to textual emphasis.
Have you considered what would happen if an active shooter, consider one that’s pro-Israel, showed up in that crowd and they didn’t have a sniper?
This is some absolute bullshit “good guy with a gun” mentality.
Also either painfully, painfully naive or fully deepthroating the boot. Like do you actually believe these anti-riot cops are there to protect the protestors?
Might as well claim that the police at the BLM protests were just there to protect them at that point as well.
Tell me you wouldn’t be over here screaming “ACAB” when the cops are unable to get to the shooter (and have to risk firing through a crowd or do nothing) because there are hundreds of college students between where the cops are standing and where the active shooter is.
I wouldn’t, I would be talking about the insane fucking gunman killing a bunch of people. Like do you remember the Vegas shooting? The discourse wasn’t about the police and how they didn’t have snipers everywhere at this event, it was about the actual shooter.
Having a sniper on the roof is in no way similar to a tank running someone over in the street
Okay, then what about the riot cops and traditional military that actually started the massacre? Am I allowed to compare those? Or would that undermine your point too much?
There is 100% a valid reason to use a highly skilled marksman to increase the odds that if something bad does happen, it’s stopped quickly, and you can get EMTs to the injured parties.
Yeah and it’s just a nice little coincidence that they could be used on the protestors too right? And we all know the police would never lie, or use force against protestors, especially left wing students right? So we should just take them 100% at their word and just let them point weapons at peaceful protestors.
You’re either the most naive person on the planet or have a boot kicking fetish. Either way you fucking disgust me.
Yeah and it’s just a nice little coincidence that they could be used on the protestors too right?
Give me ONE incident of an active duty US sniper (police or military) EVER shooting a SINGLE protestor with even so much as a rubber bullet. Otherwise your argument is complete bull shit.
Edit: This isn’t some “good guy with a gun” or “untrained beat cop” situation. This is a sniper.
Edit 2: For anyone who wants to understand what is almost certainly happening here, watch this video youtu.be/PnEB5u2wqEY?si=58MTT_sqv1Tf7Lv6. This is standard procedure when you get these large gatherings to protect people. This person is actively encouraging increased risk to the safety of the protestors (and everyone else involved), while making personal attacks, and completely unfounded claims about this being some form of political persecution. It’s IMO ridiculous and indefensible behavior regardless of where you stand on the Israel and Gaza situation.
The 40ish arrests kinda lean towards this being intimidation. Also I think shooting into a crowd (where these teams where pointing) has never been a good idea and as far as I can tell no evidence exists of even a single time a sniper team has been successfully used in any crowded area. (If you find some please share)
It’s not intimidation because it’s normal for any large crowd. The snipers are not there to arrest anybody. The snipers are not going to assassinate some random college student.
You’re also not going to find “the snipers really saved the day” articles because they’re just going to say “the police” in pretty much any article praising a police response. They also don’t normally shoot their guns and are more to assist the folks on the ground with figuring out where trouble is and how to get to it.
You could do a lot of the same job with a pair of binoculars. I’m sure they don’t because it’s just another expense and then you need to switch from binoculars to a rifle and find the target again if something does go sideways.
Give me ONE incident of an active duty US sniper (police or military) EVER shooting a SINGLE protestor with even so much as a rubber bullet. Otherwise your argument is complete bull shit.
So because that very specific combination of a sniper shooting a protestor in America hasn’t happened yet that makes it okay? Snipers have shot other civilians, the police have shot protestors and police snipers have shot protestors before in other countries. So you would have to be really dishonest to pretend that means it’s fine.
Edit: This isn’t some “good guy with a gun” or “untrained beat cop” situation. This is a sniper.
“Police violence is okay as lk g as they are trained”
So was this shooting justified then because the sniper wasn’t as untrained as a random beat cop?
Like I get you’ve committed to the position and there’s no way you’re mature enough to deviate from that now, but my god this is such a bad hill yo die on.
Did you even read the article you linked? A dude shot his girlfriend in the head with a shotgun. Then was taking shots in the dark (literally) shooting from a building while he had a baby in his arms. That could not be more different of a situation from stopping an active shooter in a public gathering. It also has absolutely nothing to do with using snipers as some means of intimidating protestors or suppressing political speech. This was a very tricky domestic situation that went wrong.
