Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Snipers on 60 minutes (west coast time)

Indeed. Well said, Jim.

I think there is a bit too much Hooah, Hooah associated with the look at me I'm a sniper crowd. I know my little tow of 30,00 has a couple of .243's in the arsenal and a few officeers who practice with them, however they don't present themselves as snipers by any stretch of the word! <P>I know it ain't all drama like TV portrays it!! I thank God I never had to pull the trigger on any Iraqi's just step over a few of them! I like being able to sleep at night!<P>Mike

<BR>Jim,<P>Your 'experience' doesn't surprise me. I have a brother-in-law and father-in-law that are police officers and both show extreme prejudice against anyone NOT a police officer. I don't know if they do it purposefully or if they're unaware of their 'attitude'. IMHO I believe they learn to trust no one unless they carry a badge...all others are suspect. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-police I have even been very close to signing up to join the state police but I don't think it's worth the mental anguish my family would go through. I have seen it first hand and it's a strange club. Going through life extremely paranoid is not something I would enjoy. <P>Glad you kept the post, I enjoyed the read and it made me ponder...

This could grow,to be a MOST interesting thread. I side with the idea,of having a dedicated marksman,in the ranks. Why? Well,if someone has a gun,to one of my kids and I am not of the opportunity to retaliate. I'm HOPING,that someone in LE can(and WILL). Sure that is a long stretch of what is plausible,but I think it is a viable option,that warrants means to terminate such a situation. I'm not implying that every third man be issued a boltgun,get slapped on the ass,and be christened "Sniper". My point is,that the large Departments,in crime ridden areas should institute a strict training regimen. That is the trouble with all of this,it is typical Government bull****. Much hype and hoopla,but damn few quality results. I'm of the opinion,that the tactics are sound,but the training isn't. Give me,one of my buddies on the rooftop,with a lowly 223,and I'll kiss you on the lips! I don't buy into all the psychobabble nonsense. It is a simple matter,to place a projectile where you want it,in a urban environment. Twist it,turn it,analyze it,bring on the shrinks,turn out the lights,add anything you wish,but the facts remain....A 100yd shot(much longer than typical),doesn't require Gold Medal marksmanship capabilities..Let's pay these folk's the GOOD money,to institute the good training,to assure a GOOD job. If the funds spent,save but one life,isn't that worth the price of admission? It is to me. I'd much rather see a dedicated LE "Sniper",make $100,000 a year,and be FULLY capable in his responsibilities. Then pay lawyers to weigh the merits,on whether or not a [bleep] is sex(ala Clinton)?!? Or to send aid,to some piss ant Nation,when there are troubles in OUR streets. Should we not take care of our own,FIRST? If the funds were available,the training implemented,it would become a dull topic of conversation. Why? Because,it would simply work well,and there is little scuttlebutt,in good results.........

Jim and Spike we all know there has always been an "us vs them" attitude to some extent with the police. It just seems to me that it has gotten so much worse in the last few years. I know what jim is talking about on the range. I used to shoot with the DPS troops and some of the older ones who know me will still wave and pass the time of day but the new ones treat me like I have leprosy or something. It was if I got lost in a strange city if I saw a cop I'd just go ask him where the heck I was and now days I get the fish eye stare and the hand hovering over the gun and orders to produce identification. I don't like the changes.<P>Stick I know what you are saying too. If it was some one near and dear to me being put at risk I could and would take out the threat given the opportunity. I also agree that special training is necessary. But we are not talking personal involvment or war here we are talking about one citizen killing another on the orders of his boss. Cops are not soldiers and they should not be soldiers.<BR>Just for one citizen to kill another because his boss told him to? Would you do it? That is what is so scary about militarizing the police. No individual responsibility just follow orders. My Lord I thought we settled that arguement at Nuremberg. I was just a soldier following orders is what they claimed. And again not trying to belabor the point but cops aren't soldiers and were never meant to be.<BR>Cops are hired by society to see that the peace is kept. That is what they need to do be Peace Officers and stop being Imperial Storm Troops or Ninja Warriors.<BR>BCR

