Is Your Local Police Department Using Pictures of Pregnant Women and Children for Target Practice?

Law Enforcement Targets INCLaw Enforcement Targets INC

Update: Law Enforcement Targets Inc. responds to public outcry over targets featuring pregnant woman, child, grand parents. 

Original post: What if I told you police in your town could desensitize themselves to the idea of shooting a (armed) child, pregnant woman, or young mother, for just a couple of bucks? The "No More Hesitation" series from Law Enforcement Targets Inc. offers exactly that. For less than 99 cents per target, police can shoot at real-life images "designed to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training."

The marketing team at Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. sends along this helpful explanation for the "No More Hesitation" series: 

"The subjects in NMH targets were chosen in order to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training. I found while speaking with officers and trainers in the law enforcement community that there is a hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition (one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty). This hesitation time may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served." 

Law Enforcement Targets, Inc.Law Enforcement Targets, Inc.

Law Enforcement Targets INCLaw Enforcement Targets INC

The series contains seven targets in all, titled Pregnant Woman, Older Man 1, Older Man 2, Older Woman, Young Mother, Young Girl, and Little Brother. Each of the depicted subjects is armed.

I've reached out to Minnesota-based Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., for comment on what inspired the series and whether it's popular with law enforcement groups (see comment added above). Considering that the company has landed $5.5 million worth of contracts with the federal government, it might also be interesting to know if these targets are being used by federal law enforcement agents.   

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I really want to say that we are being trolled with this. I mean they don't even spell "depicting" correctly...

    But at this point I can honestly believe this is a real thing.

  • ||

    ZOMGZ - yes. They totally need this.

  • ||

    Hostile, armed, dust mops.

  • Another David||

    That breed, Chihuahuas and those friggin' hairless cats. All are enemies of humanity matched only by the useful idiots who tolerate them.

  • ||

    Chihuahuas aren't bad when you combine them with god's chosen dog, the pug.

  • WTF||

    Now that is a goddam cute dog.

  • ||

    He won MVP at Puppy Bowl a few years ago. He was insane. I would love a dog like that.

  • Mr Whipple||

    That breed, Chihuahuas and those friggin' hairless cats.

    You got something against hairless pussy? As long as it isn't a kitten, I'd be all in.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Way to concern troll, Riggs. Find something actually newsworthy to write about. Jeesh.

  • ||

    Agreed. Oh my, the horror of actually preparing Cops for emotionally complicated situations.

  • JW||

    "You see that boys? Patrolman McFarlin hesitated and ultimately failed to shoot that small child with the toy gun, as well as his 8 months pregnant mother, who was pointing at something while holding her smartphone. And now he has to live with that vile shame as a coward."

    That kind of complication?

  • Paul.||

    I'm not sure I see a problem here. It's pretty common to use targets of varying types to make sure the officer doesn't shoot the wrong person.

    Think the little girl with advanced science books in the middle of a bad neighborhood full of scary alien monsters...

    I do find the text interesting on the kid poster. "very young boy holding a 'real gun'"

    I guess I just hope that these are designed to make the officer think twice before pulling the trigger, as opposed to helping them make it easier.

    Am I too optimistic?

  • JW||

    Your optimism is the wind beneath my wings, Paul.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Its optimisms all the way down.

  • ||

    Yes.

  • sarcasmic||

    I just hope that these are designed to make the officer think twice before pulling the trigger

    I'm sure the point is to eliminate any hesitation that could jeopardize officer safety.

  • WTF||

    And to condition them to attack without hesitation any one that the government defines as a threat to its authority.

  • Agreenweed||

    Like those damned Libertarians.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I guess I just hope that these are designed to make the officer think twice before pulling the trigger, as opposed to helping them make it easier."

    That's exactly why they are labeled "no more hesitation", because they want the officer to think twice.

  • WTF||

    Exactly. They don't want the officers to think in these situations, they obviously want them to shoot without hesitation.

  • CE||

    Don't they have one now that sort of matches the suspect's vehicle for them to open fire on?

  • R C Dean||

    Oh, these don't even really have that justification. The whole training thing is just a pretext.

    They're just for funsies, for cops. Because its a hoot, if you're a cop, to shoot targets showing little kids, pregnant women, etc.

    Seriously, shooting at paper targets doesn't really prepare you at all to pull the trigger on a live human being. That's why I say the "training" thing is just a pretext, and these are just for "fun".

  • WTF||

    Don't forget your talking about low-IQ baboons here. Repetively shooting at targets depicting little kids, etc., will likely condition their brains to not hesitate to pull the trigger on the real thing.

  • WTF||

    *you're*

  • JW||

    Who's the low-IQ baboon now? HUH?

  • WTF||

    Joez law?

  • ||

    You missed "Repetively".

  • WTF||

    Definitely Joez law. I need to use preview once in a while.

  • JW||

    You may need your own law for this.

  • ||

    I need to use preview once in a while.

    It certainly IS a lot harder to make errors in your posts when all the text is erased beforehand.

  • sarcasmic||

    I recall watching something about how at some point in WWII they switched from training recruits to shoot at normal targets to human silhouettes, because they found that the soldiers were having difficulty shooting at real people in battle.

    I imagine the same principle is in play here. There was probably an instance where an officer hesitated before killing a pregnant woman or a child, and this is to prevent that from happening in the future.

  • robc||

    IIRC, prior to WW2 something like 1/3rd (or maybe it was 2/3rds) of soldiers never pulled the trigger on the battlefield.

  • Chris Mallory||

    SLA Marshall estimated that less than 30% of WWII combat infantrymen fired their weapons.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Less than 30%? Shit that seems low. I definitely would not want to be drafted, in the infantry with Germans shooting at me. But if I had a gun, I sure as shit would be shooting back. I'd get real good at killing Germans.

