3 ms·

I think the DC sniper is a bad example. Once they were caught, people stopped running around in zig zags, and only people in DC were worried at all. If a smal

by imp 16y ago

I think the DC sniper is a bad example. Once they were caught, people stopped running around in zig zags, and only people in DC were worried at all. If a small terrorist attack needs to be running at all times, or at least once a week, then the terrorists will quickly run out of people. I don't think they're that effective.

vaksel 16y ago
not really the DC snipers were idiots. 1. they set a pattern where they were killing a person a day + they were using the same car. 2. he constantly taunted the police, made calls, left them notes, left them cards. Shouldn't be that hard to use forensics to find out who it was. 3. he was actually connected to one of the victims. a truly random no-connections sniper would have been much harder to catch. And yes people stopped running after he was caught...but that's because they knew the guy was caught. If it's a "terrorist organization", getting a few terrorists wouldn't solve anything, since you'd never know if there were more lurking waiting a few days till the next killing.
- imp 16y ago
  Yeah, that's a good point. I guess I forgot how dumb they were.
- philwelch 16y ago
  You know how serial killers usually follow a set pattern, and that's considered evidence--so if they arrest someone and another killing occurs according to that pattern they assume they didn't catch the guy? I wonder if you can get a hit man on retainer to randomly pull off a "signature killing" in case you get arrested. More to the point, a terrorist cell should totally be able to cover for a single sniper or sniper team[1] that got caught. Imagine if they caught Malvo and Muhammed and all of a sudden someone else at a DC gas station got shot? Now instead of a couple nuts you have a shadowy and mysterious terrorist organization and as soon as you catch one another one pops up and shoots people in the face. [1] Interesting fact: even in the military, snipers don't work alone usually. They typically work in teams of two. Also, they don't necessarily shoot people anymore, they might just observe or call in airstrikes. The term is "scout-sniper".

by imp 16y ago

vaksel 16y ago

not really the DC snipers were idiots. 1. they set a pattern where they were killing a person a day + they were using the same car. 2. he constantly taunted the police, made calls, left them notes, left them cards. Shouldn't be that hard to use forensics to find out who it was. 3. he was actually connected to one of the victims. a truly random no-connections sniper would have been much harder to catch. And yes people stopped running after he was caught...but that's because they knew the guy was caught. If it's a "terrorist organization", getting a few terrorists wouldn't solve anything, since you'd never know if there were more lurking waiting a few days till the next killing.

imp 16y ago
Yeah, that's a good point. I guess I forgot how dumb they were.
philwelch 16y ago
You know how serial killers usually follow a set pattern, and that's considered evidence--so if they arrest someone and another killing occurs according to that pattern they assume they didn't catch the guy? I wonder if you can get a hit man on retainer to randomly pull off a "signature killing" in case you get arrested. More to the point, a terrorist cell should totally be able to cover for a single sniper or sniper team[1] that got caught. Imagine if they caught Malvo and Muhammed and all of a sudden someone else at a DC gas station got shot? Now instead of a couple nuts you have a shadowy and mysterious terrorist organization and as soon as you catch one another one pops up and shoots people in the face. [1] Interesting fact: even in the military, snipers don't work alone usually. They typically work in teams of two. Also, they don't necessarily shoot people anymore, they might just observe or call in airstrikes. The term is "scout-sniper".