DHS Supplier Provides Shooting Targets of American Gun Owner

[longhorn_92]

Folks, turn it down a notch.

Please keep Forum Rule #2 in mind (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10341" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;): "No personal attacks on other members." Longtooth had to post a reminder on page one of this thread, and by page three we're already back to personal attacks.

Talk about the issue, not the other Forum member.

This is the best forum out here... let's keep it civil.

[Dragonfighter]

Folks, the link is to Alex Jones' site; enough said.

These are photo-realistic targets that have been used in tactical training for decades. They are used, in part, because it helps to train students (COPS or citizens) that threats come in all shapes, sizes, colors and gender. One can no more say that all black men are a threat anymore than one can say "old men" and pregnant women are never a threat. In typical Alex Jones fashion, he puts a picture of a pregnant woman on his site purely to be inflammatory.

I'm getting tired of saying this, "the TexasCHLforum is not the National Inquirer." Stop now!

Chas.

When we did our shoot house at Bragg, our country was fresh out of Viet Nam. They had photos on plywood cutouts of children and women holding AK-47s and such. Many GIs were killed by hesitation when confronted by "innocents" in the war in Southeast Asia.

They were drilling into our heads, "See the weapon, not the person." And yet we still saw momentary hesitations and odd reactions when the shots were taken, this knowing it was a plywood target.

[VMI77]

Folks, the link is to Alex Jones' site; enough said.

These are photo-realistic targets that have been used in tactical training for decades. They are used, in part, because it helps to train students (COPS or citizens) that threats come in all shapes, sizes, colors and gender. One can no more say that all black men are a threat anymore than one can say "old men" and pregnant women are never a threat. In typical Alex Jones fashion, he puts a picture of a pregnant woman on his site purely to be inflammatory.

I'm getting tired of saying this, "the TexasCHLforum is not the National Inquirer." Stop now!

Chas.

When we did our shoot house at Bragg, our country was fresh out of Viet Nam. They had photos on plywood cutouts of children and women holding AK-47s and such. Many GIs were killed by hesitation when confronted by "innocents" in the war in Southeast Asia.

They were drilling into our heads, "See the weapon, not the person." And yet we still saw momentary hesitations and odd reactions when the shots were taken, this knowing it was a plywood target.

I would maintain that such targets are appropriate in a war, but point out that US LE isn't supposed to be "at war" with US citizens, and in some situations hesitation is therefore appropriate. I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun. And, for instance, I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside.

[E.Marquez]

I would maintain that such targets are appropriate in a war, but point out that US LE isn't supposed to be "at war" with US citizens, and in some situations hesitation is therefore appropriate. I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun. And, for instance, I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside.

I would suggest combining two different issues/ events with no common string to be disingenuous at best.

I think you will find most (all?) here will agree with your point " I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside" I know I do

I think you will find many (some?) using critical thinking will disagree in general with "I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun."
Fact is, little girls with guns, little boys with guns, seemingly normal collage students, pregnant mothers, dads with kids in the car have all been known to present a deadly threat to innocents and LEOS's alike.. And those threats are either dealt with quickly, or additional innocents are injured or killed. Don't like it... address and correct the issue, not the response.

This thread (or I should say the story liked to) was about creating Faux rage at a non event. A story created from nothing for the sake of sucking readers in..
It seems to have worked.

[VMI77]

I would maintain that such targets are appropriate in a war, but point out that US LE isn't supposed to be "at war" with US citizens, and in some situations hesitation is therefore appropriate. I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun. And, for instance, I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside.

I would suggest combining two different issues/ events with no common string to be disingenuous at best.

I think you will find most (all?) here will agree with your point " I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside" I know I do

I think you will find many (some?) using critical thinking will disagree in general with "I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun."
Fact is, little girls with guns, little boys with guns, seemingly normal collage students, pregnant mothers, dads with kids in the car have all been known to present a deadly threat to innocents and LEOS's alike.. And those threats are either dealt with quickly, or additional innocents are injured or killed. Don't like it... address and correct the issue, not the response.