  • sarcasmic||

    When I was into first person online shooter games I thought this would be a funny bumper sticker or shirt.

    MOHAA - I'd rather be killing Germans

  • JD the elder||

    FWIW, I believe that Marshall's work and his methodology are now considered extremely questionable.

  • Scooby||

    Is this counting all of the uniformed personnel, and not just combat arms? Even today, with more and more privatization of logistics and support functions, only about 10% of the uniformed personnel in the Army are infantry, i.e. the ones likely to "pull the trigger on the battlefield".

  • sarcasmic||

    I think it would be pretty silly to count cooks in those statistics.

  • BarryD||

    Prior to WW 2 most battlefield offensives probably used bayonets or sabers.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'd go back to at least WW1 and perhaps earlier.

    SLA Marshall's findings about soldiers not firing in WW2 was limited to soldiers firing individual weapons, IIRC, like rifles. I don't know if he broke out the data by soldiers in individual fighting holes vs soldiers in holes with more than one occupant. Crew-served weapons were nearly universally fired. The inference was made that the same phenomena was true in other armies, including the IJA, as those armies did not have greater firepower, man for man, than an equivalent sized U.S. formation with the same types of weaponry.

  • Big Jim||

    Considering he never had any actual data to break down, that's not surprising. All Marshall did was conduct informal interviews of a highly biased sample group (the un-wounded survivors of battles, i.e. those who were least likely to have fired their weapons anyway) and made some totally unscientific guesstimates based on the interviews. He conveniently didn't leave any records or notes from these interviews or of how he arrived at his estimates either, so there really isn't a shred of evidence at all to back up these claims, as pretty much anyone who's actually ever been in combat will likely agree.

  • ||

    I recall watching something about how at some point in WWII they switched from training recruits to shoot at normal targets to human silhouettes

    That is the premise in David Grossman's Book On Killing SLA Marshall's work was a foundation for his premise. It is an interesting read with some serious flaws.

  • Big Jim||

    Grossman's book is hogwash, which isn't surprising since it's based on Marshall's pretend research.

  • ||

    It's not "No, more hesitation"

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I'm not sure I see a problem here."

    These people are holding devices that are destroying out society! How can you not see it?

  • entropy||

    It's called "No more hesitation".

    Yes you are too optimistic. It seems obviously intended to desensitize cops to shooting children and pregnant women.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    And the implication is that cops have no problem shooting at tattooed, blinged up, dread lock wearing minority men

  • WTF||

    Hell, that's pretty much a 'given'.

  • some guy||

    Think the little girl with advanced science books in the middle of a bad neighborhood full of scary alien monsters...

    I still don't see why studying advanced science in a dark alley is any more execution-worthy than doing pullups or sneezing...

  • Another David||

    Those books were WAY too advanced for her. She was up to something!

  • fish||

    Why did you feel compelled to ventilate little Tiffany.......?

  • Tommy Maq||

    She wasn't even studying, just carrying!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I guess I just hope that these are designed to make the officer think twice before pulling the trigger, as opposed to helping them make it easier.

    Well, you're obviously not M.I.B. material.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh and I forgot:

    WELCOME TO EARF!

  • Agreenweed||

    "I guess I just hope that these are designed to make the officer think twice before pulling the trigger, as opposed to helping them make it easier."
    That is like me saying I shoot at pictures of dogs on regular basis so that I think more before I shoot an innocent dog. Wait are you on drugs?

  • BarryD||

    I shudder to think how many times I might have been shot, as a kid.

    OTOH my parents did teach me not to point a toy gun at random people, too.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Any cop that fires at a little kid, no matter how hostile, is a piece of shit.

  • WTF||

    Don't you want them to go home to their families at night? Why do you hate our heroes?

  • sarcasmic||

    That Wii remote could have been a gun! What the fuck? You have to go by what the officer knew at the time! Split second decisions and all that!

  • Zeb||

    I kind of torn on that. It is not impossible that there would be a young kid with a gun and the intention to use it.

  • Enough About Palin||

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    See my response to Dunphy. A kid may pose a threat, but just for being young they deserve more sophisticated handling of the situation.

  • Zeb||

    I certainly agree with that. But there is some level of hostility from a kid that would warrant shooting him, I think.

    Kid has a gun in his hand, looks like he knows how to use it, finger on the trigger and says "I'm going to kill you". I say shoot the kid.

    I think your original statement may be a bit too absolute. Unless, of course, you are assuming that all cops are pieces of shit, in which case you could say "any cop who rescues a newborn baby from being run over by a train is a piece of shit" and it would be valid.

  • JW||

    "House cat" and "Infant" will be in Series 2.

  • Paul.||

    The 'dog' posters are always sold out. They wear out the quickest...

  • BakedPenguin||

    Why would they need posters? They get enough practice with real dogs.

  • fish||

    The exact opposite of the "Lawyer" targets. No demand at all for a practice target where no hesitation exists.

  • ||

    P.S. Sorry to threadjack, but I thought this was interesting, although about 4 months past relevance it would seem.


    Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation

    "Yes, I voted twice," Richardson told WCPO-TV. "I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls."

    Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

    "I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.

    But asking for ID at the polls is RACIST!!!! because...? (crickets)

  • Paul.||

    But asking for ID at the polls is RACIST!!!! because...? (crickets)

    It's harder to cheat at the polls.

    And you thought no one would answer.

  • Matrix||

    This has to be a lie. Shrike and Tony have assured us that voter fraud is a myth!

  • WTF||

    Yeah, Obama polling 100% in some districts in Philadelphia after the Reublican poll watchers were kicked out is entirely legit.

  • Loki||

    Unless, of course, we're talking about BOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH!!!1111!!!elventybillion!!1

  • ||

    His right to sit as president? Good lord.

  • The Sherriff of Fistingham™||

    His right to sit as president? Good lord.

    It's a divine right, in time you will embrace it....now, drink this and try and relax...

