Why is it that every time someone gets shot from a distance of more than 20 feet the shooter is called a sniper? Add that the the highly deadly woodchuck round (.223) and you have the makings of a terrorist reporter. Did any source quote the distance of the shot? I doubt it was more than a few hundred feet. Snipping frequently happens from very short distances. It is nothing more than shooting from a concealed position. It does in fact adequately describe what's happening here.
Any deer hunter (in a rifle hunting zone) worth his salt can hit a fairly small target at about 200 yards. Hell, I can hit put 40 rounds in a row through a sheet of typing paper at 200 meters with my M1A and no scope. I don't consider myself more than a novice. Snipers are a special breed of human. They can hit the same target at a 1000 yards.... with it moving.
I believe you are thinking of Hathcock(sp?). And while most well trained snipers can shoot like that it doesn't mean that they take all their shots like that. Hathcock was well known for his ability to stalk and infiltrate and took some shots at less than 50yds. Ie. don't confuse the process with the distance.
My disagreement with the story is the use of the word "sniper" by the reporter with zero evidence. Sniper tactics are left to the professionals. Reading a book to learn a few techniques and taking shots at random people is should not link the two. Just as the FR post a while ago that showed the difference between Israeli solders and Palestinian gunmen, there is a huge difference. This story, and others like it, are meant to cause fear in the sheeple. It isn't to report on the facts. If so the story would only be a few sentences long. Look for a new round of anti-gun propaganda to come in the next week or so.