If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   During the Super Bowl did you notice the new retractable roof at Lucas Oil Stadium? How about the gigantic scoreboard? How about the sniper's nest above the end zone? Wait ... what?   (deadspin.com) divider line 199
    More: Scary, Lucas Oil Stadium, Super Bowl, Indianapolis Police, end zone, leaderboard, snipers  
•       •       •

25885 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-10 01:17:13 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Camper


done in one.
 
2012-02-10 01:17:23 PM  
 
2012-02-10 01:17:42 PM  
Hmmmm... so this is the real reason they wouldn't open the roof.
 
2012-02-10 01:17:49 PM  

The Bestest: The followup article Mister Pleco linked states these photos were only taken for publicity in an empty stadium, and that during the game only binoculars were used and the gun was not mounted.


Half the photos presented are assuredly not in an empty stadium with an unmounted gun.
 
2012-02-10 01:19:20 PM  

Splinshints: Half Right: I bet they'd also buy some tinfoil

Right. Pointing out the and undisputed fact that there are armed police forces sweeping a loaded weapon across spectators at a major sporting event is conspiracy theory nonsense....

... but setting up armed police forces to sweep loaded weapons across spectators at a major sporting event because you think some shadowy organization of questionable force strength may pull off a non-specific action-movie-style attack on that event, toward which no known specific threat has actually been directed, is perfectly reasonable and level-headed.

Cobra Commander isn't real. I realize 9/11 was a really big and really loud thing, but that alone isn't proof that we need to lose our collective shiat and start running around in full S.W.A.T. gear all the time. Individual and unusual data points don't make a trend.

And, again, even if you aren't concerned with the security theater implications of having commandos running about the streets in full armor carrying powerful automatic weapons, all that shiat, and all the time they're doing it, isn't exactly free.

Stop being a coward. Terrorists aren't going to kill you and even if they try, odds are pretty bad that the maniacs with heavy weaponry are going to be able to stop them.


I don't think you're looking at the same picture the rest of us are. Did you notice 2 things?

1) the binoculars hanging from the weapon - thus indicating that, unless a potential threat was ID'd, the sniper in this nest was just keeping an eye on things with the binocs. If he had a spotter with him, there would be a standalone spotting scope, not a pair of binocs.

2) the weapon is mounted on a tripod. Again, indicating it's in place so that, should he need the weapon, it's readily available and easy to fire. However, this allows the sniper to not worry about constantly keeping the weapon shouldered and scouting through the scope(see: #1)

What part of, standard security measure for an event of this size don't you get? Every superbowl has had snipers keeping a watchful eye over everything. It's just what they do.

You know what else typically has snipers keeping an eye on things?

Political Rallys
Homecomings for soldiers
the farking Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade


It's standard operating procedure for every police department in the country, and has been since pre-9/11. Stop using fearmongering as the reason they do this, it's not.
 
2012-02-10 01:19:20 PM  

Splinshints: ...Cobra Commander isn't real....


Hahaha that was my favorite bit. :)
 
2012-02-10 01:20:38 PM  
Obligatory: Boom Head Shot.

So basically what that is is a cop who gets to watch an eagle eye
view of the game and get paid to do it. Our tax dollars at work. Woot.
 
2012-02-10 01:22:07 PM  

wruley: This is one of those situations where a lot of people criticize the police/government/stadium/big brother of wasting money and taking excessive risks.

Then if he wasn't there, when something happens and lives could have been saved by the quick response of a trained sniper, they criticize again about the lack of planning.

I personally love the fact that a trained sniper was watching over the game. Great job guys!


That's a bingo.

Most people aren't terribly likely to have their homes broken into, yet I'll bet everyone locks the door at night. The people freaking out about this are living in an imaginary world where this sort of thing hasn't been going on for decades.

Newsflash - major events often involve unseen security forces. It has literally NO impact on your life, so just stop pretending it's an invasion of your privacy or a threat to your safety you nitwits.
 