  • Loki||

    Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States

    Right!? RIGHT!!???!! Are you fucking kidding me??? ARGHHHH!!!!!!! *Falls onto floor, suffers anger stroke and dies*

  • WTF||

    Your denial of Obama's divine right is obviously racist. Please report to the re-education camp.

  • Loki||

    Luckily, thanks to Obamacare, they were able to resuscitate me so I didn't die from totally misguided and racially motivated anger stroke that I previously suffered. All praise be to Obama!

  • Andrew S.||

    It's not so bad. They go in through your nose, and they let you keep the piece of brain they cut out.

  • Another David||

    I'm pretty sure the Ninth Amendment can be reasonably read to include chairs.

  • johnl||

    If OH works like CA, then she signed a statement with her provisional ballot that she did not send in her absentee. So by voting in person, to make her vote count, she made it not count.

    Her work as a voting turk is troubling.

    """
    Richardson claimed she had submitted an absentee ballot, but was afraid her vote would not count so she also voted in person. She also said she voted in the name of her granddaughter and yet another person.

    "There was absolutely no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud," she insisted.

    Richardson's granddaughter, India Richardson, confirmed to Fox News that her grandmother voted for her, by submitting an absentee ballot in her name. India told Fox News that she is not angry, and gave her permission to cast her absentee ballot.
    """

  • Drake||

    Double points if you hit the pregger in the belly.

  • Andrew S.||

    The fetus could be armed too, you know. Why do you hate our nation's heroic police officers?

  • Drake||

    Hate them? Their safety is more important than my life! That was a helpful hint.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What about shooting targets with pictures of various dog breeds on them?

  • Paul.||

    See my comment above: sold out.

  • fish||

    In a pinch the program from this years Westminster Kennel Club Show works. Try the Shi-Tzu they're crafty.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Imagine the uproar if you started selling targets with cops on them.

    Maybe a series called "No Adulation"?

  • niobiumstudio||

    Hopefully they will replace the "Small Dog" from what must have been the previous series...

  • JW||

    I like how they have the Robocop-like details beneath each target.

    They might want to work on the response matrix a bit.

  • ||

    TARGET: HOSTILE

  • JW||

    "Dead or even more dead, you're coming with me."

  • IamNotEvil||

    "Dead or Dismembered, you're coming with me."

    "I come in peace."
    "Go in pieces."

    "You'll regret this for the rest of your life, both seconds of it."

  • ||

    FUCK YOU

  • WTF||

    Am I too optimistic?

    Yes. I mean, God forbid the government enforcers should hesitate before blowing away a little kid.

  • Enough About Palin||

    IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!

  • Way Of The Crane||

    You can't expect them to have enough sense to take cover, can you?

  • Copernicus||

    hmmm, is the baby in that lady's tummy also threatening the cop?

  • Almanian!||

    BANG! BANG!

    Not any more...

  • WTF||

    You only assume it was a baby. Didn't you ever see Aliens?

  • BarryD||

    It's not a baby. It's a choice.

  • Meerkatx||

    It's the largest organ in her body according to people in Alabama.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Maybe it's the next Chuck Norris, ready to exit the birth canal with a single roundhouse kick.

  • Almanian!||

    Is Your Local Police Department Using Pictures of Pregnant Women and Children for Target Practice?

    We can only hope so! Can't happen soon enough.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    someone light the dunphy signal

  • WTF||

    dunphy will come by hours from now to corpse-fuck the thread when there's nobody left to contradict his assertions.

  • Capt Ace Rimmer||

    I'm finger fucking your ice cold comment right now and there's nothing you can do about it.

  • Enough About Palin||

    The first rule of the dunphy signal? NEVER light the dunphy signal. It's like asking g=d for chronic diarrhea.

  • Matrix||

    DHS is buying billions of rounds of ammo. I'm sure they would love these targets.

  • joeldpalmer||

    Wow! I'm used to seeing targets with women and children that pop up. You are not supposed to actually shoot those targets. You're supposed to only shoot the bad guys. In this case, they are the bad guys... I guess.

  • sarcasmic||

    Everyone is a bad guy until they prove differently by slowly unzipping the officer's trousers...

  • Matrix||

    The FBI had no problem shooting Ms. Weaver in the head while she was holding a baby WMD!!!

  • Drake||

    Have you learned nothing over the past few months? A gun shot Ms. Weaver. An FBI Agent just happened to be holding it.

  • Matrix||

    babyWMD!!!***

    I thought I put the /s the first time!

  • Ted S.||

    I see an opportunity for some enterprising soul to sell a series of paper targets with images of cops.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Actually thats a good point. The perp could be a cop or a us soldier or dressed like one. Shouldnt they have those targets as well?

  • Enough About Palin||

    That is a great idea and I bet the pig union fights it all the way to the SCOTUS...and loses.

  • BarryD||

    Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets.

  • Loki||

    Well, we wouldn't want our boys in blue, noble protectors of all that is good and just, to be killed in action because they hesitated prior to gunning down a child or pregnant woman, like any normal non-sociopath human being might, would we? I mean, they've got families to go home to! OFFICER SAFETY uber alled!

  • JW||

    How are our brave men in women in blue supposed to prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse using targets of the living?

  • H. Reardon||

  • db||

    No More Hesitation
    Always Think Forfeiture

    Any othe good ones you remember?

  • H. Reardon||

    To Serve and Protect (Ourselves!)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's a Cookbook!!!1!1!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That is so fucking awesome. If you smash down the door to some house, and a pregnant woman who lives there tries to defend herself and her family, OFFICER SAFETY requires you to gun her down unhesitatingly. And now there are training aids to make sure you unflinchingly carry out your duty to yourself and your fellow officers.

    You have homes and families to go to, after all.

    All you clowns who kiss Fearless Fosdick's ass can go fuck yourselves.

