DHS orders targets from Law Enforcement Targets, Inc

[Windpower]

http://www.letargets.com/estylez_ps.aspx?searchmode=category&searchcatcontext=~010000~010100~010101.2


You may not get into that link -- I keep getting "server too busy"


According to Law Enforcement Targets Inc these targets are part of a 'no more hesitation' training program for law enforcement and DHS

DHS has ordered about $2 M from this company

Maybe these targets are for the 2 billion rounds of ammo DHS has recently purchased 

I was able to get this from letargets.com

http://www.letargets.com/images/category/NMH_Category.jpg

No More Hesitation

No More Hesitation Targets were designed to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training.No More Hesitation faded background enhances the isolation and is meant to help the transition for officers who are faced with these highly unusal targets for the first time.
Mix & Match "No More Hesitation" targets for best pricing.

[mgramann]

Windpower, out of curiosity, if a law enforcement officer is operating within the constitution, and encounters a situation like this, what should they do?  Do you have a problem with them training for a situation like this?  Should law enforcement only practice deadly force on targets consisting of men wearing vintage 90's attire, sporting a porn stash?

[Carla_M]

So is this an endorsement or a criticism?


The hard part with these targets is seeing the gun, at least from the small images that is what I sense. Perhaps the real targets at the distances they are meant to be used make that different. The real test for using these would be to have the targets used in a typical urban target setting with the images popping into view from behind cars and popping into view in doorways and windows. The real test then becomes one of the officer discerning whether or not the target image is a threat or not a threat. Holding a gun aimed at the officer or not holding a gun. That is extremely difficult to see and decide, before the alleged perp fires his gun and puts two into your face.

So if the OP was a criticism please expand on how officers are supposed to protect us and themselves when dealing with the possibly unbalanced minds of other people with guns?

Have you ever had anyone point a gun at you windpower? Do you know anyone who has had a gun pointed at them and been wounded or killed because of indecision on their part? I am intimately involved with some people, officers, who have. I consider myself lucky that nobody ever pointed a firearm at me.

[Windpower]

I used to work with a ex-policeman

he indeed had guns pointed at him

the situations were resolved without gunfire

Police choose their profession, do they not -- it comes with the territory


On the other hand, let's all take advantage of these wonderful targets to make us more safe

go ahead order a bunch of these and take them to your local range  --

Tell the range officer it is to help you be more careful in the use of your concealed carry permit --

let me know how that works out for you

[mgramann]

I used to work with a ex-policeman

he indeed had guns pointed at him

the situations were resolved without gunfire

Police choose their profession, do they not -- it comes with the territory

Are you saying that police in the exact situation depicted in the drawing should risk being shot, just because they chose their job? 

I hope you elaborate on your point.

On the other hand, let's all take advantage of these wonderful targets to make us more safe

go ahead order a bunch of these and take them to your local range  --

Tell the range officer it is to help you be more careful in the use of your concealed carry permit --

let me know how that works out for you

Actually it wouldn't be a bad thing for people who CC to train with these.  They could just as easily be put in this situation.

[Carla_M]

We see things very differently. No surprise there. When I enlarge those images on my screen, to get a clearer view, I more or less do not see the person any more. I see the gun. The person fades into the faded out target background. The gun that is pointed at me. It's not in profile aimed someplace else. It's the gun that is the threat, not whether or not the person looks like a stereotypical villain*, a cute schoolgirl, or my grandad. You may think that is callous and you have the right to think whatever you want.

* -- going off topic a little-- There is no stereotypical villain.   There's one lecture that keeps returning to my mind from time to time. Decades ago the presenter of the first loss prevention class I took asked the question "what does a thief look like?" Many people in the class volunteered opinions. Next he showed a short slide show with a real honest to goodness Kodak Ektagraphic 35mm slide projector. Images of ordinary people, much like all those people in the targets. Grandpas and grandmas, Moms, well dressed people, etc. All where photos of people arrested for stealing from retail merchants.