2012-02-10 01:23:28 PM  
I've always wondered, what with all the murder and mayhem worldwide in so many forms and fashions, why a filled American sports stadium hasn't been targeted by a violent person (or group) unlawfully using weaponry.

I'm guessing it's not because such a person (or group) hasn't thought about it, but rather because other persons - we grudgingly call them "the authorities" - have figured out in advance how to intervene before his thought turns to deed.
 
2012-02-10 01:24:21 PM  

The Bestest: ha-ha-guy: This is common practice. Although those photos at the end of the article bother me. The way I see it typically being done is guys with binoculars monitoring the crowd and of course I'm sure they have rifles within easy reach. These photos show cops sitting there on their butt and they appear to be moving the rifle over the crowd.

That breaks one of the key rules of using a gun: "Never point the gun at anything you mind being dead".

While not having to reach for the gun does save a few seconds, the risk of an accidental discharge really makes point the gun at the crowd unacceptable IMHO.

The followup article Mister Pleco linked states these photos were only taken for publicity in an empty stadium, and that during the game only binoculars were used and the gun was not mounted.


Man, my Rem700 looks so sad compared to this one. Mewants new stock, magazine.
 
2012-02-10 01:25:55 PM  

Strategeryz0r: What part of, standard security measure for an event of this size don't you get?


That doesn't mean anything. Just because somebody says it's standard doesn't mean it's reasonable.

Strategeryz0r: It's standard operating procedure for every police department in the country, and has been since pre-9/11.


[citation needed]

See, here's the problem. You can say it's standard, but that means exactly squat. But I will do something here for you. I will immediately shut my mouth, take everything I said back and happily keep quiet on the subject going forward if you can do one thing that should be very, very simple if you're right.

Tell me how many terrorist attacks - and I'll need appropriate citations here, no just pulling numbers out of your ass and claiming you answered - have been stopped because of this type of security. Pretty simple, basic, common-sense question. We put out the money, now let's have somebody explain the return.

I'll wait, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
2012-02-10 01:26:10 PM  
This is just another example of the control-drunk police using their power to get perks not available to the rest of us. I mean, I didn't get to go to the Superbowl, much less get paid to have box seats.
 
2012-02-10 01:26:31 PM  

ha-ha-guy: This is common practice. Although those photos at the end of the article bother me. The way I see it typically being done is guys with binoculars monitoring the crowd and of course I'm sure they have rifles within easy reach. These photos show cops sitting there on their butt and they appear to be moving the rifle over the crowd.

That breaks one of the key rules of using a gun: "Never point the gun at anything you mind being dead".

While not having to reach for the gun does save a few seconds, the risk of an accidental discharge really makes point the gun at the crowd unacceptable IMHO.


Negligent discharge.
 
2012-02-10 01:27:04 PM  
Didn't notice. I was trying not to notice the stadium... it has all the charm of a giant tire factory.
 
2012-02-10 01:28:55 PM  
He was there in case Eli didn't cover the spread... BOOM HEADSHOT
 
2012-02-10 01:30:18 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I've always wondered, what with all the murder and mayhem worldwide in so many forms and fashions, why a filled American sports stadium hasn't been targeted by a violent person (or group) unlawfully using weaponry.

I'm guessing it's not because such a person (or group) hasn't thought about it, but rather because other persons - we grudgingly call them "the authorities" - have figured out in advance how to intervene before his thought turns to deed.


And the TSA has magic rocks that stop suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the line outside TSA checkpoints.
 
2012-02-10 01:32:06 PM  

Mister Pleco: A crummy commercial?!

Link (new window)

B-E-S-U-R-E-T-O-B-U-Y-A-N-A-L-A-M-O-F-O-U-R-S-T-A-R-D-C-L-W-T-R-I-P-O - D


Anal Mofo wha?

//English Motherfarker, Parlez-Vous?
 