  • Ted S.||

    If the cops see somebody reaching for his pocket, it's totally reasonable for them to assume the person is reaching for a gun and not a wallet.

    If the police are banging on your door at 2:00 AM, it's totally unreasonable for you to expect these people might be lying when they claim to be police -- if the pepole are even shouting a claim of being police. Because criminals would never make such a claim to make it easier for them to gain entry.

    And there are people who claim there's no double standard.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I hope there's one of a drooling old man in a wheelchair, COMING RIGHT AT US!

  • WTF||

    It's an assault wheelchair, damn you! The officer had no choice!

  • Gray Ghost||

    It's an assault wheelchair, damn you! The officer had no choice!

    And he's got a ballpoint pen!

  • AuH2O||

    You know, in retrospect, the middle ages were pretty enlightened, given that they didn't see the enforcers of the King's Law as moral blameless robots, but rather autonomous people who chose to put the boot on others.

  • sarcasmic||

    They understood that the king and his knights were pure evil that would never see justice in this world, so they prayed to spirits in hope that there would be justice in the afterlife.

    Government is the origin of religion.

  • robc||

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis

  • Raston Bot||

    That poster is bullshit. No late-stage pregnant woman is ever that calm looking, let alone when she's in a stressful situation.

  • Drake||

    That's how they ask for ice cream.

  • Zeb||

    Except the ones who are stone cold killers.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Could have been worse - the kid could have been wearing a "Don't Tread on Me" sweat shirt and the woman a "Ron Paul for President" button.

  • Drake||

    A gun would be redundant in those circumstances.

  • Loki||

    Those are only for federal agents.

  • ||

    As the father of two little boys and husband to a twice-pregnant wife, I am currently experiencing an aneurysm and must excuse myself.

  • Copernicus||

    "No more hesitation"?

    Has there been a rash of police hesitating to shoot pregnant women with real guns?

  • ||

    These targets could be a positive thing.

    Hypothetically they could train officers to look for the gun before shooting. Might reduce incidence where they shoot unarmed people.

  • Loki||

    Which is totaly why they call them "No More Hesitation", right?

  • WTF||

    Might reduce incidence where they shoot unarmed people.

    AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Good one!

  • Jgalt1975||

    Anybody got any statistics on how many police officers have been shot by children 10 and under in the past 40 years? I'm thinking it's got to be low double digits at the most.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I will put a week's paycheck it is under 3 total.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I suddenly feel underarmed. At that is saying something.

  • Agammamon||

    ". . .when officers are losing their lives in these same situations."

    Really? There's been a rash of cop killings by kids, old men, and pregnant women?

  • Onyxwolf||

    Funny thing, when you search: child "kills police officer" (including or excluding quotes) I could only find 2 articles on the first 6 pages: 1) a 15 year-old killed a cop by running over him (somehow) and dragging him; 2) a 14 year-old killed her cop father in an arson.... HMMM yeah this is BS. Commenting to Dunphy below, too...

  • ||

    in the post-newhall era

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhall_massacre

    we have come to the realization, that as we train is as we perform. as an instructor myself, there are still many areas in which we come up lacking, though. for example, most shootings are in dim light, but at least in my agency, getting firearms assessments, let alone training, scheduled in twilight hours or using technology that allows for dim light scenarios is of course lacking. they always schedule us 8-4, which is stupid, for that reason.

    a pregnant woman or a kid with a gun pointed at you is as legitimate a threat as anybody else.

    this is one of those things that is not PC, but makes sense, in that LEO's must respond to the actual threat, not give differing levels of threat assessment based on irrelevant factors (and the fact that it's a preggo pointing a gun at you, in that situation is irrelevant).

  • ||

    paper targets are also woefully inadequate of course in preparing you for real shooting situations, i say with experience IN real shooting situations. stuff like FATS is helpful. we run both cops and citizen academy volunteers through FATS, and at least we (leo's) score much better than the CA attendees.

    i had a kid get the drop on me once, and it's a legitimate concern. i SO did not want to shoot that kid, that i tried to convince myself that his gun was a toy, something that i would probably not have done if he was a conventional criminal (e.g. gangbanger flying the colors and holding a gun). he pulled the trigger and it went BANG and then i knew it was real, but by then it was too late. he had shot himself. not a lot i could do, again, he got the drop on me, but it was interesting that in my mind i tried to convince myself the gun was FAKE, which is a dangerous thing to do.

  • rts||

    i had a kid get the drop on me once ... he had shot himself

    Maybe I'm not hip to the cop parlance, but to me "getting the drop on someone" means the firearm is pointed at you in such a way that any attempt to react would not be quick enough, and you would be shot.

    Therefore, what you described didn't make much sense (unless it was pointing at you, and then he turned the gun on himself, but that seems like too important detail to be casually omitted).

  • ||

    no, "getting the drop" means he gets his gun out before you can react.

    fwiw, it WAS initially pointed at me, then he pointed it at himself. iow, as he drew it, he pointed it at me and said if i tried to stop him, he'd shoot me. but even if he hadn't, it would still be 'getting the drop' at least as i use the term. but i get your point

  • Agammamon||

    So, basically what you're saying is if you had reacted "appropriately", *you* would have shot the kid instead of him shooting himself?

    I'm not sure how that's better.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think anyone would say it was better.

  • Meerkatx||

    The cop gets the fun of gunning down the kid, how could it possibly get better in their world?

  • JW||

    "i tried to convince myself the gun was FAKE TOY, which is a dangerous responsible thing to do, seeing as that is the most likely scenario."

    All fixed there, Fosdick.

  • ||

    smooches.

    fwiw, whether it was or wasn't the most LIKELY scenario, it in fact was NOT the scenario. the gun was real.

  • JW||

    You'll know better next time.

    NO HESITATION.

