Get a Load of These Police Targets....Scary Stuff.

reply to post by guymontag

Frankly, I don't see any agencies even buying these for training. My problem isn't there, as it won't happen. My problem is this current discussion and my shocking realization that people came in here to justify it.

Why is it wrong to justify training targets?

I have a question for you...

What decision would you make when someone is pointing a gun at you and you have to make a split second decision as to shoot or not to shoot?

Now remember this is a life threatening situation where you have the chance to go home as you always do, or you can be taken away by the coroner...

Take your time, bit remember that person is pointing a gun at you with the intention on hurting if not killing you, so what would you decide?

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by guymontag

 

Frankly, I don't see any agencies even buying these for training. My problem isn't there, as it won't happen. My problem is this current discussion and my shocking realization that people came in here to justify it.

Why is it wrong to justify training targets?

I have a question for you...

What decision would you make when someone is pointing a gun at you and you have to make a split second decision as to shoot or not to shoot?

Now remember this is a life threatening situation where you have the chance to go home as you always do, or you can be taken away by the coroner...

Take your time, bit remember that person is pointing a gun at you with the intention on hurting if not killing you, so what would you decide?

Are you sure that's a gun? 100% sure? Are you (not you) wearing your glasses, how's the lighting? What distance are you?

Because you know, that person may want to go home to their family and not end up in the morgue because of rash judgements that no amount training can fix.

It goes both ways. Except the cop believes he's always right, no matter what.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


None of that has anything to do with this horrid choice of training targets. If I was ever in a situation where I had someone pointing a gun at me, and I was also armed, I would (probably) shoot them. I don't really consider my life to be much more valuable than anyone else's. I'm not going to just gun down a child or a pregnant woman, or a woman holding a baby, I will hesitate because I'm a human being. The situation dictates.. am I responsible for other lives?

All that is beside the point. You know what I won't be doing? Shooting cardboard cutouts of pregnant women and children. Shooting a paper target depicting little Timmy holding his poppa's handgun is never going to prepare you for the hypothetical real-life situation. If it does, then that person should be on medication, not walking the beat.

Repeating what I've said before, it is just flat-out inappropriate. Completely unnecessary.

reply to post by Jason88

It goes both ways. Except the cop believes he's always right, no matter what.

So what your saying is all cops feel this way?

Interesting...

Originally posted by Jason88
Mix combat veterans with the existing lower IQs in police officers and what do you have?

Please clarify that last part? I mean I can't believe you are ignorant enough to paint a whole profession as having lower IQs so I want to just make sure I understand what you are trying to get across.

reply to post by butcherguy

How about when you are faced with the same sort of law enforcement that shoots (with a sniper rifle) an unarmed woman, holding a baby in her arms through the neck , and your teenaged son in the back as he runs away from them? (RUBY RIDGE)

I don't condone what happened there , but if you don't shoot at law enforcement you have a better chance of not having them shoot back.

What if you are faced with a crew of law enforcement officers that arrive in a cattle truck and end up indiscriminately firing thousands of rounds of small arms ammo through a building that has numerous children inside that they are fully aware of?? (WACO)

And they didn't shoot back, or according to some accounts they shot first?

Davidian survivors have written that Koresh ordered selected male followers to begin arming and taking up defensive positions, while the women and children were told to take cover in their rooms

Koresh told them he would try to speak to the agents, and what happened next would depend on the agents' intentions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again I don't condone what was done, but you only arm up and take defensive positions if you are planning on fighting back which means shooting at law enforcement.

It also seems he had his mind already made up as to which direction that incident went, but he is was the only person who knew what was going to happen from the beginning.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


As sweeping generalization go, this one is on target.

Why else practice on highly a-symmetrical targets if when you're wrong, it's okay because it was part of training - so training must be right.

Same logic applies to car chases - cops chase a car in busy area, the driver and others end up dead in a wreck because of the chase. The cops escalated the situation.

Now apply that to the real life examples extrapolated from these "everyday" targets, cops see a gun - they shoot to kill (center body mass and all), except as usual there's a problem. The perp didn't have a gun, it wasn't real, or was a misidentification. Again, the situation escalated because of the police.

True, there are plenty of cases where the situation calls for a response to end violence where the police are justified, but practicing on "soft" targets because anyone can be bad is just morally reprehensible (and cowardly).

reply to post by opethPA


No, I am not painting a whole profession as all having lower IQs. And I'm not anti-cop, whatsoever. I'm just highlighting trends.