2012-02-10 01:32:26 PM  
As if I'm important enough for someone to snipe me. If I were a paranoid schizophrenic, my death would matter to the masses. If I were a normal human being, I'd realize it wouldn't matter to anyone.

Nice photoshops would not a realistic threat construct.
 
2012-02-10 01:32:44 PM  
The only thing those photos prove to me is that there were a lot of other snipers. This nest's field of fire is very limited. It seems he can't really depress his gun very low. There must be at least 3 other snipers, I'd think.
 
2012-02-10 01:34:53 PM  

ElusiveWookiee: Um....good. How is this scary?


Um, George Bush.....n stuff.........
 
2012-02-10 01:34:57 PM  

netweavr: I'd be more surprised if the police didn't take this precaution.


I can't imagine any situation which would require the action of a police sniper in a massive crowd and where the action of that police sniper would make the situation better than if he had done nothing.
 
2012-02-10 01:35:43 PM  

jbrooks544: The only thing those photos prove to me is that there were a lot of other snipers. This nest's field of fire is very limited. It seems he can't really depress his gun very low. There must be at least 3 other snipers, I'd think.


One of the photos showed at least one other mount in that nest. Depending on where they are, you could probably cover the whole bowl with just two nests.
 
2012-02-10 01:36:28 PM  

Strategeryz0r: In this day and age, having police around in this capacity is a must. Otherwise it would be easy prey for the mentally unstable, or otherwise criminally insane.


To do exactly what?
 
2012-02-10 01:36:33 PM  

swaxhog: KangTheMad: Wasn't a sniper at a football game the plot of a movie?

Two-Minute Warning. During the height of the disaster movie era.


Bingo.
 
2012-02-10 01:37:07 PM  

Alien Robot: netweavr: I'd be more surprised if the police didn't take this precaution.

I can't imagine any situation which would require the action of a police sniper in a massive crowd and where the action of that police sniper would make the situation better than if he had done nothing.


I can't imagine any situation where the NFL would willingly allow Madonna to perform the half-time show, but clearly they found one.
 
2012-02-10 01:37:08 PM  

Alien Robot: I can't imagine any situation which would require the action of a police sniper in a massive crowd and where the action of that police sniper would make the situation better than if he had done nothing.


suicide bomber without a release trigger
 
2012-02-10 01:38:30 PM  

Splinshints: Strategeryz0r: What part of, standard security measure for an event of this size don't you get?

That doesn't mean anything. Just because somebody says it's standard doesn't mean it's reasonable.

Strategeryz0r: It's standard operating procedure for every police department in the country, and has been since pre-9/11.

[citation needed]

See, here's the problem. You can say it's standard, but that means exactly squat. But I will do something here for you. I will immediately shut my mouth, take everything I said back and happily keep quiet on the subject going forward if you can do one thing that should be very, very simple if you're right.

Tell me how many terrorist attacks - and I'll need appropriate citations here, no just pulling numbers out of your ass and claiming you answered - have been stopped because of this type of security. Pretty simple, basic, common-sense question. We put out the money, now let's have somebody explain the return.

I'll wait, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

The need for specialized training for police sharpshooters was made apparent in 1972 during the Munich massacre when the German police could not deploy specialized personnel or equipment during the standoff at the airport in the closing phase of the crisis, and consequently all of the Israeli hostages were killed.

Source (new window)

Since the 1972 munich massacre, utilization of police snipers to guard major events became SOP to prevent another event like this from happening. Around this time was more or less the advent of the SWAT team as we know it(1974 Symbionese Liberation Army shoot out in LA was the basis for the creation of the first SWAT team in the United States).

Police forces are not reactionary units, they do take pro-active measures to protect the public at large when it's obvious an event is a potential target for anything. The use of police sharpshooters as a security measure is NOT a reaction to a perceived threat. It is the pro-active deployment of assets to aid in reacting to any potential threats that may arise. So looking for what has been stopped by the deployment of police sharpshooters is next to impossible to quantify, because they literally are at any major event like this. Ever heard the saying that policing is not about fighting crime, but preventing crime? How do you think you PREVENT crime? Be being where you need to be to stop it before it becomes a problem, not fight it after the fact.