  • DrAwkward||

    Curious how you feel about IDPA. Ever competed? Do you feel it provides fairly realistic training for real life gun fights?

  • niobiumstudio||

    FATS is extremely lacking as well. I went through hours of FATS at Ft. Monmouth with the MPs there when they first set up their system when I was younger and it is nothing like a real altercation. A fistfight with a sibling where you have no chance of being seriously hurt is more helpful than FATS for altercation preparation and gets your adrenaline pumping far more. All that crap is useless - real scenario training with REAL people using either paintball, airsoft, or simunition at least gives you some idea of what the chaos of an altercation would be like. Do you really feel FATS has helped you after you have been in a real altercation?

    I have only been in a single situation where a gun was pointed at me (and they actually "had the drop on me" - not like your kid situation) - the gun was pointed at my head and they were behind me. I am not going into details because it involved not so legal transactions a long time ago, and was resolved with me losing almost $400 in cash...The way I felt and my body reacted to that was not even reminiscent of anything run in FATS and any training I had was long out the window. I feel that situation prepared me more than any training I paid for or have gotten since.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I had a shotgun pressed into my chest, once. I thought I was going to die. I was purchasing some stuff from the guy and he was a little jittery and paranoid. He was a fucking asshole. He also claimed that Courtney Love offered him money to kill Kurt Cobain. Later, he wandered onto some train tracks, and died.

  • fish||

    The feel good story of the day!

  • Agammamon||

    I did a round of FATS training back when I seriously (briefly) considered going into law enforcement.

    One scenario has me and my (in the video) partner standing on a corner when a guy walks down the street holding a brown paper bag. Nothing in particular is going on here, in the scenario I'm just standing there with my partner.

    When the guy reaches into the bag, my partner yells "gun!" and draws, so I do also. The guy pull out a silver object and my partner plugs him. I'm left standing there wondering WTF just happened, I never saw a threat - my partner plugged a dude I watched pull a tinfoil wrapped sandwich out of a bag.

  • niobiumstudio||

    Yeah some people get really jumpy for some reason. My 2nd scenario was set in a prison. A dual door opened up entering the dining room and a guy was holding a gun pointed at the door with a hostage in front of him (arm around the neck). Less than a second after the door opened I was dead. That was the only scenario I died or shot an innocent person. There are a few crazy situations in FATS where you need to be on the trigger, but they are situations you would never put yourself in real life.

  • niobiumstudio||

    Seriously, would go go through a doorway you can't see through during a prison riot with nothing but a beretta 9mm and no backup? I think not. I have to say, a few of the people I was with shot literally EVERYTHING when someone got belligerent, cursed at them, walked toward them, or made any "suspicious" moves. Most of them were real police or MPs - I was only there helping work on the system and getting the operators used to controlling situations and progressing through scenarios.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Timothy C. McDonald

    Let me make it clear.......If a law enforcement agency believes that it is so necessary to avoid taking a half second risk to determine if the 5 year old boy pointing a gun is pointing a toy gun, or that the 12 year old girl is holding a HAIR dryer that they are willing to train them to do so without hesitation, they have become the enemy.

    I wore a badge.......The first duty is to protect women and children, and part of the job is risking ones life to avoid killing innocent people.......Any cop who thinks his PRIMARY mission is going home at the end of his shift should resign immediately. His primary mission is to protect innocent people. If his safety isn't secondary, he's in the wrong job.

    The training should be to make the RIGHT decision every time.......Not to be so eager to pull the trigger that one does it regardless of the target........That is a bridge too far. There should be psychological resistance pulling a trigger on a 5 year old.

  • Cosmotarian||

    We already have too many children, we are running out of food and fresh water to feed everyone. If we can get rid of a few useless eaters or non-taxpaying breeders then that is all for the greater good.

    I am mostly concerned that the police protect this democracy and the rights of central bankers to manipulate the economy with monetary policy for the benefit of myself and my friends.

    We also need to make sure people pay taxes and how can we really collect more taxes without training our police forces properly. Whoever bought into the idea that police should protect the useless eaters is sadly naive. We have to have PR to get mouthbreathers to pay their taxes, it doesn't mean that we really intend on using the polcie to protect those so stupid that they would fund their own enslavement.

  • Bear Talking in Passive Voice||

    Cops are cowards. I know from experience dude.

  • Andrew S.||

    How many cops have been killed by pregnant women or children under 10? You just justified this by poining to a four decade old shooting that involved two men in their 20s.

  • SugarFree||

    Don't bother, AS.

  • ||

    right. better cops be reactive. the LA bank robbery shooting is an example of how stupid that mentality is. "well, it hasn't happened before, so clearly there is no need to prepare for it"

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck off, troll.

  • ||

    right. continue to wallow in ignorance. i;m sure the other poster is better served by being ignorant like you, than by speaking with somebody who has studied police shootings, has been involved in police shootings, has testified in police shooting inquests, and who trains police in firearms use.

    yup, better to wallow ignorance and profanity

  • SugarFree||

    It's not my fault you decided to go through life as a cunt.

  • H. Reardon||

    "well, it hasn't happened before, so clearly there is no need to prepare for it"

    The Precautionary Principal is a slippery slope that has no end. So, what SF said.

  • ||

    i dont "justify" it by newhall. i use newhall to show how cops shoot very much as they train. thus, it's important how they train. the issue is not how many cops are killed by those cohorts. the issue is that targets shouldn't be exclusively of one "type"

    there would be outcry if the targets were disproportionately of black men, although i havent heard an outcry that the targets are almost always men (men are fwiw far more likely to be the subjects of police shootings)

    the point is officers should be focused on the threat or lack thereof, not the threat carrier. I'm an instructor, and i hammer that point home in my training. you must be able to identify the threat specifically (iow dont shoot newspaper delivery drivers) before you pull the trigger.

    ive seen personally officers hesitate to use adequate force on women, for example. in one incident, one of my partners suffered some pretty serious injuries probably attributable in some sense to weak grab-ass use of force when presented with the threat vs. what was justified and should have been used.

    using force on a woman or man - the gender SHOULD be irrelevant to the threat. chivalry, taboo, etc. means that often it is not, and that should not be the case.

