[aristeides]

If the sniper shoots a newsperson, won't he be taking too much of a risk of being caught on camera? Which suggests first responders to the shootings ought in future to be sure to be accompanied by somebody carrying a camera.

[null and void]

Indeed. It would be a good idea for everyone to carry a camera/camcorder and pan the suroundings as soon as they have taken cover.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Perhaps the shooter could be caught on camera. But it is just as likely that the camera-operator, after seeing his reporter bleeding from the chest, would seek cover before turning his camera on the source of the report.

[teeman8r]

cameras are usually pointed at the reporter with the cameraman's eye in a cup rendering him with tunnel vision... a shot from behind would only give the cameraman emmy award winning footage as he would then swing around and catch nothing but the first white vehicle he sees on tape...

what needs to be done, is a search of area convenience stores'surveillance tapes, near and around the gas stations, to see if any patrons are visiting the crime scene locales... this sniper has to scope out the areas, and probably uses the rest rooms and buys snacks for his long drives.

also, he needs to purchase fuel, so i would check for duplicate credit card purchases in and around the crime areas to see if there is a pattern...

finally, i would instruct the public not to behave normally, but when they here a shot, run in the direction of the shooter and look for suspicious characters or vehicles... this guy will not be captured by the police doing the investigation route, but by the immediate community steppin up into the militia role.

and that is why they should be armed...