Police

Law Enforcement Targets Inc. Discontinues Line of Targets Featuring Mom, Child, Grandparents, Pregnant Woman

|

Courtesy of LET Inc.

In response to criticism from civil liberties advocates and law enforcement groups alike, Law Enforcement Targets Inc.–a supplier of targets to the local, state, and federal law enforcement groups–has discontinued a line of targets that feature grandparents, a mother, a child, and a pregnant woman; all of them holding guns. 

"We apologize for the offensive nature of our 'No More Hesitation' products," reads a letter that LET Inc. posted Feb. 21 on its company Facebook page. "These products have been taken offline due to the opinions expressed by so many, including members of the law enforcement community."

According to a statement the company sent Reason last week, members of the law enforcement community inspired Law Enforcement Targets Inc. to design the "No More Hesitation" series in the first place: 

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.

The company's full letter is below:

We apologize for the offensive nature of our "No More Hesitation" products. These products have been taken offline due to the opinions expressed by so many, including members of the law enforcement community.

This product line was originally requested and designed by the law enforcement community to train police officers for unusually complex situations where split-second decisions could lead to unnecessary loss of life.

Consistent with our company mission as a training supplier (not a training methods company), we will continue to seek input from law enforcement professionals to better serve their training objectives and qualification needs. We sincerely appreciate law enforcement professionals for the risks they take in providing safety and defending freedom.

Advertisement

NEXT: Activists Start Global Campaign Against Killer Robots

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.

  1. “Well, it got so that every piss-ant prairie punk who thought he could shoot a gun would ride into town to try out the Waco Kid. I must have killed more men than Cecil B. DeMille. It got pretty gritty. I started to hear the word “draw” in my sleep. Then one day, I was just walking down the street when I heard a voice behind me say, “Reach for it, mister!” I spun around… and there I was, face to face with a six-year old kid. Well, I just threw my guns down and walked away. Little bastard shot me in the ass. So I limped to the nearest saloon, crawled inside a whiskey bottle… and I’ve been there ever since.”

    1. Yeah, but this is my shooting hand…

  2. Whatevs…

  3. “These products have been taken offline due to the opinions expressed by so many, including members of the law enforcement community.”

    If law enforcement is their primary customer base, that’s really the opinion the business should be heeding.

    1. If it’s one thing that law enforcement needs less of, it’s hesitation in gunning down the citizenry.

      1. Please, do hesitate. Take your time. Think it through. My dog just wants to play.

  4. Of for god’s sake. Were people really offended by this? Talk about more manufactured outrage.

    1. I know, right? I mean, who REALLY thinks the safety of pregnant women and children should come before officer safety? Only a nut, that’s who. Officer safety is the most important aspect of being a police officer. And really, isn’t that what the job’s all about?

      1. Who really thinks that a pregnant woman pointing a gun at someone is not a legitimate target? Not a good shoot?

        It’s context, dude. Try having some.

        1. Who thinks a pregnant woman or a child with a gun should be treated exactly the same as anyone else?

          Anyone who thinks their hesitation in shooting a pregnant woman is a bad thing is trash, and shouldn’t be a cop. Someone who thinks that’s an acceptable attitude for law enforcement isn’t much better.

          It’s ethics, dude. Try having some.

          1. What, a pregnant woman can’t point a gun at you?

            Seriously, these targets depicted children and pregnant women not “with a gun”, as you dishonestly try to paint it, but actively pointing a gun. A child or a pregnant woman can be just as much of a hostile target as anybody else, if they are pointing a gun at you.

            1. And with these targets, the cops get to go in knowing that it will be pointing a real gun. The expectation is that they’ll take this training out into the real world where they might happen across a pregnant woman or a kid pointing a “thing” at them. Thanks to their training, they will have no hesitation in gunning down the target.

            2. actively pointing a gun

              Of course. All shooting situations happen under ideal lighting conditions and with the background reduced for extra clarity. There’s no possible way a cop could mistake your cellphone or wallet or your son’s toy gun for anything but the real McCoy.

              Nosireebob. Fucking infallible angels, our Boys in Blue, they are.

            3. A child with a gun should be treated with more caution than just automatically blowing them away. Just because they are young, the goal should be deescalating the situation. Fuck you if you think otherwise.