  • ||

    i've had cases, and there has been ample documentation, that when police approach gangs will often dump their guns etc. on the female member because they know cops are less likely to pat frisk them and/or view them as a threat.

    threat assessment at least with weapons, should be gender neutral. training with a diverse group of targets (men and women) can help hammer that point home.

    fwiw, i don't care what training says, i'll always hesitate (and it may put me in more danger) with a kid, because i know from personal experience how often what looks like a gun is actually an airsoft, etc. we get tons of incidents of "person with a gun' calls where it turns out its a kid with a very realistic airsoft gun. i had one two weeks ago. thank god, we are overwhelmingly restrained in these calls. simply put, the cost of being wrong is too high, and if that means a kid (10 yrs old etc.) is more likely to get the drop on me or shoot me, THAT is a risk i am willing to take vs. shooting a kid in a justified shooting where he is holding a fake gun.

    no cop, or anybody else, wants that on their conscience. so, i'd say regardless of what cops should do in the technical assessment of threats, i'd always say - when it's a kid with a "gun' (perceived as such), i'm going to hesitate.

    good question imo. cheers

  • Cosmotarian||

    "no cop, or anybody else, wants that on their conscience. so, i'd say regardless of what cops should do in the technical assessment of threats, i'd always say - when it's a kid with a "gun' (perceived as such), i'm going to hesitate."

    well then Dunphy, you will eventually be dealt with for your disrespect for the Homeland. Don't expect any big promotions. Sometimes we need cops to help guard our child raping parties...Now we know you cannot be trusted for these duties. It will be funny to your overlords when you find out your municipal pension plan is bankrupt.

  • Enough About Palin||

    TL;DR

    FUCK OF AND DIE

  • Meerkatx||

    How many cops are killed by shooters? How many people do cops kill each year who have not shot at them?

  • Matrix||

    A woman 7-9 months pregnant holding a gun might as well be holding someone hostage. Because you run the serious risk of killing her child if you kill her.

    but perhaps officer safety trumps hostage safety.

  • ||

    as a matter of law, depends on the state of course, as to whether the unborn child is a "person" or considered in the penalty if killed during the UOF.

  • Bear Talking in Passive Voice||

    Why are all cops gay?

  • Zeb||

    That's her fucking problem. If she's threatening me, I'll shoot her if that's what I need to do to defend myself.

  • Homple||

    "...we have come to the realization, that as we train is as we perform. as an instructor myself, there are still many areas in which we come up lacking,...."

    Identification of pickup trucks and newspaper delivery ladies, for example.

  • ||

    yea. frankly, i'd be curious to look at LAPD's training and see if it is lacking and to what extent.

    it's pretty clear, you must identify the target. i'm sure the cop was scared as shit as it rolled up no lights on at o dark thirty in front of the target house (one of dorners documented targets)

    but the burden is on the LEO to be sure of his target, and it was an abysmal police failure. we are human. cops will fail sometimes.

  • sarcasmic||

    but the burden is on the LEO to be sure of his target

    Since when? All he has to say is the magic words "I feared for my life" and all is forgiven.

  • sloopyinca||

    it's pretty clear, you must identify the target. i'm sure the cop was scared as shit as it rolled up no lights on at o dark thirty in front of the target house (one of dorners documented targets)

    BZZZZZZZT!

    It was 5:30, which is as dawn breaks this time of year on a street with lights every 100 ft or so. Also, they never got "in front of the target house". They unloaded on both vehicles; well before they got within 100 yards of it in the case of the hispanic women and about three blocks before in the case of the man they rammed and shot at.

    Nice try, you deceptive fuckbag.

  • Agammamon||

    I'm pretty sure the cop was snoozing and was woken when the truck rolled up - otherwise he might have noticed it stopping at other houses to deliver papers, maybe?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fuck you. Don't shoot a kid- take the fucking risk that he might shoot you because you are a fucking professional.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Young kids, especially ones younger than teenagers, should always be given the benefit of the doubt in complicated situations. Forget about your fucking dumb job and personal "safety", you should consider it your moral obligation to either back the fuck off or take the risk of trying to help a little kid who is in a situation that you have know idea about the circumstances leading to it, rather than just blowing him or her away because they are a "threat".

  • Cosmotarian||

    I disagree. The central banks, primary dealers and money printers should be given the benefit of the doubt. Children are human resources to be harvested when their time comes. They should be grateful that they can help serve a good greater than themselves.

  • Enough About Palin||

    TL;DR

    FUCK OF AND DIE

  • Sigivald||

    TL;DR

    MY EMOTIONAL REACTION MAKES ME UNABLE TO APPLY REASON

  • Tommy Maq||

    If you didn't read it, nobody cares how you feel about it.

  • Enough About Palin||

    TL;DR

    FUCK OF AND DIE

  • Tommy Maq||

    If you didn't read it, nobody cares what you have to say about it.

  • Andrew S.||

    "One officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty"

    I've read a lot of vile things on Reason.

    I think that line may have topped it all.

  • SugarFree||

    I just hope he's successful when the time comes.

  • JW||

    "Daddy's home! And he has a surprise for you!"

  • db||

    I wonder if he teaches his kids to shoot at blown up pictures of himself and his wife.

  • BarryD||

    I'll withhold judgment, since I haven't met his kids.

  • db||

    The series contains seven targets in all, titled Pregnant Woman, Older Man 1, Older Man 2, Older Woman, Young Mother, Young Girl, and Little Brother. Each of the depicted subjects is armed.