Boggy,I'm not advocating a "hit" on a 12yr old kid,for shoplifting a Twinkie. I'm talking cut and dried,life-threating situations,by VIOLENT criminals. A hostage situation,is my vision,of where these methods need employed. My point? An extreme circumstance(crazy folks,taking hostages),requires extreme measures... For those that choose that path,a bullet is too good for them,though it will immediately end the threat. My heart doesn't bleed. There are criminals that murder,then bunker themselves,in a negotiation ploy. Why allow them that luxury? Where the violent act,is cut and dried...I say shoot first,ask questions later,in that scenario. Why house,clothe,defend,and rehabilitate, people of that ilk? They don't alter their mindset. Some are released,and kill again. That fails to impress me. I say save the Taxpayer some money. Train highly skilled individuals,and put some of these offenders in the dirt. What power,might that message have? Criminals now,know that THEY make the rules. Wouldn't take but a couple yanks of the trigger,to paint a new picture. That is my point. Besides being effective,in that particular instance,the broader and more powerful effect,is as a deterrent.........

Guy's,<BR>In the old days there were 3 legs in social order.The church,the community,and the law.<BR>Now day's thanks to that Marxist puke Klinton,religious folks are considered somehow "Radical",and a threat.Community's have been divided by hyphenations,Irish-american,african-american etc. and now the courts are a stage where the prosecuter is under no obligation to tell the truth,and gets paid for CONVICTIONS not the truth.<BR>And right smack dab in the friggin middle of this goatscrump is US!<BR>I say arm the worms,and the Robins would quit screwing with them!<BR>Think of a world where potential victims drill punks with hot lead.It won't take long before the gang bangers are askin "Want fries' with that?".But it wont happen.There's too much money in crime for the lawyers,prosecutors,judges,and law enforcement.Job security is a public running scared and voting for the liberals that will "Take care of us".<BR>Armed citizens remove the need for such things.Ask 'ol Rabid on the right about Kennesaw Ga. and the crime rate there.<BR>Ya don't rob the 7-11 if Habib is packin a Desert eagle,and if hostages drilled the punks there would be no need for wannabe cops playing with rifles designed for snipers.It's that simple in my way of thinking.<BR>This time no apologies or explanations to anyone.If ya are offended maybe there is a reason to be.<BR>E4E

BigStick I knew you wasn't as bloodthirsty as you came across . I do agree with you that in very limited circumstances a dedicated sniper is a viable option to be used when all else has failed. What I was trying to convey is that every little cop force doesn't need one, same as with SWAT teams. They are all the rage now and everybody wants one. If they have them they want to use them because they have them. Vicious circle you know. But cops are still citizens just like you and I and we are not at war with ourself. At least not yet.<BR>BCR

Boggy,I think our thoughts are pretty close,on this matter. I'm not advocating bloodlust,I'm advocating,nipping things in the buds. I don't think war should be waged on Society,at large. BUT,most certainly SHOULD,on elements within our society. I see nothing wrong,with a highly skilled individual,dealing justice 168grs at a time. It is because of the lack,of such justice being administered,that thugs can go about their business,with little or NO worry. That just doesn't set well with me. Fairly easy to draw a line in the sand. Sign says,"Cross it,you will die". Even the thickest skulled,of the dredges of humanity,can undestand that. Currently,the sign says,"Do whatever you want,for as long as you dare. When caught,you can abuse the Justice System,while good citizens foot the bill". I much prefer short messages,that cut to the chase........