    2. Erh, it’s a pretty legit reason to be offended.

    3. I agree. On the surface though, I can see how some people would be creeped out by it. But it’s just a paper target. Sometimes you get tired of shooting at sweatsuit gunman. Maybe mixing in a different target could cause you to think about what you are doing. Yes, I know the target series was called “No More Hesitation”. The company will sell these in the future, just renaming the series “Anomolies”, “Outliers” or such.

      It was weird to see so many people on this site clutching so desperately at their pearls, before hitting the fainting couch.

      1. Are you out of your mind? They were using pictures of children and pregnant women as target practice. It’s weird that you WEREN’T creeped out by it

        1. It doesn’t occur to some people that when an officer hesitates to shoot someone, there might be a good reason for that. A lack of hesitation in shooting pregnant women, children, and old people isn’t a desirable trait in a police officer.

          1. A lack of hesitation in shooting pregnant women, children, and old people isn’t a desirable trait in ANYONE.

          2. “A lack of hesitation in shooting pregnant women, children, and old people isn’t a desirable trait in a police officer.”

            Yes, this is especially true for cops who work in brutal dictatorships like North Korea.

          3. Why would pregnant woman, child, or old person who were pointing a gun at you have more rights than a black man in a hoodie?

            Are they somehow worth more?

            1. Why would pregnant woman, child, or old person who were pointing a gun at you have more rights than a black man in a hoodie?

              Bingo!

            2. So the answer is to get cops to think more critically before shooting ANYONE, not to make it more reactionary for them to shoot EVERYONE.

              1. Then don’t engage in special pleading just because the depictions are “cuddly”.

                1. I don’t think it should be stopped because of “the children”. I think it should be stopped because the less “shoot first, think later” cops we have the better.

                  It’s important to be able to shoot accurately, but they don’t have to use any realistic depictions to get their accuracy rating up. Hell, it’s probably because of the targets they use that cops are so trigger-happy; if all you see is a dark silhouette and “maybe a gun” then it’s no surprise an entire clip is emptied into the suspect.

                  Cops are stupid, by their nature. My beef is that these realistic depictions desensitize them even more to what their job is supposed to be: protect and serve the public.

                  They’re not Marines in fucking Vietnam… there is no reason to be ready at a pin drop’s notice to shoot a child, pregnant woman, dog, man, old person, black person, white person, asian, whatever. It’s the “shoot first” mentality that I have a problem with; I don’t care about the subject material (other than thinking it had to be trolling when the original post went up last week).

              2. I don’t think cops should feel comfortable shooting anybody…EVER.

                But for folks who give other people shit for using “save teh chilrenz” as excuses, ya’ll appear to excuse the practice when you happen to agree with the premise.

                1. AND, I’m sick of the notion that certain people within society, i.e. cute little chilrenz, are somehow worth more than anybody else.

                  1. I am actually in favor of saving the childrens, evolutionary speaking not saving children is the path to extinction, BUT I’d say the vast majority of policies being rammed through with this justification don’t actually save any children and in many cases actively harms children e.g making schools gun free zones (easy targets), banning DDT (millions dead of malaria), banning golden rice (blindness) etc. Equality in worth is a nice ideal but any society that doesn’t want to commit slow motion suicide does put a premium on women and children.

                    1. You can make more.

                    2. Actually I can’t any more.

                  2. Any society that does not value children and pregnant women over the rest of the people is morally and ethically bankrupt…and ultimately doomed.

                    1. Why?

                      Fuck you. Give me one reason why a child has more rights than anyone else? Load of irrational bullshit.

                    2. No one said anything about someone having more “rights”. More care needs to be taken with those most vulnerable. I worry more about a child’s safety than I do an adult’s. Not to mention that children are simply less able to take care of themselves. We give allowances to them we don’t give to adults. I do not think this means a person should allow themselves to be killed by a child rather than fight back, but again more care should be taken when dealing with children.

        2. All I’m saying is, for a magazine called Reason

          1. The point of the targets was to train officers to, without hesitation, kill children and pregnant women.

            Being that their actions will always be found to be justified, don’t you think you want them to hesitate a bit?
            Especially if they meet your kid or pregnant wife in dim light or under stress?

            1. Kill children or pregnant women who have real guns, I think you meant to say.

              1. Kill children or pregnant women who they thought was holding a real gun. Maybe the kid had a toy gun, oh, well, at least officer friendly didn’t hesitate!

                1. Maybe the pregnant woman was holding the remote control. At least he didn’t hesitate. Officer safety, you know?

              2. Police kill people for holding garage door remotes. And the system shields them from liability for their errors anyway.

            2. The point of the targets was to train officers to, without hesitation, kill children and pregnant women.

              I think that the “without hesitation” wording is what has upset so many at this site. It seems emotionally charged. Had the target co. branded the series under a different, neutral name perhaps there would be a more rational discussion.

              Being that their actions will always be found to be justified, don’t you think you want them to hesitate a bit?

              Ah. There is that word again, “hesitate”.

              Especially if they meet your kid or pregnant wife in dim light or under stress?

              Of course.

              1. I think that the “without hesitation” wording is what has upset so many at this site. It seems emotionally charged. Had the target co. branded the series under a different, neutral name perhaps there would be a more rational discussion.

                I think if cops showed the slightest fucking bit of discretion other than “BANG! Halt or I’ll shoot!” anywhere, people might not be so upset at a product designed to eliminate any doubt in Barney Fife’s mind as to whether to shoot or not, just because it’s a kid.

              2. I think that the “without hesitation” wording is what has upset so many at this site.

                It’s the idea that you need to specifically train to shoot pregnant women and children that has upset us. The “no hesitation” wording just helps drives that point home.

                Had the target co. branded the series under a different, neutral name perhaps there would be a more rational discussion.

                Under a different name it still would have been reprehensible, and we would still be having this rational and ethical discussion.

                There is that word again, “hesitate”.

                Yes. Target shooting with pictures is supposed to lessen hesitation in shooting actual people, that’s the whole point of having targets with people’s pictures. Training specifically to shoot children and pregnant women is undesirable, as we should want our officers to hesitate a bit more when encountering them. I have no desire for officers to treat them with the same level of wariness as other potential assailants, as I do value their safety more when encountering an officer.

                1. If a citizen group were to acquire pictures of police officers holding guns, and use those pictures as range targets, what would the reaction by the police in particular and the government as a whole be?

                  Yup, domestic terrorist training camp.

                  And yet, police can be legally wrong just like anyone else. Police are within a percentage point or two of the general population for arrests for almost every crime on the books, except for sexual assault where they have over three times the arrest rate of the general public.

                  A police officer in uniform committing crimes is no different, legally speaking, than a non-police officer committing those same crimes. Just because the guy knocking over liquor stores has a badge does not magically make him immune to consequences.

                  Courts have ruled that it is a lawful act of self-defense to protect yourself from excessive force, even if the excessive force is perpetrated by police. There are circumstances where you could lawfully, legitimately shoot at uniformed police officers and it would not be a crime of any kind.

        3. They were using pictures of PEOPLE POINTING GUNS AT THEM as practice in self defense.

          FIFY

          1. They were using pictures of PEOPLE POINTING GUNS AT THEM as practice in self defense GETTING COMFORTABLE WITH KILLING PEOPLE THAT AREN’T THE USUAL TARGETS.

            FTFY

            1. And the company explicitly stated that they weren’t the usual targets and oh by the way that’s the entire fucking point of using the targets.

              1. Ugh. I guess there’s no way to get you to understand the point people are trying to make. It’s like watching someone trying to fit an octagonal peg in a round hole.

          2. Speaking of, what ever happened to FIFY? Did he leave or remoniker?

            1. I’ve wondered that as well. I haven’t seen him in forever.

          3. So you’d be okay with non-police using pictures of uniformed police officers holding guns as range targets?

            There are situations where you could lawfully shoot a police officer, so why not train so that you don’t hesitate when one occurs?

            1. Fine by me.

      2. It was weird to see so many people on this site clutching so desperately at their pearls, before hitting the fainting couch.

        Yeah, well, emoting is a common human failing even for libertarians I guess.

        1. You might want to try those emotions sometime. They can be real handy when properly applied.

          1. The context of the targets is that the target is pointing a gun at you. I don’t care if grandma’s 95, if she is pointing a gun at me, she is threat to my life.

            1. context

              You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

              1. Uh, I think it does.

                The pregnant lady WAS POINTING A GUN AT YOU.

                The child WAS POINTING A GUN AT YOU.

                The proper context is “self defense” not ZOMG pregnant ladies!

                Seriously, you guys are on HuffPo levels of emotion here.

                1. Seriously, you guys are on HuffPo levels of emotion here.

                  It’s unfortunate that your thought patterns don’t emulate regular human’s. You might, for even one second, be able to grasp the fact that the targets were designed to make cops comfortable with shooting someone that isn’t a male. If they mix these pictures into a training program with similar pictures of the woman/kid holding something that isn’t a gun then I suspect people wouldn’t necessarily have as much of a problem.

                  1. You might, for even one second, be able to grasp the fact that the targets were designed to make cops comfortable with shooting someone that isn’t a male.

                    Oh noes! Anything but that!

                    It is actually making the police comfortable with self defense no matter how cuddly or socially sympathetic the target is when the target is pointing. a. gun. at. you. Repeat the bolded statement as necessary.

                    1. Repeat the bolded statement as necessary.

                      Your failure to grasp a concept doesn’t mean I’m dumb.

                    2. What concept would that be? That children and pregnant women who are pointing guns are magically less dangerous because EMOTION?

                      That concept?

                2. Here, let me spell it out for you, big guy:

                  The context is cops have repeatedly demonstrated to be trigger happy morons, as it is and have very poor decision making skills in regards to what constitutes a real threat to their safety. Since 9-11, police departments have been scraping the bottom of the barrel and hiring pitiful goons as cops. Police unions have repeatedly shown that they expect a double standard for cops in regards to their on-the-job behavior.

                  A company is marketing, to the police, a product using proxies of the more vulnerable members of society and the least likely to be armed, in order to urge police to show even less restraint in shooting situations. People with working limbic systems are appalled.

                  Rational people with a healthy respect for liberty would like the police to show a much greater restraint in all shooting situations.

                  Does that make it clearer for you?

                  1. Rational people with a healthy respect for liberty would like the police to show a much greater restraint in all shooting situations.

                    Ah, so the special pleading for children and pregnant women is just pandering to emotion in service to a larger agenda, is that it?

                    Are you against all target depictions then? Do you want every target that shows a real person to never be used again?

                    1. I’m glad you think a bullet will hurt a child the exact same amount it will a full-grown adult. I’m glad you think that all people are equally resilient, and no person will ever suffer worse from a bullet wound than another.

                    2. I’m sorry if the word “children” makes your brain shut down, Randian. The rest of us actually think about the consequences of training cops to deal with frailer children as if they are the same as larger adults.

              2. Actually, he’s using the word exactly as it’s supposed to be used.

                “2. the conditions and circumstances that are relevant to an event, fact, etc.”

          2. Yeah, you probably don’t qualify as a good human being if you lack them.

        2. Cops are trigger happy enough as it is. We need more hesitation, not less.

          1. Police have body armor for a reason.

            That armor allows them to take their time more in a firefight, and make sure they are hitting the right targets, not the wrong ones.

            Hesitation is good. Hesitation lets them realize that the chihuahua is 20 feet away on a 5 foot chain. Hesitation lets them notice the orange tip on the gun the 6 year old is holding. Hesitation lets them notice the power, open tray and number buttons on the “gun” the pregnant woman is holding.

            Their job is to protect people, not murder children in a hail of bullets.

  5. We apologize that the general public became aware of our products. And we apologize that the hyper-sensitive public got its knickers in a twist. So we will pull the products from the market until things quiet down, and then we’ll be more careful when we bring them back to the market place.

  6. (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)

    Holy Shit. That’s fucking chilling.

    1. Home of the Brave, alright! Willing to kill their own kids for national security!

      1. Willing to kill their own kids for national security officer safety!

        ftfy

      2. Willing to kill their own kids for national security!

        WHAAAAT?

        No, he was willing to put holes in a picture of his kids. That statement was MSNBC level stupid.

        1. he was willing to put holes in a picture of his kids

          That way when he sees children (like his kids), he’ll shoot without thinking of what it will do! Brilliant! We can’t have people hesitating in gunning down people less than half the mass of a grown person, after all.

          He’s succeeded in convincing me he shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun, or children.

          1. I am not commenting on the state of mind of an individual who would shoot at pics of his own kids.

            I’m commenting on the hypocrisy of some of the commenters here. Pulling heart strings to make a point. How often do we call others out on that shit. “Save teh chilrenz.”

            And then to exaggerate it to “Willing to kill their own kids…” is bullshit.

            A child is no more valuable than an adult.

            1. The reason we all mock the “save the children” talk is because just invoking the word “children” doesn’t make someone right, it has nothing to do with not caring more about children being hurt. Thanks for addressing hypocrisy that doesn’t exist.

              1. Just invoking the word children doesn’t make you right in this situation either.

    2. That’s where I hit the brakes, too.

      That just ain’t right.

  7. This just has to be a hoax.

    1. I highly doubt these were “discontinued”. More like they were FAKE and never existed. The pregnant woman one is obviously photoshopped to put a man’s hand with a gun there – not real. These don’t even look like any of the other targets sold at Law Enforcement Targets Inc. I call BS on this stupid story. Who is spreading these lies? I’m guessing it is someone who wants to goad patriotic conservatives into hating the government so that they act out. Nobody does research any more. People just read this story and assumed it was true. I searched at the company’s site right after this came out and no such targets existed EVER. People need to use their heads and not be so gullible

      Oh and I believe I traced the source of this so-called story to Sorcha Faal – the notorious CIA disinformation source.

      1. They’re fake? Funny, the company doesn’t seem to think so, what with putting an apology on the front page of their website (and as mentioned in the post, on their Facebook page). A quick google search (or actually following the link in the article to the FB page) could’ve told you that, but no, you knew better.

        http://www.letargets.com/

        1. Methinks you may need to recalibrate your sarcas-o-meter.

          1. I sure am glad we have another mind reader on site.

      2. If you’re of the opinion that these targets never existed, then you will need to go to Action Target and Law Enforcement Targets Facebook pages and read their apologies for the production of these very real targets.
        Because of the very real opposition to these targets production of the “No More Hesitation” series of targets was discontinued (according to Action Target and LET). Let me assure you, sir, that opposition in the form of several thousand posts from LEO’s, 2nd Amendments rights groups, current and former military, as well as civilian shooters AND non-shooters, alike, was overwhelming.
        You, sir, are the one commenting without having done any research.

  8. What sad is that people got upset about this, yet stifle yawns when people actually get shot by cops.

    1. They got upset at this because it targets THEM, they’re perfectly cool with the cops shooting poor minorities and gun nuts ’cause they had it coming.

      1. ^This times 1000

  9. I wonder whether the next version will include Dorner-inspired fellow-cop targets.

    1. That would be so awesome to see… Imagine the shitstorm if someone tried to sell cop targets. Maybe include a thing on there saying “in case of rogue cop trainees”

      1. The police unions and the government would be calling the person selling the targets a domestic terrorist.

    2. Nah just blue pick-up trucks.

  10. Good. Now, let’s move on to the bigger picture of training cops to be more empathetic, professional, and constitutionally-aware. One problem, the fucking Fraternal Order of Police which breeds and protects thugs. How dare the American citizen question authority!

    1. That’s exactly why this in particular is a non-issue.

      1. A minor issue. Not a non-issue.

  11. 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

    As it fucking should be. Exactly, and I want hard fucking numbers here, exactly how many 9 year old kids shot at cops last year.

    1. It’s called being a fucking human being.

      It’s called being a good person.

      Of COURSE you hesitate when you see what looks like a kid with a gun. If you don’t, then you are psychologically unfit to protect and serve.

      1. But not unfit to be a cop.

  12. Too bad the partner of Sgt. Ralph Miller didn’t have a practice target of a mostly closed door with a cop jammed in it to practice his shooting blind into a house with a woman and child inside.

    1. At least he didn’t hesitate.

    2. Do they make ass target paper?

      1. They tried to make a life-sized one out of your mom’s ass, but the entire world ran out of paper.

        1. Hey, if your mom would stop eating it, there’d be some paper left for the rest of us.

          1. His Mama’s so fat, even Chuck Norris can’t kick her ass.

  13. They don’t make targets with pictures of border terriers on them? I guess they get enough practice in real life.

  14. On the topic of hesitation:

    I was watching Death Wish II last night. In one of the later scenes, one of the antagonists, Charles Wilson, ran out of his apartment while high on PCP. He proceeded to slash or stab three or four of LA’s finest before they dog-piled him.

    Contrast that with the LAPD of today where the operating procedure is “Occifer Safety” and “burn the motherfucker” (Dorner Protocol).

  15. May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?

    I’m thinking, y’know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some shit, Zed. She’s about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I’d say she’s up to something.

    1. That was definitely one of the funniest parts in MIB.

    2. Yeah, but arguably J failed that test. He came closer to passing than any other candidate, but there’s a key fact that most people watching that scene missed.

      The candidates were not told they MUST shoot something or that there was a threat in the room. They were dropped into a shooting range with loud noises, strobes and odd/scary images. Given the lack of threat overall, the A+ grade would be to holster the weapon.

  16. I understand that there can be legitimate self defense against a pregnant woman or a child.

    However, looking at the Dorner manhunt, I don’t think hesitation is a real problem for LEO’s. Anybody have stats to the contrary?

    I would also argue that an agent of the state hesitating before he takes life is a good thing, even at his own peril.

    LEO’s are not drafted, they are volunteers. If they want safety, they can get a paper route (outside of the greater LA.

    IMO, the Officer safety is a non-factor compered to the safety and liberty of the citizenry.

    1. However, looking at the Dorner manhunt, I don’t think hesitation is a real problem for LEO’s. Anybody have stats to the contrary?

      It’s rare, but it does happen.

      There was what I called a case of hesitation a few years back on a freeway in Bellevue, Wa, where a drugged out unarmed guy charged a cop, so the cop attempted the non-lethal taser. Guy ripped out the taser, side tackled the cop, drew the cops weapon and shot him dead.

      Tragedy. And unfortunately it makes cops jumpy and less hisitant overall.

      1. setting aside the fact that the dorner manhunt is not the defining manhunt as for how cops behave – look at for example the exemplary work during the clemon’s manhunt (the guy who killed 4 lakewood cops). very organized, and the cop who ended up taking clemons out is only alive because he was hyper-alert and used good officer safety.

        again, setting that aside (the dornerdefineshowleosact principle), cops should be hesitant with pregnant women and little kids.

        frankly, i try to keep up to date on police shootings (calibre press etc.) so i get to see scores of the “good shoots” as well as the questionable ones, and i’m not seeing an epidemic of cops being shot by pregnant women/children OR cops shooting same.

        and i know that personally, i’d be more hesitant to shoot a kid – even if that puts me in greater danger. we’ve had TONS of incidents with kids with airsoft guns and those things look totally real.

        the reality is a kid with an airsoft is going to get a lot more benefit of the doubt/hesitation from a responding cop than an adult with one. understand that LOOKING at the gun, in case you are literally inches away – you can’t tell the difference.

        1. we had a call the other day where a guy called in a gun in a drainage ditch on the side of the road. it was an airsoft. but they look real as hell.

          as an instructor, i’ve seen a LOT of improvements in the science/art of officer safety over the years, but the reality is imo if there wasnt that “hesitation instinct” so to speak, we’d be seeing far more kids shot in airsoft situations.

          it’s a good thing they are not.

          personally, if it puts cops slightly more at danger, but saves kids lives, i’m for it. there are certain dangers that one needs to accept.

          if i’m felony stopping an armed robber, and he reaches for his waistband – unless i am behind cover, he’s getting shot. i don’t need to, nor should i wait to see what he’s reaching for.

          but in the case of a kid holding what looks like a real gun, sorry, but i’m hesitating.

          1. This.

            Police have body armor, access to superior weapons and numbers. They can afford to hesitate a bit if it is necessary to doing the job properly.

  17. How would aiming at a target that is a portrait of the shooter himself affect his hesitation-index?

  18. One day during live-fire training, we performed shooting drills with targets depicting men and women holding cameras or guns, some wearing badges.

    I shot them all without hesitation.

    1. Thus proving that you are psychologically unfit to be a police officer or soldier.

  19. “Taken offline” does not mean “discontinued”. It just means that the targets will be catalog only.

