It is a pretty bad a** rifle. I know if I ever fell into money I'd be getting one. Same with an M40A3 and Schimdt Bender Optics.

 

On to the other topic here. I don't have a problem with a highly trained marksmen sitting up there. All I'm gonna say about that, you can tell me I support a police state all you want, but frankly I couldn't care.

The differnce is these are members of society, not goverment. Also the weapons are not actively targeting anyone while in their holster on a CCW holder's person.

It is a nice gun

OK Im not a fan of the rifle. Id probably prefer the other one in the pic. It looks like the silouette of a McMillan A5 stock.

A sign of our changing times -

 

http://www.tactical-...xclusives_title

In reality, there is really no reason to believe that guy was up there sweeping all the fans and putting crosshairs on their heads during the Super Bowl.

 

Sure he was there, sure there is a picture of him sighting, but there is absolutely no proof that he pointed anything at anyone.

 

I was across the street from MSG during the republican national convention years ago and never once did I see them sight through the rifle . Binoculars yes, rifle scope never.

 

Don't create and debate dangerous fictional scenarios on a reflex. There are too many people against any guns rights at all that do that.

Is this something new?

Munich occurred in the athletes dorms. Even back in 1972 terrorists don't want to be on the receiving end of open sight lines.

I've heard the London olympics reevaluated their close in protection needs and has roughly doubled the number of shooters needed.

They are being trained at a camp in Northern Ireland.

This Superbowl shooter is mostly ornamental.

In fact there is probably little role for a sniper except against really incompetent bad guys.

You can bet there were a ton of close in protective folks there however.

you would rather give up your rights so that someone else can protect you.. i get that

 

I may be missing something, but how is having snipers at a major public gathering "giving up your rights?"

I can't say I see this as a trampling of 2A rights or "big brother." The NFL is obligated to protect the lives of the participants and spectators, and I doubt they have the in-house resources to do so (unless the NFL has some secret squirrel, super-elite, tiger-striped, total bad-a**-baby-eating commando unit). Maybe it would be interesting to see how much the NFL paid to adhoc government resources, or how large the bill was after the government (local/state/federal) offered their services free of charge (like OT, logistics, etc).

This looks to be a local rescource to me......

At least no expense was spared on that chair! :-)

On the question of why no police counter measure, this would be a big one since there are verified credible threats of tageting a major event.

 

On the topic of being on the wrong end of a loaded weapon let me ask you this:

 

If your walking behind a ccw wearing his fav Don Jonsen shoulder holster, where is it pointed?

If your having a picnic and a ccw is laying on a blanket face down reading a book near you with his feet pointed toward you, where will just about every normal holster have the weapon pointed?

If your walking behind a ccw wearing strong side FBI cant holster and he bends over to pick up a dime, where will his weapon be pointed?

If you walk by a scaffold and a ccw is above, where?

 

Would you agree this likely happens 1000 times a day? I think this is simply part and parcel with an armed society.......

 

This is why I moved to New Jersey, to avoid all the above scenarios! Scary!

 

On a serious note though, thats a very good point.

 

I can't say I disagree with either point of view though. If I had to chose one or the other, I personally would rather them be present. This is a total stretch, but still a possibility:

Imagine a suicide bomber in the stands with a bomb vest on, another fan may think he is acting suspicious or may spot something out of the ordinary. They can call the police or alert one of the ushers, and the sniper can be radioed to monitor that fan, and if needed eliminate him before hundreds of people are killed. Again, I said this is a stretch, but definitely a possibility.

I may be missing something, but how is having snipers at a major public gathering "giving up your rights?"

 

Tis but my humble opinion, but you're surrendering your right to life to the goverment. They're in control and can decide in the blink of an eye who lives and who dies. Do I feel this power will be abused at this level? No, but it's the principal of what you're doing. They have the right to decide who is the "threat" and end their life right there on the spot (dealing with a stadium full of american citizens rememer). I personally am not a fan of giving anyone on the reciving end of our tax dollars the power to make that decesion. Specially under the pretence of "its for our own good"

 

 

This is why I moved to New Jersey, to avoid all the above scenarios! Scary!

 

On a serious note though, thats a very good point.

 

I can't say I disagree with either point of view though. If I had to chose one or the other, I personally would rather them be present. This is a total stretch, but still a possibility:

Imagine a suicide bomber in the stands with a bomb vest on, another fan may think he is acting suspicious or may spot something out of the ordinary. They can call the police or alert one of the ushers, and the sniper can be radioed to monitor that fan, and if needed eliminate him before hundreds of people are killed. Again, I said this is a stretch, but definitely a possibility.

 

For all that work you just described why not just let compident law abiding american citizens make the choice to take this guy down if need be? They could sure make better assesments of his lethality from a row away then a sniper hundreds of yards away...

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't be protected I'm just arguing about who should be doing it.

"could sure make better assesments of his lethality from a row away then a sniper hundreds of yards away..."

 

I would disagree with this statement.

I personally am not a fan of giving anyone on the reciving end of our tax dollars the power to make that decesion.