None of them were pointing guns, but that is not my point. Those people had an all-american, wholesome though unhappy at the time of the photo, normal appearance. But they had been caught stealing merchandise from retail stores.  I transition that to ordinary looking people aiming guns at the law enforcement officer. It's the gun that is the problem.  If someone is pointing a gun directly at you, what are you the officer, supposed to do??  Assuming you and any other on site officers have been yelling to drop the gun. They do that you know. Assuming the perp does not drop the gun and continues to point it at you and possibly make verbal taunts.  What do you do?   Pray the perp is a really bad shot and maybe only has a 22LR and not a more powerful firearm?  Hope that another officer fires first?  It is a difficult question.

If you are uncomfortable with that then it is a good thing you do whatever you do and are not a law enforcement officer.

[flyingvan]

Know what's scariest?  A government that disregards its constitution, disarms the populace, and grants itself the power to strike its citizens with drones with no due process.

[Windpower]

The difficult question is 'why is law enforcement and DHS requesting these types of targets ?"

has there been a wild upsurge in women and old men apparently in their homes defending themselves ?

of course not

has there been a wild up swing in police getting shot

Absolutely not - crime has been decreasing for many years



These 'targets' are nothing short of brainwashing DHS and LEO to shoot quickly as in "no more hesitation"

Another question is "Why are they all white ?"

and I don't have that answer

Retired policeman T. F. Stern has this to say

"There's something wrong, seriously wrong here.  If we start to desensitize law enforcement officers, have them disregard humanity, to feel nothing's wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own home...then what kind of society have we become?  How will police officers react after they no longer believe they are part of the society which they have been charged with policing, when they have become used to shooting pregnant ladies and old men?"

link here

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2013/02/20/standing-armies-and-targets-t-f-stern/

[Windpower]

Know what's scariest?  A government that disregards its constitution, disarms the populace, and grants itself the power to strike its citizens with drones with no due process.

fully agree  Van

video of POTUS explaining it here


http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=12855.msg167765#new

[mgramann]

Know what's scariest?  A government that disregards its constitution, disarms the populace, and grants itself the power to strike its citizens with drones with no due process.

I completely agree.

[mgramann]

has there been a wild upsurge in women and old men apparently in their homes defending themselves ?

of course not

These 'targets' are nothing short of brainwashing DHS and LEO to shoot quickly as in "no more hesitation"

One of the most common, and most dangerous scenarios a police officer can CONSTITUTIONALLY respond to is a domestic violence call.  Again, should age/sex/pregnancy status preclude an officer from defending themselves when they are there LEGALLY?  Hesitation for the above reasons has killed many officers.

All of that said, I understand your concern.  If the intention is to use this training during unconstitutional actions, I, obviously, have a huge problem with that.  I see no evidence that is what the plan is here.  Provide that evidence, and I will change my mind. 

Right now, a common sense and reasonable explanation is that these tools are to keep officers focused on the facts-someone is pointing a gun at them in a situation where it is assumed that harm is intended.

[Tickhill]

When a people allow the slaughter of it's most helpless (unborn children) through abortion for 40 years, a little of it will start rubbing off in our everyday society and the actions of society.
Why are we amazed at where this nation is heading? Just look at the people who keep getting re-elected.
Common sense has left us.
If all I have to do to keep my government transfer of funds rolling in is to vote Democrat, then so be it. Talk about low information voters, I think it has turned into no conscious voters.

[Windpower]

One of the most common, and most dangerous scenarios a police officer can CONSTITUTIONALLY respond to is a domestic violence call.  Again, should age/sex/pregnancy status preclude an officer from defending themselves when they are there LEGALLY?  Hesitation for the above reasons has killed many officers.

All of that said, I understand your concern.  If the intention is to use this training during unconstitutional actions, I, obviously, have a huge problem with that.  I see no evidence that is what the plan is here.  Provide that evidence, and I will change my mind. 

