PDA

View Full Version : 60 minutes II, SNIPER story last night


ROCK-n-GLOCK
July 19, 2001, 14:39
Did anybody see the story about the Police Sniper on 60 Minut II last night? It wasn't too bad. they actually showed a guy get zapped while holding a hostage. The shooter shot twice before he realized he forgot to change his scope settings for range. The funny thing was, the idiot BG, just stood there, didn't take cover or move. The shooter made his correction and Bam, zapped the BG and he fell straight down. Center of Forehead shot....was pretty cool.

They also interviewed the guy from Thunder Ranch and I like one of his quotes

"there are some people who should be shot"
Concur.....

GDYankee
July 19, 2001, 14:53
Originally posted by ROCK-n-GLOCK:
<STRONG>The shooter shot twice before he realized he forgot to change his scope settings for range.</STRONG>
Far be it from me to question, but is our hero sniper a graduate of WECSOS?

[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: GDYankee ]

Jen
July 19, 2001, 15:04
IIRC this sniper who missed is now a sniper instructor at one of the major police sniper training schools.

I think this episode was a repeat as I recall seeing a 60 minutes type show a while back on the same subject..

usmctien
July 19, 2001, 15:29
I'm a Marine and I know that a head shot is one of the hardest and I think that if the shooter where as good as the show made him out to be he would have never made the mistake in the first place but a kill is a kill. "Always remember one shot one kill" C. Hathcock USMC

CassidyGT
July 19, 2001, 15:32
I liked the Police Chief from Albequerque, NM who had the opinion that police forces are way too militarized. He objected to the concept that the police were 'at war' with the population. He had the right idea. I didn't care too much for the sniper guys' cavalier attitudes. Just MHO.

Dodge Charger 68
July 19, 2001, 17:30
Agree with Cassidy and the police chief, am thinking there are far more needless deaths by some LEO's
than are necessary. Don't confuse my comment as LEO's SHOULDN'T protect themselves.
Also, if anyone noticed, the actual hit by the sniper was NOT seen, a millisecond of the video(probably the actual impact) was removed. Look again and see that the picture "jumps. "

Rifle_Guy
July 19, 2001, 17:55
LEO's have the right to protect themselves, just as we do. They will need to do it more often than the "average Joe" since they must activly involve themselves in potentialy hazardous situations as a part of their work. However, the notion that they are "at war" with the population or that they are "wariors" can only result in creating a division that will increase, not decrease, the level of danger that they face. Informed, cooperative and trusting citizens are the LEO,s/LEA's greatest assets. Militarization of the police is not the route to greater officer safety. This is only one man's opinion but it is based on a lifetime of observation from several perspectives.

xcpd69
July 19, 2001, 18:11
Sounds more like the Police Sniper may have come up against the reality of coldly putting a bullet through the head of another human being for real, rather than punching paper. (Not to condemn him, as I don't KNOW for certain, how I would react either.)

If this was in an urban setting, I fail to see where there would be a requirement for a really long range shot, involving a hostage. Range SHOULD be well under 100 yards. Having said that, weapon should have been set up for that type of range setting. If weapon was set up for long range sniping, I ask why?

Someone, I forget who, once said "Train like you fight..."

Either the weapon was set up, without taking fully into consideration of exactly what conditions (policy and circustances) it would be used, or he balked at what was a truly difficult decision to make.

Thankfully it came to a resolution that saved the hostage, and I'm just glad I didn't have to make that decision.

July 19, 2001, 22:12
One thing I see nobodies brought up.
What is the percentage of hostages hit in relation to bad guys???
They also showed a hostage get zapped,which happens fairly frequently.
I agree with that police chief,too many of these leos think they are at war with "civilians".
Just that they call US civilians is a dead giveaway,given that they too also are, contrary to what many of them think.

BUFF
July 20, 2001, 00:46
Yes it was a re-run. The "sniper" teaches part-time at Thunder Ranch, Clint Smith's school in Texas.

People are taking the police "war" concept out of context, led by the press, who sell ads by trying to generate excitement and controversy. What is being referred to is "The War On Crime." It is not a war being waged against the citizens, which we LEO's are, it is a "war" being fought on their behalf, in which the innocents and regular civilians are seen as "under attack" by the criminal elements.