In the 1990s Mayor Giuliani (NYC) enacted his "Broken Window" policy - in short, if a neighborhood was neglected enough to have broken windows then crime was likely rampant so therefore police were needed in that area and it was added to their patrol rooster. Problem was, there weren't enough cops in NYC to fully enforce the Broken Window policy. So, Giuliani lowered the guidelines to become a NY police officer and folks with low IQs and even criminal convictions became NYC police (8,000 of them).

Police forces throughout the US followed, in one form or another, Giuliani's model and lowered standards to hire more cops, hence they ended up a dumber force.

Now it was shown (and I'll dig it up if need be), that some police forces discriminate against those with higher IQs for unknown reasons - speculation leads one to believe the dumber the cop, the more easily he follows orders.

So that's where we are today. As for the military, already trained to take orders.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
I think something should be brought up as I have yet seen anyone speak on this...

In the targets with the people pointing guns at you... Do you see the key word here pointing a gun at you...

I am to believe law enforcement is trained not to shoot unless you feel yours or other citizens (ones not pointing a gun at you)lives are in danger. Like I said I am to believe and I could be wrong, but if one points a gun at them there is a split second decision to be made.

Now if you have someone standing there not pointing a gun at you there is a better chance to talk the situation down rather than have it escalate. There is nothing one can say that justifies someone pointing a gun at law enforcement, in fact law enforcement is trained to identify themselves and it is up to the one pointing the gun at law enforcement as to whether there is an escalation.

Like I said before I could be wrong, but highly unlikely...

Would it not make sense if they were using these in training to have the actors/actresses look angry while pointing a gun, as if they mean to shoot. None of them look upset in the least, in fact all I get by looking at any of them is people pointing a gun not in aggression but in an attempt to protect themselves from another agressor.

Originally posted by ContractedMercenary

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by Creep Thumper

 

It's a simple request...

Tell us how using these targets make you better at what you do.

You can't. Possibly because these type of people...old man defending home....young boy on playground....old lady defending home... are the type of people you are preparing for.

But, I digress.

Enlighten us, please.

You sure as hell made alot of assumptions in this little rant right here. Let me go ahead and do what you did!!!!

How do you know that's not some old perverted pedophile jerkin off on little boys in a Virginian cabin somewhere, shooting his shotgun off because troopers are on the microphone calling for his surrender...

Or again how do you know thats not some old lady with Alzheimer's who woke up one morning and just freaked grabbing her husbands shotgun and killing her grandson caretaker casue she had no idea who he was or why he was in her room, and is now scared for her life, and is shooting at cops or anyone who is approaching the house?...

See these are thoughts all you fool hearted conspirators forgot to take into consideration. Its ok to believe the truth is out there but you have to be rational and whole headed to achieve anything great!!

Grasping for straws mean anything to you?

You know, deep in your heart, that type of "training" is wrong. The type of scenarios you have presented are very, very rare...

Be sure you understand what you are training for, okay?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

And they didn't shoot back, or according to some accounts they shot first

I don't know what the officials at the ATF might have said, but I have my doubts that toddlers were shooting at anyone.
What do you think?

This is perfect for training
For when they come house to house
To keep us SAFE
After all they are there to protect an serve.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by guymontag

 

Frankly, I don't see any agencies even buying these for training. My problem isn't there, as it won't happen. My problem is this current discussion and my shocking realization that people came in here to justify it.

Why is it wrong to justify training targets?

I have a question for you...

What decision would you make when someone is pointing a gun at you and you have to make a split second decision as to shoot or not to shoot?

Now remember this is a life threatening situation where you have the chance to go home as you always do, or you can be taken away by the coroner...

Take your time, bit remember that person is pointing a gun at you with the intention on hurting if not killing you, so what would you decide?

Ok, so. This "go home or not" nonsense comes up time and time again. As a former LEO and a member of the military who has been in a war zone here or there I can tell you that we were trained to make decisions that dealt with protection. Not self perseverance.

What this means to you laymen out there is that your job is NOT to worry about coming home and that you better shoot them before they shoot you. Your job is to protect. Protect yourself, protect the assailant (the pregnant woman in the prior picture), protect the people around you, protect everyone.

How you do this is by making sound decisions. That is not deciding to shoot first. That is to analyze the situation and act accordingly, to follow the rules regarding the escalation of deadly force, and overall, to protect.

Perhaps that child doesn't know its a real gun.

Perhaps that woman is scared you are a burglar.