Right now, a common sense and reasonable explanation is that these tools are to keep officers focused on the facts-someone is pointing a gun at them in a situation where it is assumed that harm is intended.

OK, maybe you just missed this


Department of Homeland Security, DHS  ordered millions of these

that should be all the proof you need

Does DHS now get called for domestic violence ?

If it were for training about 'shoot / don't shoot' there would need to be some women with cell phones and men with shovels under their arms etc

It is clear, these targets are to desensitize DHS to the shooting normal citizens.   

[mgramann]

OK, maybe you just missed this

Department of Homeland Security, DHS  ordered millions of these

that should be all the proof you need

Does DHS now get called for domestic violence ?

Remember, you lumped DHS and Police together several times in this thread.  I focused on the Police side, but even so, DHS never executes a legal search warrant?

You have hardly provided proof.  What you have posted warrants raised eyebrows and public monitoring at best.

If it were for training about 'shoot / don't shoot' there would need to be some women with cell phones and men with shovels under their arms etc

Posters like this are never used in shoot-don't shoot training.  Live action/computer simulations are.  Posters are used under the assumption that the person in the target has made it clear they intend to hurt you or someone else.

It is clear, these targets are to desensitize DHS to the shooting normal citizens.   

They are to train an officer to focus on the real problem, and to show that a threat can potentially come from anyone.  The citizens depicted are hardly normal.

[mgramann]

When a people allow the slaughter of it's most helpless (unborn children) through abortion for 40 years, a little of it will start rubbing off in our everyday society and the actions of society.
Why are we amazed at where this nation is heading? Just look at the people who keep getting re-elected.
Common sense has left us.
If all I have to do to keep my government transfer of funds rolling in is to vote Democrat, then so be it. Talk about low information voters, I think it has turned into no conscious voters.

I agree.  I don't know how any advocate of "social justice" can sleep at night while voting for this murder.  That's another topic entirely.

[rick91351]

Remember, you lumped DHS and Police together several times in this thread.  I focused on the Police side, but even so, DHS never executes a legal search warrant?

You have hardly provided proof.  What you have posted warrants raised eyebrows and public monitoring at best.

Posters like this are never used in shoot-don't shoot training.  Live action/computer simulations are.  Posters are used under the assumption that the person in the target has made it clear they intend to hurt you or someone else.

They are to train an officer to focus on the real problem, and to show that a threat can potentially come from anyone.  The citizens depicted are hardly normal.

On the police side - I guess I do not understand what you mean,  "The citizens depicted are hardly normal".  Each instance is 'hardly normal'.  What are they using these for?  Kill the kid with a gun?  Is the gun loaded, did he just find it.  Remember these are full color photos that claim to be targets.  Okay, blast Grandpa who is miles from civilization and been over run with trespassers and meth heads and now comes to the porch as such.  Hardly normal?  Remember some people do not live on the corner of Main and Ash or Forth Ave. and Fifth St.  Some people can not wait for the police to get there.  My place is and hour and a half from Boise and and hour and a half from Mt. Home.  Three in the morning do not expect me to greet you with a hot cup of coffee and a doughnut if you drive down our lane.  I very well might be that hardly normal gentleman on the porch.  Or hey just double tap the lady in the bath robe who has just chased an intruder off and waiting for help after she called 911 or was raped?  Or you just blew away her husband on the front porch.  Oh but I forgot the police have the right to do so.  Their investigations into such matters are always so fair and take in all the evidence.  The mother protecting her child in a nursery is a real problem one round right between the eyes and shoot the crib as well - kid might have a gun.  No situation is hardly normal.

On the Homeland Security side why are they training as they are?  Again hardly normal - one size never fits all. Yet we love a world where it will! You call these posters - they claim to be targets.         Why are they buying guns and ammo like they are accusatory of the citizenry of doing.  Is there going to be a movement to change their duties to that of a National Police Force?  Big Sis the new Commander in Chief of a National Police Force.   