Just pass a National Concealed Carry Law and instead of paying 100,000 policemen, their insurance, transportation, paperwork, have several million undercover police all over the nation. Every state that has passed "shall carry" the crime rate has gone down. In the old days a man didn't get off his horse until invited for fear of being shot as a bad guy. No walking around someones house yelling "hello" to see if anyone is home. If no answer it is safe to rob. An armed America is a strong America!! To get a concealed carry you must pass instruction in laws and shooting skills, which need to be improved but make a threat to the criminal element. You don't hear about car jackings in Texas anymore. -- no

<BR> Gee Whiz, Thanks to all who "regard me highly as a human Being" despite the fact Im a Police Officer, I really appreciate it.<P> The only sniper eaperience ive ever had was by being baited by a normal service call when some crackhead gangbanger opened up on us from a 6th floor project window. As the bullets were wizzing by my head I was faced with the fact that the only ones who could come to my aid were other copper's armed with the same 6-shot pea shooters as I had, with the same "Politicaly correct" 158 grn LHP.<P> But if thats what it takes for our citizenry to have regular bowel movements, by not having a "militarized Police Dept.", then Im willing to do my part.<P> Of course what all this has to do with "BigGame Hunting" is a little beyond me. Maybe the talk should go back to hunting before a few of you guy's embarrass youselves more then you have.<P> Cause you really dont know what your talking about...........10

All this talk about "cops vs. us" is a little disturbing. I've been around cops my whole life. Dad just retired from the Metropolitan Police dept in D.C. And I don't remember once in the 18yrs I was around them that they held any prejudice against anyone without a reason. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm sure unfortunately it does. But all this Don't "militarize" the police is bologna. The cops are just implementing military type training because it is so effective. Criminals are just getting worse and worse. Cops need more freedom to do their jobs not less. And as for that "kill someone just because your boss said so", What do you think people in the military do? Cops are not citizens. You can't hold them to civilian standards. They should be held accountable for negligence, but if a bystander is accidently hit by a round from an officer, it's a tragedy not a crime. They are law enforcement officers. Not "Peacekeepers." Enforcement officers. If you start tying a cops hands all you get is more people getting killed by the scum running around this country. The police depts are not government agencies. They don't enforce government policies, they enforce laws. And in certain circumstances they need a marksman to put a round in someone's head, usually to keep people alive. <BR>As for that show. It was just a blatant attempt to cast a negative view on super accurate rifles. We know the media is super-liberal, and is just giving the uneducated public more ammo for the anti-gun campaign.<P>

I hope my message wasn't misconstrued or misunderstood due to my poor writing skills. <P>I wholeheartedly support the police agencies, I go to church with Five police officers. One is my wifes uncle who retired Lieutenant from city of Atlanta and is now a local Harley riding cop waiting to draw his pension. I personnally worked in the security industry while in college( not hardly police work, but often receive the same bad treatment)<P>I also advocate highly trained individuals who can and will put an end to a bad situation with a well placed bullet. The only difference between a sniper and a regular cop is the weapon and the distance. The use of deadly force used to protect themselves, a fellow LEO, or an innocent is still justified to me in either situation. In either situation it comes down to the officers training and judgement.<P>I still say I'm glad I've never had to make that choice. I've been trained for it, placed in situations where it might have been required, and I guess willing because I was there of my own free will, but never wanted to have to cross that bridge!!<P>Rabid

Almost forgot!<BR>Y'all have probably heard about Kennasaw, GA.<P>I haven't read the exact wording but basically they require every male 21 or over to have a handgun in there house unless they have some religeous belief against it.<P>I may try to locate that ordinance for my own curiosity, because I've never read the exact language in it! If I find it I'll post more specific details.<P>Mike<P>

<A HREF="http://www.municode.com/CGI-BIN/om_isapi.dll?advquery=firearms&infobase=12813.nfo&record={3792}&softpage=mccdochits" TARGET=_blank>http://www.municode.com/CGI-BIN/om_isapi.dll?advquery=firearms&infobase=12813.nfo&record={3792}&softpage=mccdochits</A><P>I posted it on its own topic as well!<P>Seems it is for all heads of household not otherwise prohibited, in pauper staus, disabled, or having religeous conflicts over the subject.<P>Mike