 

So, you feel we should disband all police departments and LE agencies? Are you an anarchist? I believe in minimal government but one needs laws if one is to maintain civilization. Indiana is a "shall issue" state and as such, unless they were wanding, I'd wager there were a good many people at the game with concealed sidearms. Your argument makes no sense. JMHO

 

Adios,

 

PIzza Bob

I disagree with your disagreement! lol

So, you feel we should disband all police departments and LE agencies? Are you an anarchist? I believe in minimal government but one needs laws if one is to maintain civilization. Indiana is a "shall issue" state and as such, unless they were wanding, I'd wager there were a good many people at the game with concealed sidearms. Your argument makes no sense. JMHO

 

Adios,

 

PIzza Bob

 

No sir I am not, However I do believe there is a fine line between a regular officer on duty and someone who's sole purpose at x event is to scan a crown of americans with a loaded rifle. I realize my argument is imperfect and there are many ways to view the situation and you're of course entitled to your opinion. I personally don't feel this kind of protection is necessary and that for people to be happy about putting the fate of their lives in a strangers hand seems a little misguided

I have a question. Has there ever been a police sniper takeout of a bad guy in a situation where the bad guy(s) is hundreds of yards away, surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of walking law suits?

 

In fact, other than on TV and in the movies, how often do police snipers on buildings/crow's nests ever take a shot that takes out a bad guy? Any cites?

 

This sniper nest is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. It will never be used, the liability is too high.

 

As far as the rights go, I don't see it as an infringement. What I do see it though is a bullet point on a security briefing. It's theater, nothing more.

Guys, your thinking is too constrained.... So let me ask this question. Jonny the mop guy has a hatred for XYZ officiating at the event or the opposing team playing etc etc. He places his remington 700 from wallmart in a position months in advance. He uncorks and starts letting the lead fly from the rafters. Who exactly is going to stop this? Plainclothes with a glock? CCW with a 1911? Considering this scenario has occured I dont think its terribly far fetched.

Malsua, add 7 million witnesses to the scenario and you can sure bet the ROE is a small list of green lights!

 

For all that work you just described why not just let compident law abiding american citizens make the choice to take this guy down if need be? They could sure make better assesments of his lethality from a row away then a sniper hundreds of yards away...

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't be protected I'm just arguing about who should be doing it.

 

If I see someone with an explosive vest on, I can guarantee you I am going to beat feet. I'm not Marky Mark, I'm not going to take this guy down with the spork the concession stand gave me to eat my nachos, or beat him with my plastic bottle with no cap. I can pretty much be correct in saying that about 98% of the population agree with me.

 

Now if he was a row away from me, I would take this highly trained sniper 99 times out of 100 to use lethal force on the BG than some drunk with a CCW (assuming CCW was allowed, which it is not in stadiums even in free states, so spork assault it is). One well placed high velocity shot, or a spray and pray from a sub compact glock? You make the choice.

 

Again this is all hypothetical, I'm just shooting ideas out there.

And not to put to fine a point on it but:

"I disagree with your disagreement! lol"

 

 

Lets assume for a second that both have focused on the suspect at hand.

 

Who is more likely to have a better observation of the suspect?

 

The guy trying not to be obvious, sitting next to the suspect trying to look through other patrons from a side view likely with no training on what to even look for?

Or the guy with the SN3 that can dial up to 17X on his scope giving him the ability to focus on the guys hands and observe and look for the behaviours he is trained to look for?

 

This sniper nest is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. It will never be used, the liability is too high.

 

Yeah but in some certain situations, I think liability will be left at the door. Snipers also have a ton of tactical advantages over on-ground LE. And I am sure there were 100's of plain-clothes LE/FBI/ATF agents in the crowd.

 

If you have a suicide bomber in that stadium and have seconds to react before he kills 20, 30, 100+ people, you bet that sniper is going to take that shot, even if it is possible that the round maybe go through the bomber and into an innocent civilian behind them.

 

All that aside, I don't care what anyone says. I don't mind snipers watching over an event that I am at like that, or watching an event that I am not at. It is extra protection, it is an eye (and eyes) in the air that see things that most won't be able to see on the ground. They are at a lot of major events nowadays, and have been for a while, but I think people are starting to become more and more anxious over them because the media is bringing this stuff out more and more.

On the one hand, if you're pro-2A, I can't see being afraid of this.

 

Realistically, however, I can't conceive of the situation which occurs requiring this officer to take a shot.

Therefore this is "security theater" like TSA and the unarmed guardsmen in Penn Station.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong LEO's.

 

You're wrong. Active Shooter, the stadium is Huge, getting people to the site of a disturbance, especially when you add in a few thousand screaming panicked people is virtually impossible. BTW this isnt "New" this has been going on since the 1970's..it's just something that was never really talked about.

I have a question. Has there ever been a police sniper takeout of a bad guy in a situation where the bad guy(s) is hundreds of yards away, surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of walking law suits?

 

In fact, other than on TV and in the movies, how often do police snipers on buildings/crow's nests ever take a shot that takes out a bad guy? Any cites?

 

This sniper nest is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. It will never be used, the liability is too high.

 

As far as the rights go, I don't see it as an infringement. What I do see it though is a bullet point on a security briefing. It's theater, nothing more.

 

Rught and when Johnny dipstick DOES go off you'll be the first to be screaming "Why didnt the cops take him out" We get it..No Police can do ANY good at Any Time.

Can anybody ID the weapons and scope? I wonder what power the binocs are...

 

The gun looks looks like an M24E1

High expensive scope CHECK

Expensive rifle CHECK

Binoculars CHECK

Chair from last bbq CHECK

Gun is an xm2010. Optics from us optics. Xlr industries tripod. Try posted the pics on thierry Facebook page. According to their Facebook page the rifle was not looking down on anyone and only binoculars were used when people were in the stadium. Rifle was off to the side in case it was needed.

Sorry. Facebook page was by supplier us tactical supply