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-advances-plan-for-public-safety-drones/

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/         

[Windpower]

Thanks, Rick, well said

It would hardly seem that LEO's need much 'hesitation reduction'  based on these statistics from 2010


247 people wrongfully killed

Over $346 million paid out in settlements in one year   -- EXCLUDING SEALED SETTLEMENTS
               

quote

Summary
From January 2010 through December 2010 the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project recorded 4,861 unique reports of police misconduct that involved 6,613 sworn law enforcement officers and 6,826 alleged victims.


■4,861 – Unique reports of police misconduct tracked
■6,613 - Number of sworn law enforcement officers involved (354 were agency leaders such as chiefs or sheriffs)
■6,826 - Number of alleged victims involved
■247 – Number of fatalities associated with tracked reports
■$346,512,800 – Estimated amount spent on misconduct-related civil judgments and settlements excluding sealed settlements, court costs, and attorney fees.
unquote

http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-npmsrp-police-misconduct-statistical-report/#_Summary

[Woodsrule]

Please allow me to weigh in here; I retired after 20 years as a police detective in an inner city. While we didn't train with targets like these (too expensive!) we did train with human shaped targets and the range officers would routinely suggest to us that we look beyond the stereotype of the person who may be presenting a threat. It's ironic; the closest I ever came to shooting anyone was a woman and on two occasions. During one encounter, a woman had just attempted to kill a man with a machete and she then tried to do the same to me. No problem there; the weapon was huge, bloody and only presented a threat when she came near me. The other occasion was a woman with a 9mm pistol that she tried to grab from a holster. She was about 5 feet tall, petite and was wearing "normal" clothes. Nonetheless, she was attempting to shoot me and she only halted when I unholstered my weapon before her. I guess my point is that I agree with the training presented here.

I will also concur with my brothers and sisters here who state the police cannot protect you. It is true; if you are presented with a life threatening situation, you better be prepared to defend you and yours, for it's almost always wrong to wait for the police. You call 911, they switch you to the local dispatcher, that dispatcher listens to you and then contacts an officer, that officer then responds and hopefully only minutes elapse before he/she arrives. Then, he/she has to assess the situation and then act. It's almost always too late to prevent a crime. Maybe an arrest is made of the miscreant, but that is little satisfaction to one who has been physically assaulted or worse. It is curious though; my liberal friends state that crime has decreased significantly these past years (absolutely correct), but these same folks want to confiscate firearms and ban others. I think a correlation can be made between the expansion of gun ownership (correct) these past decades and the decrease in crim. "Progressives" may not like this reasoning, but I believe that MORE armed citizens makes us safer.

[mgramann]

All of the "what if's" presented are not taking into consideration the other training a police officer goes through.  Physical and verbal cues, the type of situation, and countless other factors are not being overridden by these targets.  Many times, during training the officer is given this background information, and as I stated earlier, there are shoot/don't shoot simulations showing the situations you describe.

When these targets are used, the assumption is that other factors are pointing to justified deadly force.

I can't speak to the homeland security comments.  Again-evidence provided warrants monitoring.

Out of curiosity, how many officers weren't guilty of misconduct in 2010?  I'm not saying it isn't a problem.  I KNOW, first hand, that it is a problem.  But we need a sense of perspective here.

[rick91351]

Woodsrule thanks for weighting in on this subject.  None of us hardly have real experience as you have.

[mgramann]

Woodsrule thanks for weighting in on this subject.  None of us hardly have real experience as you have.

Actually, I was a part time police officer for nearly 8 years.  I was only a lake patrol officer, and didn't have the same "road" experience, but I had to go through all of the same certifications and training and any other officer.

[rick91351]

Actually, I was a part time police officer for nearly 8 years.  I was only a lake patrol officer, and didn't have the same "road" experience, but I had to go through all of the same certifications and training and any other officer.

