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.
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 already asked this but I’m gonna repeat it here for clarity, are cops the only people hurting innocent people at protests?
Charlottesville, Virginia (2017): White supremacist drives car into counter protestors
Minneapolis, Minnesota (2020): Tanker truck drives through a crowd of George Floyd protestors.
Seattle, Washington (2020): Police brutality protest, driver drives through a crowd yet again.
New York City, New York (2017): IED sucide bomber inspired by ISIS in the subway.
Portland, Oregon (2020): Several incidents regarding vehicle usage and other violence against George Floyd protestors
Seems not. People are violent and there are threats to peaceful protesters. I am not saying that police snipers are the solution to this threat, and I am not saying cops are innocent, but to try and pretend that the *only *problem is cops, is disingenuous to the innocent people who have died due to hateful people and I’m not going to let you pretend otherwise, knowingly or otherwise.
What a cute list, here is one for the police during only a 6 month period over one large event to show the stark difference between the dangers of strangers and the dangers of police at protests (who I might add where present at all your examples, so what was the point?)
May 27, 2020 Memphis, Tennessee An officer was filmed using his police shield to shove a girl.[9]
May 27, 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota Police fired projectiles at protesters, damaging a woman’s eye.[10]
May 28, 2020 Albuquerque, New Mexico Police fired tear gas at protesters who followed officers as they made arrests.[11]
May 28, 2020 Denver, Colorado Peaceful protesters were gassed by police. Elisabeth Epps, a member of the Denver Police use-of-force committee, resigned her post after she was shot by police projectiles.[12]
May 28, 2020 Houston, Texas A Houston Police Department officer riding a horse was filmed trampling a woman. Mayor Sylvester Turner apologized for the incident.[13][14] The woman later filed a lawsuit against the Houston Police Department and the city of Houston.[15]
May 28, 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota An officer in the tail car of a caravan of squad cars was filmed indiscriminately spraying a chemical agent out the window onto bicyclists and people in a crosswalk.[16]
May 28, 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota A reporter from the Des Moines Register was pepper sprayed by police.[17]
May 29, 2020 Atlanta, Georgia An officer was filmed using his bicycle to shove a black woman who was protesting.[18]
May 29, 2020 Atlanta, Georgia An officer was filmed body-slamming a woman near Lenox Square Mall. The woman later sued the city of Atlanta.[19]
May 29, 2020 Columbus, Ohio Police fired a non-lethal projectile at a man, striking and shattering his knee.[20]
May 29, 2020 Columbus, Ohio A woman was hit by a police horse. The city of Columbus later agreed to pay $5.75 million to injured protesters.[21]
May 29, 2020 Columbus, Ohio Police pepper-sprayed and shoved a reverend.[21]
May 29, 2020 Columbus, Ohio Police fired a wooden bullet at a woman near a protest, striking her in the chin.[21]
May 29, 2020 Dallas, Texas A CBS news crew was caught in tear gas.[22]
May 29, 2020 Denver, Colorado KMGH-TV news crew reported police targeting them with paintballs and tear gas. Their photographer was shot four times and their camera was destroyed.[23]
May 29, 2020 Denver, Colorado Police fired a sponge-tipped projectile at a protester, hitting her eye.[24]
May 29, 2020 Denver, Colorado Police shot tear gas at a couple in a vehicle waiting at a traffic stop in Denver. When the man came out of the vehicle to confront the officers because his pregnant wife was in the vehicle, the officers ordered him to move along. He refused and the officers opened fire on him and the vehicle with pepper balls.[25]
May 29, 2020 Las Vegas, Nevada 80 people were arrested as police clashed with protesters on the Vegas strip, including two journalists. Charges against the two journalists were later dropped.[26][27]
May 29, 2020 Las Vegas, Nevada Officers were filmed rushing and tackling a protester. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said the man was an agitator.[28]
May 29, 2020 Louisville, Kentucky A Louisville Metro Police Department officer was filmed firing pepper balls directly at a WAVE 3 News crew, hitting correspondent Kaitlin Rust and photojournalist James Dobson.[29][23]
May 29, 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota CNN journalist Omar Jimenez and his three-person news crew were arrested by a group of Minnesota state police officers while reporting live on protests in response to the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[30] According to Jimenez, he was arrested for failing to move back from the position where they were reporting after being ordered to, despite their media credentials being visible and valid, and their agreeing to move where directed.[31][32]
May 29, 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota Swedish Expressen correspondent Nina Svanberg was shot with a rubber bullet and VG photojournalist Thomas Nilsson had a red laser sight trained on him.[33][34]
May 29, 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota Journalist and author Linda Tirado was permanently blinded in one eye after police shot her with a non-lethal projectile.[35]