This thread (or I should say the story liked to) was about creating Faux rage at a non event. A story created from nothing for the sake of sucking readers in..
It seems to have worked.

It's not disingenuous at all. The commonality is acting with or without hesitation. I provide it merely as an example of the police acting without hesitation, and there are many such reports out there. Now, I don't have any statistics on the issue, but it seems from what gets reported in the news that there are few if any cases of 10 year olds with guns shooting police officers. Maybe it's not being reported but I think a 10 year old shooting at a police officer, or a 10 year old with a gun being shot by a police officer, would likely be national news --for the anti-gun angle alone.

I guess we see the responsibilities of law enforcement differently. I still believe in the old model that goes "serve and PROTECT." Neither part of that mission can be accomplished without police officers accepting some risk of being killed. I can't protect my family if my first priority is my own life. Police officers can't protect the public if their first priority is going home at night no matter what. If I ever encounter a 10 year old with a gun I'm not going to shoot without hesitation. If the police are going to do that then I suggest we dispense with the old "serve and protect" slogan some departments still put on their cars, and call it like it is: any threat to an officer's safety will, without hesitation, be dealt with by the application of deadly force. So, if a 10 year old happens to have a gun for who knows what reason and LE shows up, he's going to be shot. That's not how I think law enforcement should be, and I don't think it is the way law enforcement was 40 years ago either. I think law enforcement hesitation at shooting young children is both necessary and appropriate if the mission of LE is to protect the public. If the mission is just to protect LE, then I concede the point.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Folks, the link is to Alex Jones' site; enough said.

These are photo-realistic targets that have been used in tactical training for decades. They are used, in part, because it helps to train students (COPS or citizens) that threats come in all shapes, sizes, colors and gender. One can no more say that all black men are a threat anymore than one can say "old men" and pregnant women are never a threat. In typical Alex Jones fashion, he puts a picture of a pregnant woman on his site purely to be inflammatory.

I'm getting tired of saying this, "the TexasCHLforum is not the National Inquirer." Stop now!

Chas.

When we did our shoot house at Bragg, our country was fresh out of Viet Nam. They had photos on plywood cutouts of children and women holding AK-47s and such. Many GIs were killed by hesitation when confronted by "innocents" in the war in Southeast Asia.

They were drilling into our heads, "See the weapon, not the person." And yet we still saw momentary hesitations and odd reactions when the shots were taken, this knowing it was a plywood target.

I would maintain that such targets are appropriate in a war, but point out that US LE isn't supposed to be "at war" with US citizens, and in some situations hesitation is therefore appropriate. I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun. And, for instance, I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside.

If a burglar breaks into your home and his accomplice, a pregnant woman, pointed a pistol at you, are you going to shoot her? Would your answer be different if your wife, children, or grandchildren were standing beside you?

Perhaps you are confusing "hesitation" and "evaluation." No one is saying, nor have I ever received training, that I/we/anyone should shoot a person simply because they have a firearm in their hands. (This is what the inflammatory article by Alex Jones clearly implies and it is intentional.) By "hesitation" we mean that one hesitates before using justifiable deadly force in self-defense solely because of the age or gender of the armed threat. In other words, there is a clear threat and the shooting would be justified morally and legally, but we don't shoot when we should simply because it's abhorrent to shoot women, kids, grandmothers, etc.

Chas.

[VMI77]

Folks, the link is to Alex Jones' site; enough said.

These are photo-realistic targets that have been used in tactical training for decades. They are used, in part, because it helps to train students (COPS or citizens) that threats come in all shapes, sizes, colors and gender. One can no more say that all black men are a threat anymore than one can say "old men" and pregnant women are never a threat. In typical Alex Jones fashion, he puts a picture of a pregnant woman on his site purely to be inflammatory.

I'm getting tired of saying this, "the TexasCHLforum is not the National Inquirer." Stop now!

Chas.

When we did our shoot house at Bragg, our country was fresh out of Viet Nam. They had photos on plywood cutouts of children and women holding AK-47s and such. Many GIs were killed by hesitation when confronted by "innocents" in the war in Southeast Asia.