Perhaps you get shot. And that would be too bad. However, again, the job is to protect. When a person signs up for the military or LEO they know they are signing up to potentially get shot at, blown up, maimed or otherwise made dead. That is the deal. You are signing up to protect and if that means getting dead as part of your job to protect, you do that.

That is why we idolize the guy who jumps in front of the gun, sacrificing his life to save others. That is why we honor the guy who jumps on the grenade. They didn't say to themselves, "Oh crap, I better off that woman before she shoots me after getting done shooting that other guy." They don't see the grenade rolling on the floor and look quickly at their comrades and think, "Eff them! I am getting the hell outa here! Good luck effers!"

Only the cowardly think that their job is to first go home and to shoot everyone who gets in the way.

If you cannot hack it, if you don't have the stones for it, then you should NOT be in an LEO. If you are a *ussy then go get a job as a mall cop and point your flashlight at people and look imposing.

If you are there to protect and to serve you do what is necessary to ensure that NO ONE gets shot; by you or by anyone else. NO ONE.

What the hell is wrong with you people who think it is ok to shoot a pregnant woman or a child?

I mean really. What the hell is wrong with you?

My god!

reply to post by Mountainmeg


"That's just disturbing. The young mother looks more like a preteen. And who the heck would shoot a child, gun or not?"


waco, set parents and children on fire,

aurora shot children (dont believe lone gunman)

sandy hook (dont believe lone gun man)

numerous drug dealers

parents mothers and fathers

every single war to date before my country even was formed, (usa)

plenty of people will kill children, especially the people that just see other people as animals (which really, thats all we are) infact the list is mauch larger these are just "some" examples ^^ and thats just the shooting part, the list for other things you couldnt believe someone would do to a child, tripples.

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~

"That's just disturbing. The young mother looks more like a preteen. And who the heck would shoot a child, gun or not?"

Don't fool yourself for a second..

If a child had a gun to someone you love and you had a chance to shoot them you would.
Just like if a child was aiming at you and you had a chance to shoot them first.

Originally posted by Bakatono
What the hell is wrong with you people who think it is ok to shoot a pregnant woman or a child?
I mean really. What the hell is wrong with you?

edit on 20-2-2013 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)

I see..so a pregnant woman is holding a gun to her younger child's head and the law has no option but to end that situation.

A 14 year old has drawn its weapon and is shooting at people , dont think that can happy come live in Philly for awhile.

If either of those situations or anything similar was to happen and the only option left was lethal force I hope their would be someone there to take the shot.

Originally posted by opethPA

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~

"That's just disturbing. The young mother looks more like a preteen. And who the heck would shoot a child, gun or not?"

Don't fool yourself for a second..

If a child had a gun to someone you love and you had a chance to shoot them you would.
Just like if a child was aiming at you and you had a chance to shoot them first.

edit on 20-2-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

Says the guy who creates straw man arguments and who has never had a gun pointed at him.

reply to post by Creep Thumper


I'm sorry, law enforcement is for the protection of the citizens. It is their job to risk their lives to protect the people. That is what they signed on for. It is what they are paid for. That is their very reason of being. And part of that price is that some will lay down their lives. When the threat to citizens being harmed by their brand of protection starts to rival that from criminals, then what is their purpose for being? If they're no longer protecting and serving the people, who are they protecting, and who are they really serving?

If they don't like it, get a different job. Nobody was drafted. There are jobs where peoples rights and collateral damage aren't major obstacles. Its called the military. or is it just not any fun when the majority of the opponents are trained and shoot back on a regular basis? perhaps drone jockey would be to their liking? In fact, if the shoot/don't shoot decision is too difficult, or their lives too precious, why not just get out of it all together? go do something like accounting? or plumbing? garbage person? There are lots of jobs without any violence at all.

If reports in the news are any guide, LE in general doesn't need any encouragement on pulling the trigger. The fact that LE is officially using these targets is disgusting, and is part of the glaring warning signs of where this is all headed. This is not training. This is desensitization.

Originally posted by Bakatono
Says the guy who creates straw man arguments and who has never had a gun pointed at him.

How many of us here have had a gun pulled on them?
As a matter of fact the basic premise of this site is making hypothetical arguments because so many of these events we have no direct access to.

So please tell me on all knowing person..what would you do if a pregnant teen or a kid was holding a gun to your wife\husband\kids head and you had a chance to stop it?

reply to post by Signals


I wanted to post this yesterday, but the server was too slow yesterday and couldn't do it. It is crazy.. No hesitation targets...