Would you rather have another Munich Olympics massacre before you understand why these guys are in place? Or would you like to ask another question that is impossible to answer so you can continue spouting your own brand of fearmongering?
 
2012-02-10 01:38:59 PM  

KangTheMad: Wasn't a sniper at a football game the plot of a movie?


Two-Minute Warning
 
2012-02-10 01:39:25 PM  

Alien Robot: netweavr: I'd be more surprised if the police didn't take this precaution.

I can't imagine any situation which would require the action of a police sniper in a massive crowd and where the action of that police sniper would make the situation better than if he had done nothing.


Well if YOU can't imagine a situation, I guess there couldn't possibly be one. Surely you're the utmost authority on security measures for gigantic stadiums hosting major events.
 
2012-02-10 01:40:57 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: Alien Robot: netweavr: I'd be more surprised if the police didn't take this precaution.

I can't imagine any situation which would require the action of a police sniper in a massive crowd and where the action of that police sniper would make the situation better than if he had done nothing.

Well if YOU can't imagine a situation, I guess there couldn't possibly be one. Surely you're the utmost authority on security measures for gigantic stadiums hosting major events.


That's what it says on my business card, at any rate.
 
2012-02-10 01:42:24 PM  
They had snipers covering the Occupy Indianapolis protest. I saw them on a rooftop from another angle, since I parked a ways off and walked several blocks to the state capital to participate. I waved at them when a binocular looked my way. At least I think they were covering the protest, maybe they are there all the time. Who knows.

This could be standard security, and there's always snipers there when the stadium is being used. Would we know any differently?
 
2012-02-10 01:42:40 PM  

Strategeryz0r: Get the idea that everything is peaceful and happy out of your head...

It's the police departments mission to protect the public at large.


Classic example of cognitive dissonance.
 
2012-02-10 01:42:41 PM  

Strategeryz0r: aspAddict: Krieghund: Really? Cause so far, it's been a big collective "meh"

And THAT is why we have the SCARY tag. The fact that a major public event like this can be surrounded by an invisible Rethuglican death squad like this, and the general reaction is "Yeah, we call that Sunday."

Sad to see what this country has become.

0/10

In this day and age, having police around in this capacity is a must. Otherwise it would be easy prey for the mentally unstable, or otherwise criminally insane.


It's a little perturbing. Under what scenario would a sniper be required at a football game? Crazed gunman comes out and starts shooting?

Wouldn't there already be a shiatload of armed cops all around the stadium? Didn't they have metal detectors for entry?

It seems everyone is pissed off at the TSA for airport security and we speak of security theater but a sniper set up at a football game. No big deal. And if there is one sniper, shouldn't there be another just to make sure you get full coverage of the stadium?
 
2012-02-10 01:45:13 PM  

Happy Hours: Strategeryz0r: aspAddict: Krieghund: Really? Cause so far, it's been a big collective "meh"

And THAT is why we have the SCARY tag. The fact that a major public event like this can be surrounded by an invisible Rethuglican death squad like this, and the general reaction is "Yeah, we call that Sunday."

Sad to see what this country has become.

0/10

In this day and age, having police around in this capacity is a must. Otherwise it would be easy prey for the mentally unstable, or otherwise criminally insane.

It's a little perturbing. Under what scenario would a sniper be required at a football game? Crazed gunman comes out and starts shooting?

Wouldn't there already be a shiatload of armed cops all around the stadium? Didn't they have metal detectors for entry?

It seems everyone is pissed off at the TSA for airport security and we speak of security theater but a sniper set up at a football game. No big deal. And if there is one sniper, shouldn't there be another just to make sure you get full coverage of the stadium?


I'd expect at least three. If nothing else it'd be useful to have someone constantly scanning the crowd (with binoculars) from those vantage points. Looking for drunken shenanigans.
 