10 Point,<P>ditto 100 times over....

This is a really treacherous subject with emotional pitfalls all around. As I said in my first post, I�m trying hard not to alienate any of the law enforcement officers here. But I suppose you get hit and criticized from all sides so a defensive attitude is probably to be expected. I probably would do the same if I walked a mile in your moccasins.<P>I�ll address this paragraph specifically to 10point. Please don�t take offense at what I said. If I did offend you then I am truly sorry. I�ve �known� you and read your posts for at least two years, since before you shot that antelope with a 150 grain Sierra from your �06. I can see how that �regarded highly as a human being� could come across as condescending, but believe me it was not intended that way. JJ was impressed with you in Africa, and Sheister had good things to say about you. That was what I was referring to. Judging by your past posts I also think that once you get a good mad on it is hard to talk to you, so maybe I�m just sticking my foot deeper in my mouth, but hope you will take this as not condescending but as an effort to make peace with someone who is respected. <P>I am trying to make the distinction between the person and the Power Of The State run amok. We can all come up with �My best friend�s wife�s second cousin once dated a cop, so I know all about cops�. We can all come up with anecdotes good and bad. I have at least three more stories of being insulted and bullied by LEO�s when I went to ask for their help and have at least that many and more of being helped and treated compassionately by LEO�s, but recounting them doesn�t seem like it would further any understanding. <P>Too many factors here to try to cover. Starting in the sixties there was a breakdown in the respect for the Law. Not by gangsters and hoodlums but by college kids and a lot of the general populace. The mishandling of the VietNam War by authorities which led to a general disrespect for authority in general, the War on Drugs that has filled our jails with so many non-violent people that we have to let some of the dangerous ones out. This has also caused the arms race between law enforcement and organized crime which touches on this sniper thread. Many of the anecdotes in this thread are evidence of a direct backlash against this disrespect by folks placed in a highly stressful and dangerous position who are damned if they do and damned if they don�t. Guys risking their lives against very dangerous people and seeing their efforts countered by a typo on an arrest form.<P>I don�t think there is anyone here, well, not many, who doesn�t respect the people who protect us. But I fear the Police. Not the cops, the Police. Just as I fear the Military. Not the GI�s, squids, jarheads and zoomies looking out across the DMZ in Korea or pulling into a port in the Persian Gulf, or like I did, stare across a wall in Berlin at some Russian teenagers, but the Military. There is a distinction. <P>There�s the dichotomy. The Police and the Military are made up of cops and GI�s, etc. Decent people with wives and children and just wanting a slice of that good old American Pie.. But then why did some of those decent people kill a 14 year old kid and his dog, and then kill that kid�s mother, on Ruby Ridge? Why did some of these decent people burn to death a bunch of other basically decent people in Waco? Why, in a poll I�m sure some of you have heard about, did a substantial percentage of Army recruits mark down �yes� to a question about whether they would fire on American citizens under a certain circumstance. (Wish I could remember that exact question, hopefully one of you has a better memory.) Please do not confuse this with talk about scumbags and gangbangers. I am not referring to shooting individuals who, for whatever reason, have taken it upon themselves to hurt someone else for fun and profit. I�m talking about American citizens who are exercising their rights of association and religion. If they commit or are coerced into a non-violent crime, should their sentence be summary execution? Not in America.<P>I know the job is terribly dangerous. I know that human beings are, well, human beings. But the Founding Fathers knew this too. So they tried to institute safeguards against human beings who have a tendency to overreact or become too overzealous in the performance of their duties. I know the hoops that must be jumped through to protect true criminals is infuriating. But where can we go? You want to reduce drug smuggling? Place border guards at each state line with mandatory searches of all vehicles and persons. You want to prevent surprise shootings when making routine traffic stops? Stop the car, cover the occupants with shotguns, make them exit and handcuff them on the ground, then ask to see �license and registration, please�. You want to live in a country like that? Not me.<P>Keep getting back to this dichotomy of State Power and the good people charged with carrying out that power. �How many times have you come up to a car or entered into a domestic dispute, not knowing if you are going to be shot in the next second, smartass? If you haven�t then you have no business talking about it�. Valid question and valid response. My answer is none. But my answer is also that we HAVE to talk about it. The Police and Military are not civilians. Okay, but we do have civilian control of them. Police and Military have great Power. Power corrupts. The Founding Fathers knew this also. So we have to question the Police and Military. We have to have civilian oversight of the Police and Military, place limits and second guess their actions. I can only imagine how frustrating this can be, and I do know some of the outrageous mistakes committed in that oversight and their effect on the cops, GI�s and the human beings involved. But what other choice is there? Be honest, how many LEO�s out there would want to be able to stop anybody at any time for any reason? How many of you treat every civilian you meet as guilty until proven innocent? I know there is ample justification. I know you deal with far more liars, thieves and lowlifes of all sorts in one day than the rest of us encouner in a year. I would just ask that you answer the questions honestly. If the answer is yes, then I fear you. You can subjugate my rights, even kill me. If you automatically look at me, who has a lifetime criminal record of exactly one overtime parking ticket, as a danger to you, then should I not fear you? <BR> <BR>Well, I know better than to have even submitted my first post on this subject, but since I dug the hole so deep I can�t reach the top the only choice is to keep digging and see if there is a way out of the bottom of this. Like I said, so many factors on both sides. People legally handicapped by us civilians and subject to having split second decisions made under stress second guessed at leisure, put in very dangerous situations against heavily armed people with no handicap and no particular moral restraint. Give simple human beings the Power necessary to overcome the evil in society, but how to keep that power directed against the evil and not turned loose against society at large. Round and round. Where is the answer? Hell if I know.<P><BR>Sorry, this was long winded and rambling and redundant and comes to no conclusion. Just thoughts stirring around that needed to get out. Probably have all the LEO�s pissed at me forever more. Wrong forum to even say this, it doesn�t even fit the thread that well. But I care a hell of a lot about America The Ideal, even if America The Country is not as perfect as we would wish. Anyway, you guys are my �cyber-buds� and if anyone can understand where this is coming from then hopefully many of you can.<BR>