They were drilling into our heads, "See the weapon, not the person." And yet we still saw momentary hesitations and odd reactions when the shots were taken, this knowing it was a plywood target.

I would maintain that such targets are appropriate in a war, but point out that US LE isn't supposed to be "at war" with US citizens, and in some situations hesitation is therefore appropriate. I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun. And, for instance, I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside.

If a burglar breaks into your home and his accomplice, a pregnant woman, pointed a pistol at you, are you going to shoot her? Would your answer be different if your wife, children, or grandchildren were standing beside you?

Perhaps you are confusing "hesitation" and "evaluation." No one is saying, nor have I ever received training, that I/we/anyone should shoot a person simply because they have a firearm in their hands. (This is what the inflammatory article by Alex Jones clearly implies and it is intentional.) By "hesitation" we mean that one hesitates before using justifiable deadly force in self-defense solely because of the age or gender of the armed threat. In other words, there is a clear threat and the shooting would be justified morally and legally, but we don't shoot when we should simply because it's abhorrent to shoot women, kids, grandmothers, etc.

Chas.

I think I see what you're getting at, so the disagreement appears to be over the semantics of "hesitation." My use of hesitation includes evaluation of the situation and context before deciding that the use of deadly force is justified --so what I'm referring to is the time from first confronting the threat to determining the threat justifies the use of deadly force to pulling the trigger. My interpretation of "no hesitation" therefore, was reacting merely to the fact that a child is holding a gun and shooting "without hesitation." So, no, I'm not referring to the period of time after an evaluation has been made. If "no hesitation" is understood in LE circles as you describe it then I withdraw my criticism.

And btw, I was basing my criticism solely on my own interpretation of the targets themselves and how they were described by the seller, not by anything Alex Jones said. I accept that there is standard LE terminology that I am not familiar with, and that what appears to mean one thing to the uniformed, may mean something entirely different to the relevant professionals.

[E.Marquez]

I think I see what you're getting at, so the disagreement appears to be over the semantics of "hesitation." My use of hesitation includes evaluation of the situation and context before deciding that the use of deadly force is justified --so what I'm referring to is the time from first confronting the threat to determining the threat justifies the use of deadly force to pulling the trigger. My interpretation of "no hesitations" therefore, was reacting merely to the fact that a child is holing a gun and shooting "without hesitation." So, no, I'm not referring to the period of time after an evaluation has been made. If "no hesitation" is understood in LE circles as you describe it then I withdraw my criticism.

Sir I do believe we are on the same page

I do not believe anyone here is advocating LEOS not identify the threat, evaluate the need to engage with deadly force prior to squeezing the trigger. Simply that, once that threat has been identified, do not hesitate to engage, simply because the person threatening is a _________ fill in the blank, child, woman, old man. A deadly threat is that, regardless of the actors demographic.

I realized we were basically saying the same thing after your last post, this one here just confirms it.

[VMI77]

I think I see what you're getting at, so the disagreement appears to be over the semantics of "hesitation." My use of hesitation includes evaluation of the situation and context before deciding that the use of deadly force is justified --so what I'm referring to is the time from first confronting the threat to determining the threat justifies the use of deadly force to pulling the trigger. My interpretation of "no hesitations" therefore, was reacting merely to the fact that a child is holing a gun and shooting "without hesitation." So, no, I'm not referring to the period of time after an evaluation has been made. If "no hesitation" is understood in LE circles as you describe it then I withdraw my criticism.

Sir I do believe we are on the same page

I do not believe anyone here is advocating LEOS not identify the threat, evaluate the need to engage with deadly force prior to squeezing the trigger. Simply that, once that threat has been identified, do not hesitate to engage, simply because the person threatening is a _________ fill in the blank, child, woman, old man. A deadly threat is that, regardless of the actors demographic.

I realized we were basically saying the same thing after your last post, this one here just confirms it.

The whole debate appears to be over my ignorance of terminology used by law enforcement professionals.

[LSUTiger]

It's happened to me too on the forum, heated debates, but it's always a beautiful thing when things go from "Can't we just all get along?" to "I love you man!"