This article also says:
A former federal law enforcement sniper, whose name KCUR is withholding because he now works in the private sector, said “99.9 percent of the time” snipers are relaying information to commanders, not firing their weapons.
The most important rule for a sniper is they “must be absolutely sure of the identity” of any target. That directive is on page one of the FBI’s Advance Rifle Training manual.
Don’t you dare start talking about maturity. You’ve been more than happy to make numerous personal attacks and inflammatory remarks.
I’m done with this conversation. You can believe what you want but you are very very wrong about the facts and risks of this situation and the personal attacks do nothing to help your argument.
As I already told the other person: Those were not snipers, they were national guardsman that were untrained for that kind of work and they shouldn’t have ever been there.
Why shouldn’t they have been there? By the logic of the other poster, having the national guard with rifles lined up would have protected the protesters from an active shooter. Wouldn’t everyone be so angry at the police if they didn’t stop the active shooter with the national guardsmen?
Is there something special about being a sniper that makes you not a cop? That makes you not part of the same system, the same trainings, the same culture, the same lunch room, that leads regular officers and riot cops to brutalize protesters, especially those on the left? Is there some requirement that to be a sniper you have to be extra nice to leftist causes?
The fact is that absent some specific threat the department received, or some extra-special high value target/event (Superbowl, presidential address, etc) the use of snipers to “protect” the protesters is a farse. We should both know that if anything the snipers are there to “protect the university and its property” much more than the protesters because that’s what the rest of the cops are there for.
You can’t stop a shooter with a line of national guardsmen. You also can’t figure out where they are in a timely fashion without someone with a vantage point.
There is a lot special about a sniper, including more and regular training specifically for the role. A sniper also (typically) is not in the heat of the situation. Nobody is throwing a brick up to the 5th floor. For similar reasons, a sniper can’t beat the crap out of someone from the 5th floor.
That’s extremely different from a national guardsman, especially like those that were sent to Kent with automatic rifles, minimal training, and placed right next to the protestors. From what I understand this has improved following the Kent State massacre, however the national guard should be a last resort in these situations.
The fact is that absent some specific threat the department received, or some extra-special high value target/event (Superbowl, presidential address, etc) the use of snipers to “protect” the protesters is a farse.
By the time that happens it’s too late. You’ve got a panicked crowd, you have no visibility, and nobody in a position to take a shot. There’s a reason they use snipers in big public sporting events, gatherings, and while protecting a public figure.
The thing that’s fundamentally wrong with the argument that snipers aren’t there to protect protestors is that they’re regularly used in these exact same situations for any large public gathering (unlike riot police).
They had snipers at the Marietta Sternwheel Festival the last few years. This isn’t some fringe thing, it has nothing to do with the fact they’re protestors or protecting property. It’s about protecting people by keeping an eye on the situation and (possibly) taking an individual threatening the gathering out quickly if necessary.
This is some absolute bullshit “good guy with a gun” mentality.
Has any shooting to your knowledge been stopped by anything other than a self defender, a cop, or the guy shooting himself to avoid said cops? The common denominator in any of those is “a gun held by someone intending to stop the shooter.” (In the case of the shooter shooting himself, it is generally still to avoid a group of guys with guns intending to stop the shooter, the cops.)
You’re one of those “harvard says the good guy with a gun is a myth” guys, aren’t you? I can smell it in your comment. Seems you missed an important note from that study however: While defensive gun use is “more accurately estimated at 100,000 DGU/yr,” instead of the CDC’s reported estimates by Kleck and Lott, all gun deaths including suicide and accidents are still around 60,000 a year, adjusting for intentional homicide only gets 12,000/yr, and just for fun those scary black rifles that are “the problem” are only used in ~500 deaths/yr. Furthermore their study discounted entirely what is likely the most common form of defensive gun use, defensive display, in which the sight of the firearm is enough to scare off the attacker. This means that Harvards 100,000 estimate would be low if we included them. Still though, even with them pretending defensive display is all lies, 100,000>60,000>12,000>500, meaning guns are used far more for defense than murder or suicide.
What can we take away from this? Well, if 100,000 is SO infrequent that we can categorize it as a “myth,” what then is 60,000 or 12,000 or 500? If 100,000 dgu is a myth, so to must be our 60,000 gun deaths at 40,000 less.