2012-02-10 01:45:43 PM  
The officer in question:

files.g4tv.com
 
2012-02-10 01:46:08 PM  

The Bestest: Alien Robot: I can't imagine any situation which would require the action of a police sniper in a massive crowd and where the action of that police sniper would make the situation better than if he had done nothing.

suicide bomber without a release trigger


No. Said suicide bomber would have to have a very sophisticated bomb in order to get it past the scanners at the door which would make it unobservable and he would certainly be able to set it off undetected because of that. In no way should a police sniper shoot someone in the crowd simply on the suspicion that they might have an undetected/undetectable suicide vest on.
 
2012-02-10 01:48:11 PM  

Happy Hours: Strategeryz0r: aspAddict: Krieghund: Really? Cause so far, it's been a big collective "meh"

And THAT is why we have the SCARY tag. The fact that a major public event like this can be surrounded by an invisible Rethuglican death squad like this, and the general reaction is "Yeah, we call that Sunday."

Sad to see what this country has become.

0/10

In this day and age, having police around in this capacity is a must. Otherwise it would be easy prey for the mentally unstable, or otherwise criminally insane.

It's a little perturbing. Under what scenario would a sniper be required at a football game? Crazed gunman comes out and starts shooting?

Wouldn't there already be a shiatload of armed cops all around the stadium? Didn't they have metal detectors for entry?

It seems everyone is pissed off at the TSA for airport security and we speak of security theater but a sniper set up at a football game. No big deal. And if there is one sniper, shouldn't there be another just to make sure you get full coverage of the stadium?


Having a large amount of armed police officers, who are capable of tackling any armed threat(IE: potentially body armored opponents) is not something that keeps the public comfortable. You walk into the stadium and see 30 SWAT officers with M4 assault rifles, you're going to think they know something you don't.

A single guy, hidden in a roost, with a high powered rifle that can stop any target wearing boots? The public doesn't know he exists, and he can effectively react to any potential threat in the stadium.

It's about planning for all potential outcomes with out making the public feel like they're walking through Baghdad people. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You think they just sit around thinking up reasons to do this shiat? No. They have already been given the reasons to do this in the past. Whether that be the 9/11, or the 74 Munich massacre. Events have already transpired that make these precautions necessary. You can either take the time to understand that, and realize they exist for your protection. Or you can be a clueless moron who thinks this is some sort of Tea Party hit squad out to end your American way of life.

One is sensible. The other is not. I'll leave it to you to decide which.
 
2012-02-10 01:49:02 PM  
i.imgur.com

Oh NOES!!! Other Super Bowls have had snipers, too!!! We better crap ourselves some more!!!
 
2012-02-10 01:49:05 PM  

Pontious Pilates: Strategeryz0r: aspAddict: Krieghund: Really? Cause so far, it's been a big collective "meh"

And THAT is why we have the SCARY tag. The fact that a major public event like this can be surrounded by an invisible Rethuglican death squad like this, and the general reaction is "Yeah, we call that Sunday."

Sad to see what this country has become.

0/10

In this day and age, having police around in this capacity is a must. Otherwise it would be easy prey for the mentally unstable, or otherwise criminally insane.

Come on. You gotta give him at least two creativity points for "invisible Rethuglican death squad."


After further review, the ruling on the field stands. aspAddict is flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct - bringing Politics Tab trolling into the Sports Tab. 15 yards, loss of down.
 
2012-02-10 01:53:21 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: Alien Robot: netweavr: I'd be more surprised if the police didn't take this precaution.

I can't imagine any situation which would require the action of a police sniper in a massive crowd and where the action of that police sniper would make the situation better than if he had done nothing.

Well if YOU can't imagine a situation, I guess there couldn't possibly be one. Surely you're the utmost authority on security measures for gigantic stadiums hosting major events.


