Sadly, the original author of this piece appears to have removed the content from his syndicator. Here’s the pic of the snipers taken by Graham Colson, below that is where his story would have appeared. Sorry for this inconvenience. -Ian
Help Keene Peaceful Streets Identify Plainclothes Rooftop Snipers at PumpkinFest 2013
Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!
Most likely has something to do with the " Enemy Of The State " types, ie....The Free Stater's roaming the festival....Since they are all on their " Watch List "....Thus, to justify their budgets and keep the monster rolling, they conduct these types of activities and call them anti-terrorist operations....Will look good when they present their charts to Congress come Patriot Act re-authorization time. Not too hard to figure out what's going on. P.S....Thanks for the security force while walking around New York City.
normally peaceful pumpkin festival? have you seen the video of the Winchester Court party with 1000 college kids going completely insane? And no, the "snipers" (which is not confirmed by supposing that they must have had guns) were not here for the partiers -- it would make sense that they were there watching in case some crazy tried to harm people at the P-Fest -- do you recall the Boston Marathon Bombings?? Y'all are certifiable. Seriously.
Now /that/ is certifiable. As was already discussed, there's nothing they could do, up on a roof, to stop a bombing. You would have to be literally insane to imagine that they could stop a bombing by standing on a roof.
tunnel vision does not support your cause --- you, as well as many others on this stream of posts have latched onto an idea that is not even based in real knowlege and are now debating hypotheticals with only your jaded opinion in mind. this whole discussion is pointless, and even moreso as you and others don't even speak out as who you truly are. You are literally a fake name on a page. that's all.
What is this "idea," of which you speak? The only idea I addressed is the one /you/ and others proposed - that they could somehow stop a bombing using snipers. It's a literally-insane idea. I've used this name for well over a decade. Maybe 15 years by now - I don't keep track. People address me by it in person. Ergo, it is /actually/ my name. Not my only name, but it is an actual, legitimate name for me. Unless your name is "kdiemond," you are just being hypocritical.
I wonder how come the Nat'l Guard didn't claim they were justified gunning down the protesting hippies at a Kent State by using your "rowdy college kids defense"?
Educate yourselves to the true state of the world we live in. Real facts. Real laws. Real treaties. Www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com
"The only insignia visible is that of the Boston Red Sox worn on the hat of the man to the left." oh the irony
I have a strong feeling they weren't armed with rifles. Probably just there to have extra eyes. The city needed it for sure, as the entire area just outside the main drag was completely littered with thousands of college partiers. They probably wanted to make sure it didn't spill into the main streets.
Holy crap. Why were they in plain clothes? What would be the point of not wearing their uniforms if they are taking those positions? Now if some crazy person wants to get up on a roof top and start sniping people off, people will most likely think it's KPD until they begin opening fire. If there are going to be snipers on the roof, they should AT LEAST be in full identifying uniform.
the manchester pd just posted something about this on their facebook fan page. seems like they were mocking the article. bet it was someone from their office. https://www.facebook.com/mpdfan?hc_location=stream
We had these, dressed in black, on the roof of the parking garage during the 4,000 person tea party in 2009 in Manchester. Some say they were using cameras with long lenses, I say they were rifles. I put up a banner behind me along the back of my canopy to hide me from their view.
Murphy's Law: Concealment ? Cover. Know this and use both to your advantage. http://www.scottrainey.com/jokes/murphys_combat_gunfight.htm
Try to get this out to the people in Keene. This won't sit right with a lot of people. You may find a lot of support with this.
That 50 bullet will kill 2 people, ricochet from the asphalt after exiting, and kill another one. That's 3 people with one bullet, gives them as many points as 11 dogs or 6 old men, killed during a no knock.
While I'm sure the opponents of these innovative safety measures mean well, their objections simply miss the bigger picture. Most small towns now have targeted kill lists. It's perfectly legal. If one of these sniper teams had made a probable identification of a known person-of-interest, they would have had to make a split-second decision to kill him to protect the lives of the many children at PumpkinFest from imminent threat. When you consider that the alternative would be to deploy the B.E.A.R.C.A.T., probably with an RPG-launcher, you can see that surgical, triangulated strikes from the rooftop safety-enforcers is the much better option. Yes, yes, I can already hear the bleeding hearts crying their eyes out about so-called "innocent" bystanders. Look, I'm not heartless, and I fully admit that excessive collateral damage is a tragic necessity, but when you compare the hundreds of deaths that would be caused by unleashing the awesome fire-power of the B.E.A.R.C.A.T. in a crowd at PumpkinFest (probably with air support), versus the relatively small body count enabled by the use of skilled rooftop snipers, isn't it worth it to safe the life of just one child?
Are you seriously suggesting that a terrorist is going to the Keene, NH pumpkin festival? Are you also so unamerican that you feel a "kill list" is acceptable instead of a trial by a jury of one's peers? Keene is just an example of another tiny town with bored cops. Cops are humans, and they make mistakes. The mistake is a bit more final when firing into a crowded street at night rather than when chasing someone on the ground. Hell, even a tazer would be more acceptable.
I'm sorry but I cannot let you get away with pushing this common myth that government agents "are humans" and that they "make mistakes." It might be easy to pass that line off as true to the unreflecting listener, but a moment of examination will reveal the fallacy in that claim. Yes, it's true that before they began their public service they were "just" human and made mistakes and so on, but in the context we're talking about here, although you look at them and you see a fallible "human," you're really looking at the government itself, an entity with resources and capacity far beyond that of any mere "human." But let's not simply reason ourselves through this proof (though I know libertarians are fans of the abstract logic thing). Let's look through the only real window to truth: SCIENCE. There are numerous examples I can give, but just to give one, consider the exploration of the moon. If private persons were as capable as libertarians would have us believe, then private persons would have been able to travel to the moon. Yet the only entity in human history that has sent humans to the moon is THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. And that was almost half a century ago, and was accomplished without so much as a single injury during travel. Therefore, private people are at least 45 years behind the ability of the government ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE. This is even all the more remarkable when you consider that numerous anti-government people have been trying to discredit the government by proving that the moon landings were faked. And yet in all these decades they have never been able to overcome the scientific truth. Even such an independent internet media outlet as Wikipedia itself admits the moon landings happened as the government says. The truth doesn't lie. So the next time you see someone that looks like a mere "human" who might "make a mistake," even if what you see is not wearing a government uniform, just remember that if you're looking at someone whose paycheck is endorsed with the genuine signature of Uncle Sam, you're looking at someone who literally is "super human." I know it sounds corny, especially with all the anti-government indoctrination we're subjected to these days, but unless you want to admit publicly that you don't believe in science, you cannot deny that the truth is true.
Am I missing the parody again? Crazy people sound so much like trolls that it's hard to tell these days.
No, no. Just people that believe in super humans. How you tied science into this totally blows my mind and makes me think the next thing you'll mention is quantum mechanics or energy crystals. Maybe even homeopathy.
All I can do is speak the truth. If you choose to be a denier in the face of evidence, there's not much more I can do.
Not related to your story, but to the byline you're using: "Spirit of Arcadia" along with the corresponding website spiritofarcadia.org You need to fix that. Arcadia is a region in Greece. There is no "R" in the word that you want. Acadia is what you meant and is the region of the Maritimes and Northern Maine.
Correct. There is a map on Google of the region in 1605 it was originally called L'Acadie http://www.acadian-home.org/IMAGES/map-acadia-1605.gif
http://spiritofarcadia.org/larcadia-map/ This 1566 map of North America shows a region dubbed L’Arcadia in the Atlantic Northeast.
yes, that was from Zaltieri's map (which is actually housed in Portland, Maine) based on what Verrazano named it. But once the French settlements begain in 1604 the name was changed to L'Acadie which it has had since. it's probably good to leave it as "Spirit of Arcadia" since after looking around the website a bit, it doesn't have really much to do with Acadia, but it's unfortunate that it's set up as a sort of "Faux" Acadia; it's just going to cause confusion.
My wife and I were there yesterday with our kids. We left early because the guys on the roofs were creeping us out. After seeing the 50 cal they had up there I am even more glad we left. I am not sure if we will be attending next year because of this. It was a great event and it is really sad that these guys had to put that feeling in the atmosphere.
the parties that go on all day and night are a lot more dangerous than those who are trying to protect the crowds.
How were they trying to "protect"? By sniping people from the rooftops and creating a panic? By escalating some rowdy behavior into a city-wide stampede? Get your priorities straight, think things through to their logical conclusions. It's what you get paid to do, man.
It would appear, from my standpoint, that you must do some of that logical thinking as well. The men did not, and were not, intend to shoot random pedestrians or even the random rowdy participant. Because the pumpkin fest has become a more widely known event with thousands and thousands of ordinary citizens participating, it can become a target of terrorist activity. They are there to help deter and protect from acts like that. To Dustin, the OP, there is no reason protective forces such as that who are not imposing on your actions should affect your participation in these events.
I agree Bryan. Slappy the only panic created is by Free Keene by pointing out to people the security surveillance on the roof tops. If you don't like it then I suggest you don't attend the next one. Maybe the City of Keene should just say NO to pumkinfest 2014 since KSC students are ruining it anyway!!!
So you are afraid something bad might happen in such a huge festival with tons of people? Have you considered decentralizing it? That would free up a lot of personnel since the individual event organizers would be responsible for peace, and when there are more of them, with smaller events, the whole thing becomes a lot more manageable. It doesn't have to be a "either-or" question. Leave it up to consenting adults to figure out.
Yes, suicidal terrorists are going to be deterred by the idea that they might get shot /after/ they kill lots of innocents. Yup, that makes /loads/ of sense... Given how often cops kill innocents, whether in outright murder, or just because they are recklessly incompetent and couldn't hit a target if you put it a foot in front of them, there is no way to classify them as "protective forces." Even in the rare event that there was some extremely-unlikely situation to which they could respond, odds are good that they'd end up killing more innocents with stray fire than the actual terrorists would manage.
The 2nd amendment is not my big issue. If the strate thinkers see no problem with the snipers, and actually say that its good protection in a dangerous world, wouldn't the same logic be supportive of everyone carrying? Then we might be even more safe from"something" happening in this dangerous world... And we wouldn't have to pay these secretive sniper salaries. More safety and lower taxes. Win/win
Indeed. Hence why NH is so safe. Least-restrictive gun laws in the Western world, highest number of firearms per capita on the planet, and just about the lowest violent crime rate in the world. These factors are not exactly unrelated...
I think the problem state thinkers have with this solution is that they: Trust government and distrust people, so only government can have guns. I distrust government.
I distrust both. That's why I have devices to protect myself (which will be traded for guns once I arrive in NH).
I think it's obvious that they had nothing to do all day but stare at tits through their binoculars.