I’m really not sure a sniper would be super useful in that situation. Obviously, different environment than the 2017 las vegas shooting, but I don’t really think that those snipers on rooftops would really be effective at all in taking out a committed shooter, which could just shack up in one of the many buildings with windows facing the crowd and fire down or into the crowd. Maybe in that case, a sniper might be able to peep out where the shooter is, or might be able to get a shooter on the way in or out, but with the level of people there and the level of surrounding buildings, I’m really not sure they’d be able to do very much. Obviously if someone just walks in off the street and opens up on everyone, then a sniper might be more effective, but I dunno.
Nixon invades Cambodia, campuses across the country erupt in protest, armed troops deployed to deal with the unrest on an Ohio campus, guns pointed at students to intimidate them into dispersing…hmmm, can’t remember what happened next…everything calmed down, I think, right?
God blessed the students with omniscient insight, so they reverted their concerns and joined the army to establish democracy all over the world. An eagle, sounding like a red-tailed hawk, was heard screeching in the distance.
Eagles these days just don’t sound like they used too, back in my day they had this powerful screech that would pierce through even a swelling orchestral track to a movie.
Then the woke mob came for Eagles and now they sound lame.
I want to go back to those good times, that I imagine in my head, those times are great because I can remember whatever bullshit fantasy I want as “history” and just throw a tantrum and scream at anyone who challenges me on it.
Red tailed hawks? What are those? Are they like an Owl or something? Since when did people give a fuck about birds? They are so boring.
Here’s the thing. You said a “jackdaw is a crow.” Is it in the same family? Yes. No one’s arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be “specific” like you said, then you shouldn’t either. They’re not the same thing. If you’re saying “crow family” you’re referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people “call the black ones crows?” Let’s get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It’s not one or the other, that’s not how taxonomy works. They’re both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that’s not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you’re okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you’d call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don’t. It’s okay to just admit you’re wrong, you know?
Here’s the thing. You said a “jackdaw is a crow.” Is it in the same family? Yes. No one’s arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows.
Whatever schmuck, the thesis title of my double-PHD from Beige University (Rhode Island Ivy League) was “Crows And Jackdaws, A MetaAnalysis Of Corvidae Interchangeability Along Intersectional Metrics Of Culture, Science and Archival Preservation”.
National Guard units shot and killed four student protesters in Ohio at Kent State University in 1970, wounding nine others. I’ve read the police used excuses like they had intel there were communist agitators involved, funnily similar to what they say today.
Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.
But don’t worry guys! The first amendment guarantees a right to assemble. The police wouldn’t ever do anything to infringe on our rights! If they were to do it, I’m sure there’d be a really sick folk song written about it or something
On the evening of May 13, 1985, longstanding tensions between MOVE, a black liberation group, and the Philadelphia Police Department erupted horrifically. That night, the city of Philadelphia dropped a satchel bomb, a demolition device typically used in combat, laced with Tovex and C-4 explosives on the MOVE organization, who were living in a West Philadelphia rowhome known to be occupied by men, women, and children. It went up in unextinguished flames. Eleven people were killed, including five children and the founder of the organization. Sixty-one homes were destroyed, and more than 250 citizens were left homeless.
Folks familiar with this incident had a remarkably different take on the Waco siege and subsequent fire that resulted when the FBI surrounded David Koresh’s church compound. Same with the Ruby Ridge US Marshal slaying of a white nationalist’s wife and son, during an investigation into gun sales.
Then there’s the assassination of Fred Hampton and Malcolm X, the police storming of the Occupy Wall Street camps in New York, the COINTELPRO operations that targeted anti-war movements during the Bush Administration, the incredibly violence by police in Ferguson and Baltimore during the BLM marches, police kidnappings in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, and LA during the George Floyd protests.
I got to personally witness the mass arrest of protesters in Houston, after they were surrounded and kettled in Discovery Green Park.
America is a cursed land. Something something maybe don’t build your country on an ancient indian burial ground something something.
The popular take was that the FBI did nothing wrong and Koresh simply had to be stopped at all costs. The more /r/unpopularopinion take was that Janet Reno had something to prove, that the FBI recklessly flooded the compound with flammable gas, and that these deaths were entirely preventable had Bob Ricks not wanted to rush the surrender.