    Let me guess: they're all pictures of white people. Because cops don't need special training to avoid hesitation when shooting black people.

  • Homple||

    There will be no targets depicting black people because the company couldn't stand the outrage from the politically correct if any were produced.

    You don't land 5 megabuck federal government contracts by violating racial taboos.

  • ||

    If it ends just one child's life, it will all be worth it.

  • kinnath||

    We need photos of officers in blue taken from long distances with cross hairs imposed over their chests. Seems like fair play to me.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This makes me want to print up some Janet Napolitano targets.

    And some of her boss.

  • Art Vandelay||

    Send in the drones!

  • thom||

    So does simply possessing a firearm now entitle any police officer to shoot you dead, no questions asked?

  • sarcasmic||

    I assume that is a rhetorical question.

  • Gray Ghost||

    + 1 "fuck him"

  • sarcasmic||

    Looks like some cops in California are going to be having a grand time playing "Who has the most morbid phone pic of a dead peasant" over some beers tonight.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....lence.html

  • ||

    Though experiment: imagine if these had been found at the home of Adam Lanza

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The subjects in NMH targets were chosen in order to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training. I found while speaking with officers and trainers in the law enforcement community that there is a hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition (one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty).

    Bull. Fucking. Shit.

  • BarryD||

    They should have a target of an unarmed pregnant woman, but the fetus pointing a gun at the officer from inside her uterus. Then the cop would learn to recognize the gun by its outline, and open fire without hesitation.

  • db||

    Would that be suicide- or abortion-by-cop?

  • BarryD||

  • Mr Whipple||

  • Mr Whipple||

    Whoa. What happened to my comment?

  • Mr Whipple||

    [Let me try this again]

    "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, and too soon to shoot the bastards."

    I think it's time to reassess the situation, Ms Wolfe.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I don't know what's worse. The bureaucrats that would actually buy these things for their police force, or the apologists like Dunphuk.

  • robertsgt40||

    How about targets of police, DHS agents(and other federales), UN "Peacekeepers"(complete with blue helmets).

  • BarryD||

    The LAPD doesn't need these targets. They don't hesitate to shoot, even if they haven't identified the people they're shooting at, and when those people are unarmed and not threatening anyone. They even shoot without hesitation when they have someone on the ground, face down, in handcuffs.

    http://articles.latimes.com/20.....g-20121031

  • Meerkatx||

    Can anyone point out to me when there has been a instance where LEO's have stood up against a government that abducts and tortures and kills its citizens instead of being first in line to help abduct, torture and kill its citizens?

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean the mythical "good cop"? They quit, are corrupted, or forced out.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    When a govt has progressed to that point they've removed all opposition from the LE community. The good cops have been made criminals or dispatched in other ways.

    Also, most countries don't have autonomous law enforcement at the lower levels of the govt hierarchy like the US does.

  • ||

    It makes me wonder, what would the police say and do if they discovered a gun range was using pictures of officers as targets?

  • JRR||

    You can buy those and there is no law against shooting paper targets (where it's otherwise legal to shoot firarms) regardless of what is pictured on them.

    I think it would be incredibly bad taste to do so but I also don't particularly like "terrorist" or other "bad guy" targets. The silouette targets work just fine.

  • NormB||

    Is this why DHS bought 7,000 M16 assault rifles and billions of rounds of ammo?

    “Systematic desensitization” is how our military trains for threat assessment and target engagement (see Col. Dave Grossman's “On Killing”).

    President Obeyme has HIS army now, “bigger than the US military” he called for during the 2008 campaign and he’s arming and training them to engage and shoot Americans. Old, young, men, women, pregnant even, children holding a gun, a squirt gun, or a banana on a playground.

    Someone should capitalize on this RFN (RFQ for my southern friends) and print targets depicting federal government agency employees.

    Employees who violate 4th amendment civil rights by “dynamic entry” - instead of calling, knocking, and coming in to talk - so they can violate our 2d amendment civil rights or just do a warrantless search under the NDAA to take your guns, gold and other valuables.. Then you can spend months just getting an inventory of what they took, years trying to get your property back (in usable condition).

    Imagine training to recognize and engage "targets" in the shock troop uniforms of the ATF, FBI, TSA, DHS, EPA, HEW (they have been buying shotguns and sniper rifles too) and all the rest.

    I’d buy a few dozen targets.

    Claire Wolfe wrote - infamously - in the 1990s that “We’re living in that awkward time when it’s too late to work within the system and too soon to shoot the bas**rds.”

    I truly believe that dictum has expired.

  • Agreenweed||

    I look @ prison planet now and then (I am not a Joneser, though at times he does give good sources and correct info, he is a raving lunatic). I saw this on there and thought it was utter BS. Upon attempting to look at this companies website with the link provided by Jones, my computer would not load it. We have crossed a line. By God, this government is going to do bad things to us. Hurrah.

  • Agreenweed||

    Hey, officers turn on civilians and officers-so why can't we buy targets that look like police officers? Not saying I want them, just saying its no less bad than what they are doing.

  • Nick Griffin||

    Is this one more brick in the Governments preparation for the collapse and civil disobedience? Stay out of blue pickups and don't carry a gun.

  • meunke||

    Remove hesitation?

    Hesitation before using lethal force to end a life is actually a decent thing to have. It's one of those things that kind of separates us from mere animals.

    I can see only one official use for these targets: in training, if an officer DOESN'T hesitate and simply fires on these, it would be an instant fail and he would be removed from the force.

    BTW, can anyone imagine the deafening moral outrage these would have stirred if they had been designed and marketed toward the civilian shooter market?