May 29, 2020 New York City, New York New York City Police Department officer Vincent D’Andraia shoved a woman, Dounya Zayer, to the ground at a protest in Brooklyn.[36] The officer was recorded throwing down the protester with both hands while allegedly calling her a “stupid fucking bitch”; the protester was hospitalized after the assault and said she suffered a seizure.[37] On June 9, the officer was charged with assault, criminal mischief, harassment and menacing.[38]
May 29, 2020 New York City, New York As police cars drove past protesters, an officer opened his passenger door, causing it to hit a protester. The suspected perpetrator received modified duty.[39]
May 29, 2020 New York City, New York Outside Barclays Center, police were filmed repeatedly striking protesters with clubs after they had fallen on the concrete.[40]
May 29, 2020 Omaha, Nebraska A man was shot in the eye with a pepper ball. A different person was shot by pepper balls in the groin, although it is not known exactly what date this occurred.[41][42]
May 29, 2020 Omaha, Nebraska Police fired tear gas at a line of protesters sitting in the street.[43]
May 29, 2020 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania An officer threw a pepper spray container at a man.[44]
May 29, 2020 San Jose, California San Jose Police Department officer Jared Yuen drew national attention on social media due to videos of his behaviour. Yuen was videoed holding a projectile launcher, telling a protester “Shut up, bitch”, then within seconds he leaned around another officer to fire a projectile at close range, which caused a fight. In other videos, Yuen is filmed saying: “Let’s get this motherfucker”, or seen “smirking, licking his lips and rocking back and forth, looking a little too excited to be facing off with protesters”, reported San Jose Inside. The videos were viewed over 10 million times, and thousands called for Yuen’s firing. SJPD chief Eddie Garcia reacted that Yuen “let his emotions get the best of him, and it’s not right”, but he also called Yuen a “kid” and “good cop”, “who has put his life on the line for the city multiple times.” As a result, Yuen was removed from protest duties.[45][46][47]
May 29, 2020 San Jose, California A bias trainer was shot in the groin by riot guns.[48]
May 29, 2020 San Jose, California A former San Jose Planning Commissioner was pushed to the ground and repeatedly shot with impact munitions by police.[49]
May 30, 2020 Albany, New York Police used tear gas after a protest turned violent. Tear gas spread into a nearby home, causing a resident who inhaled some of it to suffer lingering health effects.[50]
May 30, 2020 Atlanta, Georgia Officers from the Atlanta Police Department pulled two black students from their car, broke a car window, and used tasers to shock them. This came after officers arrested a classmate of theirs whom they wanted to pick up; an officer ordered the students to continue driving, which they complied with. One officer claimed that one of the students possessed a gun, but no gun was found. One of the students stated that he was punched over 10 times in the back after being arrested. Within days, six officers were charged as a result of the incident; two were fired and four were put on administrative leave. The Fulton County District Attorney, Paul Howard, stated that the two college students were “innocent almost to the point of being naive”.[51][52][53]
May 30, 2020 Austin, Texas 16-year-old Levi Ayala suffered brain damage after being shot in the head with a less-lethal round by Austin police officer Nicholas Gebhart.[54][55][56] Gebhart and several other officers were later indicted for shooting protesters with non-lethal projectiles.[57]
May 30, 2020 Austin, Texas A deaf man was hit by less-lethal projectiles in the ear and crotch.[58]
May 30, 2020 Chicago, Illinois Journalist Jonathan Ballew was broadcasting the protest when he was allegedly assaulted with a chemical agent.[59]
May 30, 2020 Chicago, Illinois Police attacked actor John Cusack, who was filming the protest.[60]
May 30, 2020 Chicago, Illinois An officer beat a woman in her vehicle and wrongfully arrested her. In 2022 the officer faced dismissal for the incident.[61]
May 30, 2020 Cincinnati, Ohio An officer shoved a man from behind with a shield.[62]
May 30, 2020 Cincinnati, Ohio A singular protester standing with his hands raised was tear gassed.[62]
May 30, 2020 Cincinnati, Ohio Police fired pepper balls at a group of 20 people without warning.[62]
May 30, 2020 Cincinnati, Ohio Police shot a man taking photos in the eye with a marking round, causing the man to suffer vision problems. The man filed an excessive force complained but it was ruled not sustained, as the Citizen Complaint Authority was not able to determine which officer fired the round.[63]
May 30, 2020 Cleveland, Ohio A man lost sight in one eye after being hit with a beanbag round.[64]
May 30, 2020 Cleveland, Ohio A sheriff’s deputy fired beanbag round at a man passing out water, hitting him in the back of the head. The same deputy fired a beanbag that blinded a different man on the same date. The man hit with the beanbag round later filed a lawsuit.[65]
May 30, 2020 Columbus, Ohio Columbus Police were filmed pepper spraying Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, Commissioner Kevin Boyce, and Council President Shannon Hardin during a demonstration near the Ohio Statehouse.[66][67]
Alright, well, I’m gonna ignore the passive aggression, mostly because it doesn’t contribute to the conversation and is only damaging to an attempt at civility.