I wish making up with my wife was this easy.

[baldeagle]

(This is what the inflammatory article by Alex Jones clearly implies and it is intentional.)

Chas.

Charles, while I agree with you, a part of me wonders what the reaction would be if all those lovely targets were wearing burkas, hijabs, taqiyahs or turbans. Somehow I think the left would be even more outraged than Alex Jones. And just as equally intentional.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just chill out?

[bizarrenormality]

Folks, the link is to Alex Jones' site; enough said.

These are photo-realistic targets that have been used in tactical training for decades. They are used, in part, because it helps to train students (COPS or citizens) that threats come in all shapes, sizes, colors and gender. One can no more say that all black men are a threat anymore than one can say "old men" and pregnant women are never a threat. In typical Alex Jones fashion, he puts a picture of a pregnant woman on his site purely to be inflammatory.

I'm getting tired of saying this, "the TexasCHLforum is not the National Inquirer." Stop now!

Chas.

When we did our shoot house at Bragg, our country was fresh out of Viet Nam. They had photos on plywood cutouts of children and women holding AK-47s and such. Many GIs were killed by hesitation when confronted by "innocents" in the war in Southeast Asia.

They were drilling into our heads, "See the weapon, not the person." And yet we still saw momentary hesitations and odd reactions when the shots were taken, this knowing it was a plywood target.

I would maintain that such targets are appropriate in a war, but point out that US LE isn't supposed to be "at war" with US citizens, and in some situations hesitation is therefore appropriate. I think that in the US at this time it is appropriate to hesitate a little in shooting a 10 year old with a gun. And, for instance, I think LE should hesitate unloading on a pickup truck when they don't know who is inside.

I fall into the camp that thinks there's a big difference between
1. soldiers in an urban or jungle combat zone seeing a 12 year old with a slung AK and opening fire
and
2. police in a rural area seeing a 12 year old with a slung 30-30 lever gun and opening fire
no matter how the government tries to spin it.

[E.Marquez]

I fall into the camp that thinks there's a big difference between
1. soldiers in an urban or jungle combat zone seeing a 12 year old with a slung AK and opening fire
and
2. police in a rural area seeing a 12 year old with a slung 30-30 lever gun and opening fire
no matter how the government tries to spin it.

No that you mentioned spinning...

Did you see one of those training targets with a "12 year old with a slung 30-30 lever gun" No? then why bring it in to the discussion?

Have you read the WHOLE thread? or just some posts before responding?

What part of using realistic targets depicting an actual threat (vs what you inserted into this discussion) for LEO's to use in shoot, no shoot or Target ID training do you take issue with?

[bizarrenormality]

Have you read the WHOLE thread? or just some posts before responding?

I was responding to the comments I quoted. I don't have time to reply to every post in the whole thread.

[mamabearCali]

Now that this is not just on Alex Jones' website, but is all over rather reputable news sites, I looked again and I figured out why all of those pictures are unacceptable to me. All of them appear to be in their domiciles in a position of defending themselves against an intruder. Look again. The pregnant woman is in a nursery, the boy and the girl on a playground, the man in a garage and a back yard, the woman in a bathrobe is in a kitchen. All of these people seem to be doing precisely what they are supposed to be doing dressed in a manner appropriate to their surroundings. They all look to be defending themselves against an aggressor. They are not in a bank, they are not shooting from a sniper position. They do not appear to be in a drug house (you have seen cops and so have I, that is not what most of those houses look like on the inside). If I saw these pictures in any other situation I would think these were pictures showing average people defending themselves against home invaders. And again I will point out that if they are supposed to be representing "real life' why is there only one "race" being pictured here. Surely Asains commit crimes, Black people commit crimes, etc etc.

So do we want our police officers training to invade and shoot children playing in the backyard? Do we want police officers invading a kitchen and surprising a woman cooking breakfast. This is yet again another outgrowth of no-knock warrants that these pictures are anywhere near plausible. I find the trip down the rabbit's hole very unnerving. Are there situations were a suspect will resemble those pictures, yes, but that is not the norm.