Ruby Ridge was a similar story. Initially, news media portrayed the Weavers as insurrectionists intent on personally waging war on the entire federal government. The US Marshals were given the initial benefit of the doubt, despite the incident turning hot when a marshal shot the family dog and then the Weaver’s 14-year-old boy who was working it.
Oh. I thought that over in the USA the default position was that the feds were in the wrong. Not a day goes by without conservatives talking about how the feds murder dogs.
People love to hate it but the second amendment is also a thing. Now don’t get me wong I don’t want this to happen ever to anyone…but there was a time when strikers would shoot and be shot at on the reg.
LOL they really did successfully rewrite the history on that one. The troops fought WITH the companies, not against them. The only reason they backed off is because they were losing. Had they continued, the legitimacy of the regime would have been brought into question. Not only because they were literally going to war with its own citizens, but also that those citizens were absolutely kicking their fucking asses.
We’re talking about an empire that could barely hold their own when fighting against a nonviolent people with primitive technology, and then went on to lose a war against fucking farmers in Vietnam. The odds couldn’t be further in their favor and yet they keep collecting Ls. If people collectively realized just how much of a complete joke these fascist clowns are, they would run away pissing themselves crying. God only knows what would happen if a nation actually engaged them in war on their soil. They’re not even at war and the entire place is already crumbling.
Wtf… Cops in riot gear arresting students before 10pm, and fucking SNIPERS intimidating in a peaceful one night protest on a college campus. And a university spokesperson saying “demonstrators exercised their first amendment right for several hours and then were instructed to disperse” like yeah, that’s enough first amendment right for you guys, go be quiet now.
Nope. Just nope. You are not free. Burn it all to the ground before it’s too late or we’re actually fucked.
Should be treated like they are? Okay, so full outrage, comparisons to the Kent State massacre, and the administration facing reprisals and consequences for deploying snipers to intimidate, threaten, and potentially murder students.
We’re treating them like they’re snipers, Admin, you’re welcome.
Yeah, you’re putting snipers on a university aimed at the students. That’s not the behavior of a government that values personal freedoms like speech and assembly.
Free speech on college campuses means they have to pay bigots to speak and allow disruption from religious protests by non students, but students get riot cops and snipers for protesting genocide
If they should be treated like snipers, that means protesters should respond in kind:
Make smoke screens. Tires work best. Bicycle tire with gas will make thick black smoke making it hard for the spotter and sniper to see.
Force projection works both ways: make their advantages into disadvantages. Snipers are long range units, meaning they have to be away from what they are targeting. If you can create enough distractions they won’t be able to see the forest from the trees.
I dunno about the smoke. On top of probably seeming to be an escalation because you’d be burning stuff (I’d probably go with fog oil and a generator instead, only object is price, but, hey, tires can also get pretty expensive depending on where they’re sourced. Theater department might also have some stuff on em), but also a large amount of smoke might serve to obfuscate documentation and recording, which I would say is a pretty big priority. Keep a camera fixed on these snipers at all times, and you can tell when they’re firing and probably who’s been killed at what moment, and that’s maybe an important and large deterrent, compared to a smokescreen. I’d imagine if you were going with that and if it came to that, you’d just want to render the snipers ineffectual by other methods, which, you know, maybe your mind can wander about how you might accomplish that one, without me having to suggest a specific course of action there.
So not justifying this response, but they have snipers out for EVERY football game. I think it is standard practice for large gatherings. You can make your own opinions on this, but this isn’t a unique thing.
Europe has snipers at football stadiums too. One of the first, mainstream, acknowledgements of them was when a protestor parachuted onto the field during the Germany-France Euro match in 2020. When people got mad they said it was common practice to have snipers at most events of this size.
For a protest on a university campus? I mean, the US already has a great history with innocent students being murdered for speaking out, so… Yeah, not unusual for the US.
Yeah, cuz thrice-weekly mass shootings are a US thing. I’m not getting into a chicken-and-egg circkejerk with anyone about which came first, but as long as “we the people” are gonna keep shooting large gatherings of our fellow citizens…especially if we think they disagree with us, then any controversial or highly public event is gonna be crawling with armed police…including snipers.