Ahh, the old 'witch defense.' I'm too much of a rube to imagine the witches (which are everywhere, hidden and ready to do evil) than such a sophisticated person as yourself. Did the police perform an exorcism before the game to be absolutely sure that those evil spirits terrorists would be chased away as well?
 
2012-02-10 01:54:38 PM  

Strategeryz0r: A single guy, hidden in a roost, with a high powered rifle that can stop any target wearing boots? The public doesn't know he exists, and he can effectively react to any potential threat in the stadium.


I would assume that he didn't have orders off the bat to shoot anyone as well. Probably needed clearance from the top to take down a dangerous person if it came to that situation. More then likely his main role was to scan the crowd from a high vantage point and report anything shady to the forces in the stands. The rifle is a last resort.

I would also bet that law enforcement snipers are closely watched psychologically. Any hint of crazy and they would give him his walking papers. Can't have someone with a grudge up there.
 
2012-02-10 01:55:15 PM  

Happy Hours:
It's a little perturbing. Under what scenario would a sniper be required at a football game? Crazed gunman comes out and starts shooting?

Wouldn't there already be a shiatload of armed cops all around the stadium? Didn't they have metal detectors for entry?


You want to depend on a single layer of security and just assume that it's unbeatable?

It seems everyone is pissed off at the TSA for airport security and we speak of security theater but a sniper set up at a football game. No big deal. And if there is one sniper, shouldn't there be another just to make sure you get full coverage of the stadium?

A sniper isn't security theater. He's effective against certain types of threats, and for the most part nobody knows he's even there. That's pretty much the exact opposite of security theater.
 
2012-02-10 01:56:06 PM  

Strategeryz0r: How do you think you PREVENT crime? Be being where you need to be to stop it before it becomes a problem, not fight it after the fact.


Yep. And I'm asking you. How many have been prevented?

This should not be a hard question to answer for someone who believes that this is justified. I'm asking for the justification. It should not be difficult for you to explain to me how many crimes or attacks have been stopped because of sniper or, say, commando-style forces being present in these venues?

And it's a pretty sensible question, I think you'd agree. There is a cost associated with this type of presence and so there should be justification given. After all, if nobody can provide the justification, how do we know it's necessary? Or, alternatively, how do you know it's enough?

Again, real simple question: how many attacks have been stopped because of this type of presence?
 
2012-02-10 01:56:25 PM  

Alien Robot: Ahh, the old 'witch defense.' I'm too much of a rube to imagine the witches (which are everywhere, hidden and ready to do evil) than such a sophisticated person as yourself.


Ahh, the old "strawman" angle. That's hardly what I said. I'm not an expert in security measures either, the only difference is that I'm not pretending to be.
 
2012-02-10 01:58:22 PM  

Burr: Strategeryz0r: A single guy, hidden in a roost, with a high powered rifle that can stop any target wearing boots? The public doesn't know he exists, and he can effectively react to any potential threat in the stadium.

I would assume that he didn't have orders off the bat to shoot anyone as well. Probably needed clearance from the top to take down a dangerous person if it came to that situation. More then likely his main role was to scan the crowd from a high vantage point and report anything shady to the forces in the stands. The rifle is a last resort.

I would also bet that law enforcement snipers are closely watched psychologically. Any hint of crazy and they would give him his walking papers. Can't have someone with a grudge up there.


Generally speaking snipers are only given authorization to fire immediately if they can visibly see an immediate threat to somebody else's life. Even in a hostage situation, unless it's clear that someone will die if they don't intervene, they are required to get authorization from a unit commander before pulling the trigger.

Seriously, I would rather have 2 of these guys watching over a sporting even than 50 taser happy patrol officers.
 
2012-02-10 02:06:27 PM  

JesseL: Happy Hours:
It's a little perturbing. Under what scenario would a sniper be required at a football game? Crazed gunman comes out and starts shooting?

Wouldn't there already be a shiatload of armed cops all around the stadium? Didn't they have metal detectors for entry?

You want to depend on a single layer of security and just assume that it's unbeatable?

