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 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!”
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, 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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve been saying this repeatedly (I literally just said it to you in the prior comment but you’re ignoring it ig? Who’s fishing for responses?) I don’t believe in the practice of using intimidation as a deterrent. Especially when it comes to weapons that can kill someone (and probably multiple people at once) instantaneously.
How do we prevent this from happening (this is the question I’m asking repeatedly and the question that only one person responded to directly, and who’s solution was to “create a just society” which I don’t need to tell you is incredibly vague and utopian.) Again. My question is how do we prevent this from happening
This is a threatening action, agreed. This does not remove our liberty to peacefully protest, but it creates an unjustly hostile/threatening environment. That I agree with (see point 1)
Stop assuming I’m being an assholr on purpose when I’ve very obviously for ACAB, understand the police state problem, and am trying to have civil conversation despite being accused of being some Tucker Carlson crayon muncher. That’s bad faith. Assuming the worst of me, is bad faith.
My frustrations are valid. Your attempts to gaslight me into some kind of troll, when all I’m trying to do (as a “good liberal”) is to get to the fucking bottom of things and have a civil conversation about police reform, is dangerous.
The tolerant don’t need to tolerate trolls, assholes, and other forms of intolerance. That’s why I was fine with not repeating myself. Not for lack of effort or care, but because this is lemmy.
Where all the users are anonymous.
And any of one these responses could be from one or multiple troll conservative groups.
If you’d like to continue the conversation in a constructive and respectful way? I’m all for it.
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.
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.
Yeeeeeahhh, not sure if I agree with this one. To me it feels sort of lazy and skirts around the true nature of accepting people for who they are and learning to be more tolerant of people not exactly like us
Sorta feels lazy to say, well let’s get rid of what makes us different/unique.
Nature doesn’t really believe in the homogeneous, I don’t see why we should strive to make it so
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, no worries. I was confused but I don’t think I made my point clear. It was just adding on the ridiculous notion that a large amount of people means snipers for some reason, these people from what I can see would be on campus anyway and the only difference I can see from say 3 months ago would be the political protests.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
I’ve been saying this repeatedly (I literally just said it to you in the prior comment but you’re ignoring it ig? Who’s fishing for responses?) I don’t believe in the practice of using intimidation as a deterrent. Especially when it comes to weapons that can kill someone (and probably multiple people at once) instantaneously.
How do we prevent this from happening (this is the question I’m asking repeatedly and the question that only one person responded to directly, and who’s solution was to “create a just society” which I don’t need to tell you is incredibly vague and utopian.) Again. My question is how do we prevent this from happening
This is a threatening action, agreed. This does not remove our liberty to peacefully protest, but it creates an unjustly hostile/threatening environment. That I agree with (see point 1)
Stop assuming I’m being an assholr on purpose when I’ve very obviously for ACAB, understand the police state problem, and am trying to have civil conversation despite being accused of being some Tucker Carlson crayon muncher. That’s bad faith. Assuming the worst of me, is bad faith.
My frustrations are valid. Your attempts to gaslight me into some kind of troll, when all I’m trying to do (as a “good liberal”) is to get to the fucking bottom of things and have a civil conversation about police reform, is dangerous.
The tolerant don’t need to tolerate trolls, assholes, and other forms of intolerance. That’s why I was fine with not repeating myself. Not for lack of effort or care, but because this is lemmy.
Where all the users are anonymous.
And any of one these responses could be from one or multiple troll conservative groups.
If you’d like to continue the conversation in a constructive and respectful way? I’m all for it.
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.
Yeeeeeahhh, not sure if I agree with this one. To me it feels sort of lazy and skirts around the true nature of accepting people for who they are and learning to be more tolerant of people not exactly like us
Sorta feels lazy to say, well let’s get rid of what makes us different/unique.
Nature doesn’t really believe in the homogeneous, I don’t see why we should strive to make it so
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.
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.
Oh, no worries. I was confused but I don’t think I made my point clear. It was just adding on the ridiculous notion that a large amount of people means snipers for some reason, these people from what I can see would be on campus anyway and the only difference I can see from say 3 months ago would be the political protests.
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.
deleted by creator
Do these snipers ever actually intervene ?
Also, the solution is simple : outlaw guns.
The police forces would never give up their guns, though.
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?
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