Honestly, I’d have snipers at any large gathering. Mass shootings/stabbings/drivings/bombings have recently taken place in Europe, Russia, and other parts of the world. It’s good to have security when there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people gathered in a place (eg, the Olympics, mega concerts, wtc)
Apparently the issue is people asked the University if there were snipers, at 8:15 pm they replied there weren’t, and later said they deployed them at 10 pm.
More reasonable than what it looked like but still kinda crazy, at least from my outside perspective.
Nah man when there’s a terrorist threat or some kids are getting fesity we call up those smitty brothers down on farmdale ave. I’ve seen em hit smack in the middle of grandma’s can o beans from a mile and a half away in the rain – i swears it!
The police don’t just pull farm boys with a crack shot every time they have a sporting event. They are fucking cops. Not only cops, but specialty cops. SWAT cunts. My homie is one - went from infantry to ranger to police to swat. Yeah - he’s a cunt, too. ACAB.
In any case, the people saying this is pretty standard security for a large gathering of people are correct in it’s regularity, but I’m not particularly convinced that they’re correct in its efficacy as a practice. They’re all visible enough that they can be seen by the student body, which is either bad planning or blatant intimidation, and obviously gives up their position immediately, which is bad since they’re potentially a would-be ne’er-do-well’s greatest threat. If anyone becomes embedded in the protesting crowd, they become much less effective, if anyone takes up a tactical position, they become much less effective. If anyone starts to try to instigate violence between the protestors and police, which would probably be what any bad actor would do since it has a pretty high chance of success, they’re much reduced in their efficacy, or potentially even negative in their efficacy as it leads to an escalation of violence. If anyone has a bomb or does chemical attack, the sniper is probably too late.
Plus, from what I’ve seen of the other protests, the police already have a perimeter set up on the ground keeping track of who enters and exits, which makes sense. Snipers would probably be better served as a part of that perimeter rather than surveying the inside of the protest, since they can cover a pretty large distance, you could turn them around pretty quickly, if they did need to fire on where the protestors are actually gathered, they can screen who’s entering and exiting, and it’s overall better optics. They could probably keep their position better concealed since there’s not a huge crowd of people looking at that side of the building (if they even made any attempt to be concealed, which should be really the bare minimum).
This doesn’t make any sense to me, even just as a kind of surface-level tactical decision. Maybe I’m missing something here, but this just seems like it’s maybe stupidity, or intimidation or something else I can’t think of.
But they have these at football games and other major events including political events and so on too? Why is this any different, especially when considering it’s related to the Middle East and considering what happens w/ suicide bombers?
These spotters are different from the police shootings in the Kent State incident, no?
So because the students are protesting about something happening in the Middle East, you jump straight to worrying about suicide bombers? Not all Arabs are ISIS my dude, your bias is showing
This has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with prior incidents (9/11, namely… but also the '93 bombing, the 2009 fort hood shooting the 2013 Boston marthon bombing, the 2015 san bernardino attack and the 2016 orlando nightclub shooting)
Further, I’m not super thrilled about you accusing me of being a racist because I’m concerned about a prevalent concern/non-zero likelihood risk or threat. Don’t assume maliciousness where ignorance may suffice. Flies. Vinegar. Honey.
If your basis for ethical governance is splitting hairs about relative body count, stop, go back, you fucked up. But also: give them a minute. It’s the cops we’re talking about here. They might be a little slow, but they’ll get the job done eventually.
Emphasis “relative”. The US govt and agents thereof (read: police) murder and brutalize often enough, and even get quite upset when people get upset over their doing it. That’s why I say it’s splitting hairs.
Many police department don’t report the deaths of people due to their actions or in their custody to any sort of national database as well, so estimates are likely undercounting. Corruption is rampant in departments as well, there have been cases of people dying and being buried by police without informing the family or anyone else.
So it’s likely much worse than we realize. Many murders are unsolved, there are many missing people cases also unsolved. In 2020, there were dozens of people reported missing that were involved in protests that were never found.
Uh, okay. I see what you’re playing at here, yeah, Tianenman Square happened, but that doesn’t mean that the US is then free and clear. We have a similar spirit of authoritarianism with a strong national myth about how it’s okay for us because we’re the “good guys” (spoiler alert).