My point, was that police aren’t the only danger, and that plenty of others KILL innocent protestors. I didn’t even include harming other protestors. Like I said in my other comments to you and to others, but you’ve clearly misunderstood that point based on the other comments you’ve made to me, so I’ll reiterate here.
Super clearly:
“Police are undoubetdly part of, if not the majority of the problem. However, we face plenty of other threats from domestic and foreign terrorists in the state. I acknowledge that terrorism in the US has often been used as a scape goat (namely to invade the wrong fucking country - Afghanistan). However, I am identifying the issue of: How do we prevent these attacks and respond w/o the need for police. Which IS NOT implying that I think the police are the answer, but a call to constructive action to solve the problem w/o the need to OVER rely on the police as some kind of protector force. Which we BOTH agree, they are not.”
Get it?
I don’t know how many more times I can say that I believe the ACAB movement before it finally sets in for you. The police are not the only fucking problem we face. And to say otherwise is dangerous and misleading.
The point is the risk of heavy police presence at a protest is not worth the “protection” they do or don’t offer.
Ban protests if you really want to as a nation but stop this “you totally can protest, it is your right! Oh watch out for the tear gas” crap.
I don’t know how many more times I can say that I believe the ACAB movement before it finally sets in for you. The police are not the only fucking problem we face. And to say otherwise is dangerous and misleading.
OK, I will spell it out.
THE HEAVY POLICE PRESENCE AT PROTESTS ARE THE PROBLEM.
And if you just read the next several walls of text you can see that it is not even close.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Oh come now, the point being made is the police ARE THE THREAT. There is no other threat at the level of the armed government goons on site pointing loaded firearms at students. You replied to the answer of your question with “But what about the OTHER threat?” And if you could read just a tiny bit between the lines by the fact that nether you or the person you have replied to have listed another threat (other then general terrorism), maybe you could figure out that there is no threat these police are there to thwart.
How are you gonna put parenthesis around the point that was literally counterpoint to the comment.
They were saying the police were the biggest threat, yet we have repeated terrorist events from regular Americans (not cops as well?)
People died from those incidents. I didn’t even include just injuries or anything like that. Dead. Not pepper spray, not rubber bullets.
Run over.
And eight year old was fucking shot and killed.
To say that police or the only threat to LIFE at these events is just outright disingenuous. period.
There exists real threats that we need to address if we’re ever to pull back our gross reliance on police being some kind of savior figure or whatever bullshit other people believe they are.
All the US needs to do is embrace Peelian principles, but instead it’s a corrupt, power groping free for all.
All the US needs to do is embrace Peelian principles, but instead it’s a corrupt, power groping free for all.
We both know even if taking a more community driven approach like what Peel did in London would take a herculean effort and the public at this point would not likely buy in. Maybe in 50 years.
They were saying the police were the biggest threat, yet we have repeated terrorist events from regular Americans (not cops as well?)
The argument is not that there are not non police risks, its that they pale in comparison (at a degree that the non police risk is so low to almost be a rounding error) to police risks. Also the police have shown over and over in the US they are not willing to protect the public.
There exists real threats that we need to address if we’re ever to pull back our gross reliance on police being some kind of savior figure or whatever bullshit other people believe they are.
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
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.
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.
Do these snipers ever actually intervene ?
Also, the solution is simple : outlaw guns.
I think there might’ve been a miscommunication - I was referring to the threat being suicide bombers and dirty bombs. How do you stop someone from walking into a crowd, pushing a button, and hurting many innocent people trying to peacefully protest?