I just have to weigh in on this topic. First of all, I've served as a reserve officer in another town, majored in Law Enforcement in college, and enjoy good relations (for a journalist) with the local cops as well as local Chiefs. <BR>Having said that I'm not in favor of every department having it's own snipers or designated marksmen or whatever you want to call them. I'd rather see a very limited number of trained people working for a central agency like the local Sheriff's Department or State Police who get the call-out to assist local police. I'd prefer the snipers were state cops to keep their response and use out of local politics as much as possible and also to counter one of my biggest worries: "To a man with a new hammer, every problem looks like a nail." <P>The same applies to my opposition to the militarization of the police. New2alaska said, "Cops aren't citizens, you can't hold them to civilian standards." I most respectfully disagree. Cops ARE citizens and should never be led to think anything else. Police officers are simply citizens whose job puts them in danger and sometimes requires that they not retreat from that danger as other citizens must. All laws and standards applying to any citizen must be applied equally to police officers. In today's world police officers are limited (righty, I think) either by law or policy to behavior very much like that of a citizen. Exceptions to that rule are far fewer than most people, and many cops, think. <P>Take the use of force. In a scuffle with a suspect, a police officer in this state and especially in this town, may escalate the use of force only one level beyond what the suspect uses. For instance if the suspect pushes the officer he or she may respond with a control hold. A blow from a suspect's hand may be answered with a blow from a nightstick or pepper spray but no more. <P>The point I'm trying to make is that police officers are citizens with very limited, job-specific and even task-specific permission to exceed the powers of ordinary citizens or to take actions other citizens may be prohibited from taking. But they're still citizens and their training should emphasize their powers are limited. The cultural divide between "police" and "civilians" is a bad thing. From a police-community relations point of view, it's best to reinforce on both sides that police officers are citizens too. A police force that see's the public it seves as "just like us" will give people nothing to fear. A police force that is seen by the public as "just like us" will not fear their actions and will support the officers and their efforts. <P>But if you militarize that department with snipers, black ninja suits, identity-concealing balaclavas, submachine guns and dynamic entry teams, I think you're going to create more problems than those tactics can solve. A police department that really needs that equipment and training and those tactics is already disconnected from the community it's supposed to serve. <P>I went on because one of my hot buttons got pushed. No disrespect is intended toward cops or anyone whose opinion differs from mine. If we were all the same, this board would be no fun. <P>Talker