Like most catch phrases, it was coined and popularized by politicians during the 1960's.

The designation "police sniper" is mostly used by civilians and the press now, as well. In law enforcement, what was referred to as a "sniper" is mostly called a "precision" shooter," "counter-sniper" or "marksman" now.

As for how many civilians are shot by "police snipers" when the "sniper" is shooting at the goblin holding them as a hostage, the numbers aren't clear, no one seems to have tabulated them. I can't find the reference now, but I read a year or two ago that statistics on these shootings are not tabulated and released by the Justice Department because the numbers of them are relatively small annually, and the circumstances vary so much, that the sample numbers are too small for statistics derived from them to have any statistical meaning.

Most such shootings are more a case of mistaken identity than missing the intended target. Most innocents killed by police gunfire during hostage situations and SWAT raids are shot at close range by cops making entry, the goblins shooting at them and the hostages getting caught in between.

The vast majority of SWAT deployments, which usually include a "precision shooter" or "sniper" or two as "insurance," are concluded without anyone being shot by anyone, or even any shots being fired. The normal "op" is the SWAT team being used to make high-risk arrest and search warrant entries and to then secure the scene and the occupants, or SWAT deploying to contain a domestic disturbance where a drunk or doper is holding girlfriend or family in their residence and result in police negotiators wearing down and talking the goblin out.

In the 10 years my department has had what can be called a modern SWAT team, we have only had to shoot one person to death. Much emphasis is now given to "less-than-lethal" weapons like bean-bag guns. We have had about 6-8 goblins who ended up shooting themselves to death while the negotiators tried to make or maintain contact with them.

I believe the majority of non-cops who die during American police SWAT ops are the goblins who commit suicide rather than face jail or hospitalization.

When a police "sniper" successfully shoots an appropriate goblin, it is rarely more than local news. If the police "sniper" shoots a hostage or bystander instead, then it is big news. Like the airliner that lands safely, the SWAT operation or "sniper" deployment that succedes is largely ignored, while failures, because they are so horrible and tragic, are not.

The 5th
July 20, 2001, 00:55
Attend the THUNDER RANCH! The owner is Clint Smith and they run a very well respected training academy.

todd
July 20, 2001, 20:06
Listen to what Buff has to say. The media is going to twist anything in order to sell papers or increase ratings.

As far as Police departments becoming too militarized, it is just the opposite. The trend today is military forces looking at law enforcement for training in environments such as in an urban settings where friendly or non-combatant casualties are not tolerated. They ( US Military )seem to be getting away from the traditional building clearing methods ( such as recon by fire, as with the group I trained ) due to the Peace Keeping missions they are forced into as of late and the medias ability to be everywhere at once.

Our Marksmen/Observers do not agree with being called snipers. They provide us with up to the minute intelligence and cover for the team. When all else fails they are trained to end the threat. If it were me with a gun to my head, my chances rely on the shot being taken. The hostages chances of survival are slim to none if they are allowed to leave with the suspect on good faith, which is pure hollywood.

There are small teams out there that have not received the proper or enough training and mistakes are made. And I have seen the Media use this to stereo type all Police Special Response Teams because that is what will grab your attention and evidently it has.

Don't criticize a profession or subject until you've been there and know all there is to know. ;)

Farmer from Hell
July 20, 2001, 23:29
Although I see where Buff is comeing from to some extent this so called "sniper" shouldnt have had a BB gun let alone a high powered gun. How far was this shot? I doubt it was much over 100 yds yet he missed the guys head clean! YES CLEAN. There is no excuse for this with the gun and so called training he had. The gun he was useing probably should have been able to hit a dime at that distance. That guy is a joke and my opinion of Thunder Ranch has severely dropped. Half of us here with a scope on our FAL's could have made that shot let alone a high end gun like his dept set him up with.

Dodge Charger 68
July 20, 2001, 23:49
Gotta agree with Farmer...
Three shots and TWO misses...
Personally, I don't think I would have wanted to put MY mug on the tube then say I was proud of it.

There is NO room for error here. period.