RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


What if the sniper stops?(14 posts)

What if the sniper stops?czardonic
Oct 16, 2002 3:37 PM
Assuming that no current evidence leads to the capture of the sniper, what should residents and authorities be hoping for? Obviously, no one wants there to be more victims. However, there seems to be a catch 22 at play here. The only way to identify the sniper is to hope that he keeps striking but somehow slips up.

I ask this because of a discussion on MSNBC this morning about the use of military surrveilance planes to spot any further attacks. It was posited that releasing that information to the public would cause the sniper to desist. One analyst's reply to that possibility was something to the effect of "God forbid he should dissapear."

Is it better for the sniper to get away with it if it means no more people will be shot? (Let's ignore for the moment the likelihood that any cessation of attacks would be temporary.)
better to save one lifeDougSloan
Oct 16, 2002 6:46 PM
I had almost resolved to cease responding to or even reading your posts, as you are so biased and irritating that it seemed entirely hopeless to even begin to argue.

However, this one seems like a reasonable question. My view is that, no doubt about it, better that he gets away than one more person be injured.

Now, that must assume that he never injures anyone again. What are the chances of that?

Doug
Stopping the killing is top priority, then catching him...PdxMark
Oct 17, 2002 5:36 AM
Given the choice, scaring him off is better than catching him at the expense of even one more killing - in my book.

But if the guy has any control over his actions, it seems likely he could stop for some time or head off to other areas. Any surveillance overflights will stop at some point. 2 weeks? 4 weeks? Are there still armed fighter aircraft stationed over NYC & DC 24/7? Then, sadly, he might be back.
Not an easy questionms
Oct 17, 2002 6:25 AM
My first reaction is that it would be far better for the sniper to cease and never be caught than it would be for him to continue killing, leaving clues, and then be caught. The saving of life obviously is better than whatever benefit society gets merely from his punishment. However, there are significant benefits to the sniper's being caught and punished that may outweigh the saving of a life or two. If the sniper were caught, it may deter others who think that they can do something like this and get away with it. I wonder if there would have been other bombings like the one in Oklahoma City if Timothy McVeigh had not been caught as quickly as he was. Further, knowledge gained from the study of the sniper may help to identify and treat others who are similarly inclined before they put their ideas into action (of course, the sniper may be such a deviant that his profile will have no relevance to others). Finally, catching the sniper would put an end to the significant anxiety that exists in the D.C. area, which is having an effect upon the educational, social and ecomonic life of millions of people. Although it is hard to equate a life with something amorphous like the general well being of a metropolitan area, the anxiety the sniper has caused also has a cost.
Even If They Catch Him...jromack
Oct 17, 2002 7:11 AM
He would not be punished properly, which would be execution.

Instead the softie liberals in Maryland would try to rehabilitate the sniper by singing Kumbaya to him and then release him back into society.
I wouldn't bet on itms
Oct 17, 2002 7:33 AM
Maryland is not as soft as you may believe. However, in any event, the Commonwealth of Virginia also would be able to prosecute him. There is no doubt in my mind that he will be executed by Virginia if Maryland does not do it.
"Maryland is not as soft as you may believe"jromack
Oct 17, 2002 8:36 AM
They have a moratorium on executions.

The state is chock full of mamby pamby liberals.
mamby pamby liberalsms
Oct 17, 2002 11:40 AM
You are right. Maryland has more than its fair share of liberals. But, they are concentrated in Baltimore City and the two DC suburban counties, Montgomery and Prince George's. The rest of the state is middle-of-the road to conservative. This year is the first time since 1966 that the Republicans have had a viable candidate for governor. The polls say that the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor and tied. My prediction is that there will be a Republican victory and that you will see a more conservative tone in Maryland. Does that mean that Maryland will be as conservative as Virginia or other similarly situated states? No. But, Maryland is not as liberal as, say, Massachusetts.
Right, where's Spiro Agnew when you need him?mickey-mac
Oct 17, 2002 1:58 PM
Heh-heh.
Spiro was the liberal candidate in 1966ms
Oct 17, 2002 2:05 PM
When Spiro Agnew was elected Governor of Maryland in 1966 (the last Republican to be elected Governor), he was the more liberal candidate. The Democrats had multiple candidates in the primary and a segregationist who ran on the slogan "A Man's Home Is His Castle" won the Democratic nomination with a plurality of the vote.
A Spiro questionmickey-mac
Oct 17, 2002 2:20 PM
Did Agnew or Nixon coin the term "nattering nabobs of negativism"? I'm pretty sure it was one member of the dynamic duo.
Don't know, butms
Oct 18, 2002 5:39 AM
I, too, am sure one of the dynamic duo introduced the term to the public. But, probably, someone like Pat Buchannan or one of Nixon's other writers originally came up with it.
It was Spiro.Steve98501
Oct 19, 2002 5:28 PM
Spiro also popularized "radiclibs" for radical liberals.
Earnest master.Sintesi
Oct 18, 2002 4:46 AM
What gives master?