Jim in Idaho and Talker, thank you gentlemen,very much. Both of you have expressed my sentiments exactly. So I will just leave this puppy lay.<BR>BCR

Government is surely indispensible to the structure of a just society. Without government officials there is in reality no government at all. Obviously no society will thrive if it lives in fear of its criminal elements. In order to enforce the law there are times that deadly force must be employed.<BR>I personally believe our penalties are way too lenient, especially for violent crimes. I would be in favor of capital punishment as opposed to the state welfare system called "life imprisonment". Criminals should fear serving their jail sentences due to hard labor imposed on them for the lesser crimes. I have seen hard work change people's attitudes but never laziness (for the better that is).<BR>However on the other hand government can also become a tyrant over its honest citizens. In order for government to gain control over the people it must first disarm them and take away their constitutional rights. They will first convince the people through propaganda that the ownership of weapons is conducive to impulsive and violent crimes. The majority of the people will then view gun owners as suspicious characters and support the government in disarming the citizens. When the citizens are disarmed they are then in greater need of "protectors" from the criminal elements of society and the government will be forced to employ more extreme measures to control crime. This creates a dependency of the people on government. Next the government asks the people to give up more rights and freedoms so that they can take these rights from the criminals and better protect the rest of society. Now the government will no longer view your freedoms as rights but privileges, which they can either give or withhold. The rule of law which guarantees freedoms and holds the government accountable is supplanted by a government which is the law, in and of itself. The power of the government is then in the hands of officials not in the constitution or laws and so government becomes corrupted by its own officials. <BR>These are necessary steps in the move towards bringing the nation under a world organization such as the United Nations. Destroy the independence of the citizen and make him dependent upon government. Disarm him and increase your control. Create crisis, such as Ruby Ridge and Waco, to make the people believe that all of these measures were necessary. They will willingly give up their rights out of fear and inability to fend for themselves. <BR>Right now I believe the increase of the use of SWAT teams is preparing the citizenry to getting used to the idea of the government using deadly force against crime within society. The biggest concern of mine is who will be the future criminals? Neither Ruby Ridge nor Waco justified the use of the deadly force that was employed. Will the gun owners be next? The BATF has sweeping powers to act with deadly force on probable suspicions.<BR>Only recently near my home there were two incidents of the use of SWAT teams on the wrong individuals. In both cases the people were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and handcuffed. In one case it was a forced entry into a home at midnight where they handcuffed the people at gunpoint. What would have happened if the residents had awakened early enough, suspected burglary, and tried to defend themselves against the intruders?<BR>The only explanation was "oops I guess we got the wrong house". <BR>There are times that deadly force should be employed in apprehending criminals but most of the time the use of capital punishment should be reserved for AFTER the hearing. Admitting to making a mistake does not bring somebody back to life.<BR>They are trying to take away the ability citizens have to defend themselves and now we are becoming a "police state" (no pun intended against any officers). We are moving away from the rule of law to the rule of government officials and I believe it will not stop until we have given up individual rights, our constitution, and ultimately our national sovereignty.<P>But then again we will have SWAT teams for our protection.