  • Harvard||

    When the battering ram takes out the front door, who do you call?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-DGaNmtA0

  • Agreenweed||

    Not so sure that's what I want to use to shoot back. Apparently, the Beretta 9 is quite effective if you have 4 mags or so ready to go. Remember that story from reason? That dude had pot in his basement and the cops busted in his house in the middle of the night, did not identify themselves, and he fucked up five of them and killed one with his beretta?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Desensitization has a steamy brutal side tho. I'm sure a million 'real' Dunphy's will spend inordinate minutes here and there justifying the paper-targeting of kids and preggos and my logic can offer a sliver of support for this but in the end desensitizing cops isn't necessarily a socially-beneficial thing when one considers that these scenarios are indeed rare and cops don't live in a dystopian society.

    How many fucking paper targets of kids and preggos must be shot at over a cop career to maintain a sense of disconnect from conditioned empathy? Prob a lot with a result that runs counter ethics and common human decency.

    In the end it's all just a pile of bullshit designed to harden and militarize police. Nothing wrong with a tough individual serving as a cop- problem is, toughness must be intertwined with a solid sense of ethics, empathy, and professionalism for this 'toughness' to interact optimally within the open society. Therein lies the rub; America is full of belligerent tough cops who don't give a single shit about the open society and ethics. Therefore, take their damn edgy targets away. They don't have the mental or ethical capacity to handle them.

  • Harvard||

    And none are trained. Oh, they can do the push-up and deep knee bend shit, but none are schooled in either the Constitution or even their local felony ordinances. Their "training" on this front is all on-the-job. Most are not clear on domestic law and NONE are drilled on Constitutional civil rights. Youtube is replete with these fucks overstepping in areas such as open carry and you can amuse yourself for hours watching the Dumby's stepping their dicks.

  • ||

    The product line will be expanded soon:

    "NO MORE HESITATION - SEEING GUIDE DOG THREAT

    PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
    NMH-SGD

    Non-traditional threat dipicting [sic] seeing guide dog wearing suicide vest that has assault rifle mounted on vest. Weapon is aimed at viewer, and snarling dog is accompanied by short, blind pregant woman who has back turned to viewer and small child in tow. Cartoonish background is faded further highlighting and highlighting the threat.

    Full color realistic target.
    Size: 35" x 62"

  • Agreenweed||

    They should make her asian. Everyone knows short pregnant asian women fit the criminal profile. Geez.

  • Mizchief||

    If your job is truly to protect and serve, then a young child, gun or no gun, is your job to protect not to kill to save your own ass. Do you best to get it a way from the child but if you get shot in the process that's your job.

    If we can't find cops willing to lay down their lives for kids, then it's time to reallocate secret service personnel that is willing to do so for our elected criminals.

  • Silver||

    You folks are entirely missing the boat on this subject. The idea is not to desensitize the individual to a type of person, but to sensitize them to the threat presented - look at their hands, not their face. Peacekeepers have traditionally been trained to always consider women and children as "safe", and give them a pass on threat assessment. They are now stepping the training up to where it has needed to be - based on the actual threat being projected, not on an archaic stereotype threat model.

    Just a simple phone call to any police agency or target company would have presented the real facts here.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "They are now stepping the training up to where it has needed to be - based on the actual threat being projected"

    This is called desensitization, genius. Justifying the shooting of Little Boy with Real Gun targets as a training tactic that emboldens police to violently respond regardless of the entity projecting a threat is tantamount to scooping your brain out with a spoon and feeding it to the crickets.

    It appears you also have been desensitized by blatantly referring to children as an archaic stereotype threat model. I guess that sort of mindset explains how American soldiers are trained to assess and liquidate under-aged threats in the field. All of this done with impunity, of course.

    There are reasons why the open society should be revolted at the thought of any of its members rejecting empathetic and ethical response mechanisms in policing and instead 'stepping up training' that is more about force protection than serving a community. Force protection focus and the removal of the respect for children and the vulnerable contributes to cop belligerence and a macabre indifference toward the humanity they are supposed to be serving.

    Your statement willfully justifies the creation of anti-social policing.

  • dean.hodgkins@gmail.com||

    Just curious.... do the cops also shoot at targets of uniformed police and military? In light of Chris Dorner, and Anders Breivik's murder-sprees, it would seem that would be a really good idea. I'll hold my breath...

  • Cosmotarian||

    We do need to make sure our protectors will not fall to the tactics of terrorists. Everyone knows that Al Qaeda likes to use women and children to attack us. There is no doubt that the growing danger of a blue eyed Al Qaeda will attempt to use women and children to attack the homeland as well. I saw this unbiased media and CIA joint report that explains it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBO7xBpJtoc

    Let's all be reasonable, we having growing problem with funding our federal budget, we are going to need to raise taxes and if some people don't like it then we will need to deal with them.

  • Capt Ace Rimmer||

    Oh swell, this coincides nicely with the push to station cops at elementary schools.

  • JRR||

    A police officer having to shoot a child or pregnant woman, as tragic as that might be, might well be a justifiable use of deadly force.

    I know of no reason why a pregnant woman would be incapable of being a threat to a police officer or others. Pregnancy does not render a woman any less dangerous. The argument here is based purely on emotion.

    Same with the child. A child could indeed be in possession of a handgun and might be intent on harming the officer or others. What is the greater tragedy? The police using deadly force against a child or that child killing others?

    And besides, this is the same stupid reasoning behind those "baby on board" window stickers. Why should anyone driver safely just because someone has a baby in their car? You should drive safely ALL the time!! And why is a baby more valuble than my 18 year old? Or more valuable than ME? Sure, that's a bit selfish but I say it to make a point. You CANNOT compare the value of one human being vs. another using ANY criteria.

    So I certainly hope that no police officer is ever faced with the choice to use deadly force against a child, but if faced with that scenario, I hope that his/her training will help them overcome the emotions and focus on the threat and how to best eliminate it.

  • John Galt 6969||

    that's not what the "baby on board" window doober is for. It's to tell emergency personnel that there was a crumbmuncher on board, in case of an accident.

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

  • sosobadr||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement