Perhaps I can be permitted to speculate. Let us suppose - just for a moment - that this murderer is in truth and in fact a terrorist. And that these events constitute a field test of a specific methodology.
We can note several things. First, the existing law enforcement mechanisms in Montgomery county have proven broadly ineffective in stopping the killer. Might we extrapolate that other areas would be equally ineffective?
Second, it seems probable that a great many resources are being committed to this effort. Resources are limited. Therefore a terrorist group might conclude that the liklihood of an individual operative being neutralized would decline rapidly as the number of killers increased. As few as a dozen such terrorists, operating semi-independently around the country, could exhaust the available resources.
Third, the killer - by attacking a child - has caused law enforcement to concentrate resources around schools. With the limitations previously mentioned, this must surely mean that other areas will be less protected. Were the killer to wait a few days, some targets might well be completely unprotected.
Nightmare scenario: At some point, the killer begins to target officials of one sort or another. This could range from politicians (Judges, Prosecutors) to police officers, or even to garbage collectors.
The problem is, even if this killer isn't a terrorist, he may be providing a demonstration of just how effective such tactics could be.
Think this guy has read "Unintended Consequences'?
This very scenario is what scares the crap out of the liberal Socialists. They know there is no defense, and no real cover from a motivated sniper.
They are right to be afraid...very afraid.