It seems everyone is pissed off at the TSA for airport security and we speak of security theater but a sniper set up at a football game. No big deal. And if there is one sniper, shouldn't there be another just to make sure you get full coverage of the stadium?

A sniper isn't security theater. He's effective against certain types of threats, and for the most part nobody knows he's even there. That's pretty much the exact opposite of security theater.


^The point i was going to make. Anybody calling this security threater probably doesnt have a good grasp of what that phrase means.
 
2012-02-10 02:08:05 PM  

Splinshints: Strategeryz0r: How do you think you PREVENT crime? Be being where you need to be to stop it before it becomes a problem, not fight it after the fact.

Yep. And I'm asking you. How many have been prevented?

This should not be a hard question to answer for someone who believes that this is justified. I'm asking for the justification. It should not be difficult for you to explain to me how many crimes or attacks have been stopped because of sniper or, say, commando-style forces being present in these venues?

And it's a pretty sensible question, I think you'd agree. There is a cost associated with this type of presence and so there should be justification given. After all, if nobody can provide the justification, how do we know it's necessary? Or, alternatively, how do you know it's enough?

Again, real simple question: how many attacks have been stopped because of this type of presence?


And what part of that's impossible to truly answer because this has been SOP for most police forces for the better part of 40 years did you fail to understand? You don't need actionable intel to take a sensible safety precaution.

Did you just not read what I wrote or what? The procedure for this came about because of one horrific event that already occurred. Do you need another event of that scale(the 74 Munich Massacre, not 9/11) before you understand that it's a precautionary measure. One that has been carefully calculated. Yes it costs tax payer money, but by comparison of other options not a whole lot. 1 well placed sniper can guard the same area as multiple patrol officers, thus reducing the manpower requirements to truly protect an event like this. By taking this 1 man out of his nest, you create a need for more officers patrolling the grounds. Thus spending MORE of your precious tax dollars.

You cannot prevent any atrocity from happening by sitting around and waiting for it to happen. There doesn't need to be a known threat to justify putting something like this in place. The point of a police force is to stop criminal actions from happening before they happen. Trying to nickle and dime a department is what turns an otherwise peaceful city into MF'in Detroit. In terms of cost/benefit a couple snipers is much more cost effective than the amount of patrol officers or private security(to patrol a STATE OWNED stadium) that would be required for the same job.

You either want security on the event, or you don't. Unfortunately for you the stadium is not privately owned. So the state has an obligation to provide the best security they can while keeping the amount of tax dollars spent in mind. If this is so terrible, and so expensive, then what is YOUR suggestion that would be cheaper than this?

I'll be here patiently waiting for you to come up with a better idea. But, like you and your impossible question, I wont be holding my breath that you'll have an answer.
 
2012-02-10 02:08:58 PM  

swaxhog: KangTheMad: Wasn't a sniper at a football game the plot of a movie?

Two-Minute Warning. During the height of the disaster movie era.


Yeah, hell, LA Coliseum's had a sniper's perch for almost a century.
cf2.imgobject.com
 
2012-02-10 02:10:59 PM  

Strategeryz0r: In this day and age, having police around in this capacity is a must. Otherwise it would be easy prey for the mentally unstable, or otherwise criminally insane.


What happens if one of the criminally insane manages to break into one of those sniper nests? What if the assigned sniper is criminally insane himself?
 
2012-02-10 02:13:42 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Strategeryz0r: In this day and age, having police around in this capacity is a must. Otherwise it would be easy prey for the mentally unstable, or otherwise criminally insane.

What happens if one of the criminally insane manages to break into one of those sniper nests? What if the assigned sniper is criminally insane himself?


That's why there's usually more than 1 sniper(maximum coverage), as well as a nest chosen due to it's isolated nature(door lockable from the interior, relatively difficult to access, etc). As well as carefully monitored psych evals for officers selected for this kind of high profile assignment.

Not saying it isn't possible, it totally is. However, they do try to take precautions to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report