To which I also reply thanks for weighting in on this subject.  None of us hardly have real experience as you have.  I also thank both if you guys for protecting. 

However I restate these are targets.  They claim to be targets not posters.

I do not agree with your statement that "The citizens depicted are hardly normal."  In certain circumstantial events nothing is hardly normal, I hope you can agree.

Another statement I wish to make or ask why is Homeland Security buying targets such as these, plus assault rifles and ammunition?  Is there more than:  May I see in side your bag please?  Or put your metal objects in the tray and then on the belt.  Walk this way, stand over there we need to look at something.  Or will they soon be doing the Federal Governments bidding.             

[mgramann]

To which I also reply thanks for weighting in on this subject.  None of us hardly have real experience as you have.  I also thank both if you guys for protecting. 

However I restate these are targets.  They claim to be targets not posters.

I do not agree with your statement that "The citizens depicted are hardly normal."  In certain circumstantial events nothing is hardly normal, I hope you can agree.

Another statement I wish to make or ask why is Homeland Security buying targets such as these, plus assault rifles and ammunition?  Is there more than:  May I see in side your bag please?  Or put your metal objects in the tray and then on the belt.  Walk this way, stand over there we need to look at something.  Or will they soon be doing the Federal Governments bidding.           

You are right-in law enforcement, and most of life for that matter, normal is hardly normal-if that makes sense.   What I meant by my statement, is during the firearm training, which includes non-visual cues, the people depicted have made it clear that they intend to shoot the officer.  Without those non-visual cues-these people may or may not be harmless as you indicated.

DHS actually does a lot more than airport stuff, they always have.  From my limited knowledge, they are similar to FBI in that they also gather intelligence, while training and coordinating for response.  I don't know all of the facts regarding what they do, but first responding is part of their job, meaning training is necessary.

[flyingvan]

DHS is a relatively new thing, started under George W Bush with Tom Ridge as the first sec.   There are quite a few parts to it---I'm involved in one that's pretty darned interesting under the Science and Technologies directorate.  We solicit first responders to help identify capability gaps that might have a technological solution, then find businesses to develop solutions.  We've facilitated bringing many things to the first response communities of practice---EMS, Law, and Fire (I'll be in Washington DC in two weeks---we're working on a structure fire glove that has superior dexterity so firefighters won't have to take them off to change radio channels.  You'll be able to put a wet hand in a dry glove or vice versa.  They will be compatible with touch screens too)  So, your tax dollars at work. 
I'd prefer we weren't interfering with free market dynamics, actually.  If someone has a great idea and does their homework and brings it to market, tax dollars really shouldn't be needed.  But there's another function we serve that saves taxpayers lots of $$$$--
Right after 911, everyone with a garage workshop came up with some response tool that would save the world.  They paraded their widget to a congressperson who would try to get the feds to buy 10 bazillion of these widgets.  (we called them 912 corporations since they sprang up after 911)  Anyway, our group, made up of responders with diverse response backgrounds (for me it was former SWAT team paramedic former hazmat specialist current helicopter rescue medic/firefighter) and we'd vet these different ideas, and if they didn't pass a panel of subject matter experts, it wouldn't get funded.  We shot down a lot of dreams, but a lot of ideas we failed to see the value in.
If you are a responder of any kind---from volunteer firefighter to sheriff deputy to EMT to Paramedic--whatever, and you can think of some issue that keeps you from doing your job that may have a technological solution, you can submit it---it'll go through a panel of SME's, and if accepted, you'll be involved in all the stages of development.  http://www.dhs.gov/st-tcr 

[Huge29]

Know what's scariest?  A government that disregards its constitution, disarms the populace, and grants itself the power to strike its citizens with drones with no due process.

Don't change the subject to logic or common sense, we are still in la la land over here! 
By this fellar's logic, we should disarm even the policemen too, they chose their job.