  20. I highly doubt these were “discontinued”. More like they were FAKE and never existed. The pregnant woman one is obviously photoshopped to put a man’s hand with a gun there – not real. These don’t even look like any of the other targets sold at Law Enforcement Targets Inc. I call BS on this stupid story. Who is spreading these lies? I’m guessing it is someone who wants to goad patriotic conservatives into hating the government so that they act out. Nobody does research any more. People just read this story and assumed it was true. I searched at the company’s site right after this came out and no such targets existed EVER. People need to use their heads and not be so gullible

    1. You are a dumbass.

    2. They’re fake? Funny, the company doesn’t seem to think so, what with putting an apology on the front page of their website (and as mentioned in the post, on their Facebook page). A quick google search (or actually following the link in the article to the FB page) could’ve told you that, but no, you knew better.

      http://www.letargets.com/

  21. A kid may be young enough to not know that they are pointing a real gun at you. Killing the kid would be a way to ensure self defense, but it would not be the right thing to do.

    A kid may have gotten pissed off by some asshole enough to want to point a real gun at someone. Killing the kid would be a way to ensure self defense, but it is not automatically the right thing to do.

    Cops choose to put themselves in these situations, so reflexively shooting ’cause “officer safety” is fucking cowardly.

    1. And then there’s the kids playing cops & robbers using airsoft guns.

      There’s the fact that The People can lawfully be armed with guns.

      Gunning down anyone possessing a weapon is no more justifiable than it is to gun down every cop you see just because it’s a man or woman with a gun.

      1. No, but it is justifiable to shoot someone in self defense. Gunning someone down who possesses a gun is not justifiable, but shooting someone who has his gun drawn at you is.

  22. things that i don’t like finding on the guy i just arrested for burglary (nice job by k9 in finding him and laying the bite down )…

    a claymore clacker (that’s what my sgt. said it was. i wasn’t in the military)

    mobile meth lab in his backpack

    hatchet stuffed in the front of his pants

    several devices with explosives markings, switches and two with fuses.

    syringes.

    of course NONE of this stuff was his. clearly, it was planted on him. the dog did it

    1. hatchet stuffed in the front of his pants

      If only it had been stuffed down the back of the pants, as is usual for hatchets.

      1. juggalos gonna be juggalos

        word

        1. Don’t pick on the juggalos, that’s too easy of a target. It’s not their fault they don’t understand magnets. I know you’re just picking on them because they’re on the FBI’s gang list.

          1. i’ve said before that i don’t agree with the FBI’s classification of juggalo as a criminal gang (like crips, bloods and bgd’s are)

            they are too pathetic, disorganized and their primary focus is not on crime. there are plenty of law abiding juggalos.

            but this guy was just a real winner. and if the police say they are sending the dog and you don’t voluntarily surrender, you got nobody but yourself to blame when it does the habeas bitus on your corpus.

            no cometh the paperwork… sigh.

            (note – WITH CAPITAL LETTERS TOO!)

  23. I don’t see where they state that they’ve discontinued the nmh targets. “These products have been taken offline…” I would be willing to bet that law enforcement agencies can still buy the targets “offline”.

  24. Please visit the Boycott Law Enforcement Targets Facebook page to voice your opposition to the “No More Hesitation” series of targets as marketed by Law Enforcement Targets of Blaine, Minnesota, and Action Target of Provo, Utah. Thank you for your support. And thank you, Mike Riggs, for bringing these targets to the attention of We The People.

    http://www.facebook.com/LawEnforcementTargets?fref=ts

  25. Mike,
    Action Target of Provo, Utah, owner of Law Enforcement Targets of Blaine, Minnesota, refutes the release that you published concerning their product description of the “No More Hesitation” series of targets as produced by Law Enforcement Targets. Action Target maintains that your quoted text was not an official release and did not originate from the marketing dept. of either Action Target or LET.
    Kindly validate the authenticity, origin, date of receipt, and if possible the name and title of the employee who sent the release to Reason. I am including Action’s response to me from their Facebook page which refutes your (LET’s) original product description as posted Friday 8 Mar. 2013. Thank you.

    Action Target (official) Don, as I said in another post, what you are quoting was not an official release from either LET or Action Target. I know it was touted as such on several “news” websites, but it did not come from the marketing department. The targets were designed to put law enforcement trainees in difficult situations where they could prepare for how to react correctly if they ever encountered an innocent civilian holding a gun rather than reacting in a split second based on fear. Whether that reaction is verbal commands, immediate retreat, or use of deadly force depends on law enforcement protocol and who is conducting the training. The purpose is absolutely not the targeting of innocent civilians.
    Friday at 11:27am ? Like

  26. Are they making Law Enforcement targets as well? I bet the Feds would come unglued if they ever saw that. Life’s little double standards.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.