More to the point, we have a militarized police force that aggressively puts down any meaningful protest. Our police regularly kill, maim, and brutalize people for no other reason than to put them in their place. My point isn’t China good, my point is making fun of all the people who hand-wring about China and communism while we already live under a not-so-different dumbfuck authoritarianism ourselves.
I definitely agree, I’m all for ACAB. I was just making the express observation (prior to my comment being deleted by the owner) that, this is not one of those cases.
If we aren’t fair, reasonable, and dead honest on these points in our protests, they won’t be taken seriously. And when protests aren’t take seriously things get dangerous, and I don’t want to see legitimate protest against the police state turn into damnation or terrorism charges, more than they already are.
Thanks for being civil and having a conversation about this
Let’s try this again without the Tiananmen Square Massacre copy pasta, at the explicit request of “seahorse” the Midwest social owner:
The difference between the two is that there was no weapon here. You can’t even make out what’s in front of the dude in black but most everyone here took a Twitter post as fact.
The Tiananmen Square massacre, on the other hand, did happen and did kill people. That’s the difference here.
I responded to the comment with the copypasta. Anyway, the point isn’t China good, the point is making fun of all the people in the US that screech about Chinese authoritarianism like we haven’t been captured by our own stupid fucking brand of authoritarianism.
I definitely agree, I’m all for ACAB. I was just making the express observation (prior to my comment being deleted by the owner) that, this is not one of those cases.
If we aren’t fair, reasonable, and dead honest on these points in our protests, they won’t be taken seriously. And when protests aren’t take seriously things get dangerous, and I don’t want to see legitimate protest against the police state turn into damnation or terrorism charges, more than they already are.
Thanks for being civil and having a conversation about this
Edit: downvoting someone for asking to provide source for your claim. Guess we’re cool with making stuff up. To those interested: look into how Russia was caught with their Facebook farms setup in Africa to sow disinformation ahead of the 2016 election season.
I won’t feel bad for asking for legitimate source information.
Agreed, but I still want to know what the source is.
I’ve also come to learn about marksman which are basically cops setup at major events with lots of people to prevent suicide bombers
Now that’s a double edged sword, especially because of, well all that the police have been doing since, well the beginning it would seem. I can’t trust a cop to do a routine traffic stop without shooting someone, I certainly would be concerned about one with a sniper at a high-stress/high movement event like this.
I can definitely see this being real now, but I’m not sure if I agree with it or not - I agree that a terrorist attack at an event like this would be devastating and I wouldn’t want that to happen either, but I don’t trust that the police are being trained appropriately or being audited/actioned on appropriately.
Ultimately my shitty initial tone and attitude were what bit me in the ass in this thread, despite just trying to get confirmation on the information from an appropriate source, so I’m just going to leave well enough alone now.
Nothing conclusive I can see yet from AP etc, but it is a bit suspicious the universities and police are not responding/stonewalling requests for information from journalists, if they had no snipers how hard would it be to say there were no snipers?
Also a healthy skepticism isn’t afraid of questioning sources I wouldn’t apologize for it either, but it can also be a rhetorical tactic that sometimes is difficult to tell if it’s genuine or not. Not an excuse just an observation.
I appreciate your candor and civility, it’s much easier for us to talk and correct any miscommunications when we’re at the same level. Thank you.
I totally agree, the whole thing screams PR/scrambling to quench any flames, rather than to just come forth with the raw, uncensored/stretched truth. We deserve to have that from our government at the very fucking least.
dude has his bipod deployed on top of his tripod, in possibly the least comfortable and most obvious position of all time, hoo lee, get this guy a medal or something we’re sending our best to protect against the dangerous student body
Yep. Lemmy.world gets the ideological Reddit crowd that can’t stay due to some enshittification-related controversy, but they still want Reddit, so they go to the largest, generalist instance.
Anyone from Reddit with more niche interests likely already goes to leftist, programming, star trek, blahaj, or other instances that match their niche interest, which lesves Lemmy.world with everyone else.
I’m gonna get downvotes too but you guys are right. It doesnt matter what social media forum you go.on they all end up the same in the end. Definitely plenty of brain dead takes on lemmy, it doesn’t matter where those posters came from because they ARE part of lemmy now even if people want to pretend that doesn’t count (it does).
It’s that or you’re just ignorant to what I’m referencing, and I don’t have any intention of enlightening you, because you keep unintentionally proving my point.
Add comment