The cops are literally the ones walking into the crowds hurting the protestors. So you get rid of the cops.
I already asked this but I’m gonna repeat it here for clarity, are cops the only people hurting innocent people at protests?
Charlottesville, Virginia (2017): White supremacist drives car into counter protestors
Minneapolis, Minnesota (2020): Tanker truck drives through a crowd of George Floyd protestors.
Seattle, Washington (2020): Police brutality protest, driver drives through a crowd yet again.
New York City, New York (2017): IED sucide bomber inspired by ISIS in the subway.
Portland, Oregon (2020): Several incidents regarding vehicle usage and other violence against George Floyd protestors
Seems not. People are violent and there are threats to peaceful protesters. I am not saying that police snipers are the solution to this threat, and I am not saying cops are innocent, but to try and pretend that the *only *problem is cops, is disingenuous to the innocent people who have died due to hateful people and I’m not going to let you pretend otherwise, knowingly or otherwise.
Say their names.
Heather Heyer
David McAtee
Horace Lorenzo Anderson Jr
Summer Taylor
Secoriea Turner (8 fucking years old.)
Garrett Foster
Anthony Huber
Joseph Rosenbaum
What a cute list, here is one for the police during only a 6 month period over one large event to show the stark difference between the dangers of strangers and the dangers of police at protests (who I might add where present at all your examples, so what was the point?)
(in case you want to double check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests) Sorry this might take a bit:
Alright, well, I’m gonna ignore the passive aggression, mostly because it doesn’t contribute to the conversation and is only damaging to an attempt at civility.
My point, was that police aren’t the only danger, and that plenty of others KILL innocent protestors. I didn’t even include harming other protestors. Like I said in my other comments to you and to others, but you’ve clearly misunderstood that point based on the other comments you’ve made to me, so I’ll reiterate here.
Super clearly:
“Police are undoubetdly part of, if not the majority of the problem. However, we face plenty of other threats from domestic and foreign terrorists in the state. I acknowledge that terrorism in the US has often been used as a scape goat (namely to invade the wrong fucking country - Afghanistan). However, I am identifying the issue of: How do we prevent these attacks and respond w/o the need for police. Which IS NOT implying that I think the police are the answer, but a call to constructive action to solve the problem w/o the need to OVER rely on the police as some kind of protector force. Which we BOTH agree, they are not.”
Get it?
I don’t know how many more times I can say that I believe the ACAB movement before it finally sets in for you. The police are not the only fucking problem we face. And to say otherwise is dangerous and misleading.
The point is the risk of heavy police presence at a protest is not worth the “protection” they do or don’t offer.
Ban protests if you really want to as a nation but stop this “you totally can protest, it is your right! Oh watch out for the tear gas” crap.
OK, I will spell it out.
THE HEAVY POLICE PRESENCE AT PROTESTS ARE THE PROBLEM.
And if you just read the next several walls of text you can see that it is not even close.
God damn, owned.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 cops are the threat to the protestors.
Are they the only threat? If not, what do we do about the threat, as I asked, and have continued to ask
Oh come now, the point being made is the police ARE THE THREAT. There is no other threat at the level of the armed government goons on site pointing loaded firearms at students. You replied to the answer of your question with “But what about the OTHER threat?” And if you could read just a tiny bit between the lines by the fact that nether you or the person you have replied to have listed another threat (other then general terrorism), maybe you could figure out that there is no threat these police are there to thwart.
How are you gonna put parenthesis around the point that was literally counterpoint to the comment.
They were saying the police were the biggest threat, yet we have repeated terrorist events from regular Americans (not cops as well?)
People died from those incidents. I didn’t even include just injuries or anything like that. Dead. Not pepper spray, not rubber bullets.
Run over.
And eight year old was fucking shot and killed.
To say that police or the only threat to LIFE at these events is just outright disingenuous. period.
There exists real threats that we need to address if we’re ever to pull back our gross reliance on police being some kind of savior figure or whatever bullshit other people believe they are.
All the US needs to do is embrace Peelian principles, but instead it’s a corrupt, power groping free for all.
We both know even if taking a more community driven approach like what Peel did in London would take a herculean effort and the public at this point would not likely buy in. Maybe in 50 years.
The argument is not that there are not non police risks, its that they pale in comparison (at a degree that the non police risk is so low to almost be a rounding error) to police risks. Also the police have shown over and over in the US they are not willing to protect the public.
See that is something we can agree on.
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.
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
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.