Posted on 10/10/2002 4:19:22 PM PDT by John H K
Deane also discounted earlier reports about a white panel Dodge Caravan van seen at the scene of the shooting. "The white van may not be involved," the chief said, adding that people in that van had been interviewed by investigators and offered a "reasonable explanation" of their actions at the scene.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A lot of people that had their heart set on the assorted white vehicle reports being "real" since they had multiple people in them will be disappointed. I'm not surprised at all.
It's entirely possible that all these shootings are being done outside of vehicles.
I find it perfectly credible that this yet another signal being sent to us courtesy of Baghdad, not unlike the anthrax attacks around 9/11. They want us to see just a sample of what they're capable of on our own playground, and they want Washington to get the message clearly: We have anthrax, we know how to use it. We have snipers who can move with impugnity. Here's just a sample...
Make sense?
I've been considring this all along. But I haven't heard anyone report hearing the gunshots. (maybe they have and I'm just ignorant of it). No one seems to know the range of the shots either. Wonder if he/she/they/it is using a suppressed weapon? Just speculating.
They have in several cases, including this one in Virginia. This one was heard by employees of a nearby restaurant, presumably from indoors, but maybe not, they could have been sneaking a smoke out by the trash cans.
Yup.
Yes, but if this is their intent they have no idea what Americans are capable of when either frightened or angered.
Anyone get an estimate of range?
I may be wrong, but I think the whole white nut-on-the-loose theory is weak. SOMEBODY would have turned this guy in. No one even remotely connected to this individual would allow this to continue. Money talks. This killer/these killers are not acquainted with anyone in this society, I'm convinced... Just my .02
Not nescessarily. A suppressed 223 gives a very low local report (I've heard them. you won't even need hearing protection with most of them). The bullet does make the sonic crack you mention, but that is usually useless in pinpointing the direction and range of the shot without the boom of the muzzle source. The advantage of suppression on rifles (any caliber) is that you both lessen the range in which the shot can be clearly heard and it's directionality in crowded conditions. That's why they make rifle suppressors. Pistols, which most people think of when suppression is mentioned, can be made almost silent (pistol caliber rifles and SMG's also). I also doubt that supression is being used, I'm just speculating about possibilities.
... our terot card shooter certainly is not following the standard MO ...
That's what I've been thinking also. The authorities claim the bullet ties the weapons together, but they also claim the bullets are highly fragmented. It doesn't make sense to me unless they want to play down the copy cat angle for some reason.
I don't get the media's impression that it is a domestic para-military op - ...
A local TV station in Denver this evening did a piece about how the shots being made are not nescessarily highly skilled (my contention all along, which is why I am so interested in ranges). They made the point that millions of people could do this. They had a reporter firing 100 yard target shots after 5 minutes of instruction that duplicated the snipers skill. It was the first time he had ever fired any gun (maybe we have a new member of the shooting sports now?). I have been wondering all along why the authoriteis keep referring to the sniper as a skilled shooter since I wouldn't consider these shots, if made from 100 or 150 yards with any reasonably good rifle, to be particularly skilled. The stealth of the shooter, on the other hand, interests me.
Too much so.
With this round? 300+ yards, maybe 200+ with open sights. I've taught people to shoot my .223 Daewoo and non shooters are commonly hitting milk jug sized targets with open sights at 100+ meters in less than 20 rounds. I'm certainly not impressed with less than 100 yard shots where a man sized target has been picked for ease of the shot. The TV station was making the point, with which I agree, that this was not an uncommon of feat of marksmanship and millions of americans easily have the skills to make these shots.
Did the reporter try shooting moving targets?
These targets ahven't been realy moving targets have they? I mean, filling a car at a gas station hardly qualifies as a moving target when compared to, say, a jogger. If he starts making Oswald style shots I will be extremely impressed.
The police snipers rarely sight in anything over 100 yards, and they regularly use 10x optics on a .308.
I've known a number of police snipers. Several police swat teams practice on the private range I regularly shoot at. They all use .223, not 308. The range they shoot at is generally less than 100 yards, usualy as close to the target as possible without detection. They are not concerned with avoiding detection after the shot. They are concerned with absolute success of a single shot. I don't know of any departments that would condone 100+ yards shots for police work. Think FBI if you think 308, not your local police. This guy seems to be using more of a police sniper tactic, if he is actually a trained sniper (which I am doubting).
My comments are only speculation, just like everyone elses. If the sniper is caught, it will be interesting to see who it actually is and what his training was, and where/how he was trained.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.