LEO Training Tool of the Day: “No More Hesitation” Targets

When it’s your job to protect and serve, you have to be prepared for just about anything. So when faced with a threat, the last thing you want as a police officer is to dither when looking down the barrel of a gun. Even when the person pointing that gun is a child. Or other “non-traditional” target as Law Enforcement Targets (“Targeting for a Safe America”) likes to call them. LET’s producing a series of photographic targets (click here for their customer service response) they call the “No More Hesitation” series, depicting subjects like pregnant women, old men and kids holding guns. Because if there’s one thing we need, it’s LEOs desensitized to shooting women and children. But wait, it gets better! As reason.com reports, our friends at the DoD and DHS are big clients of LET. I wonder how many No More Hesitation targets are included in that $5.4M “training aids” purchase?

122 Responses to LEO Training Tool of the Day: “No More Hesitation” Targets

  1. avatarBrooklyn in da house says:

    Since when do cops hesitate to shoot someone?

    • Not often, given the not-so-occasional fratricide when the boys in blue happen upon a plainclothes officer.

      We need to back away from all the tactical bells and whistles offered up by the DHS-grant fairy, and get back towards the peace officer of yesteryear. Local police departments would have a lot less need for expensive toys if the people they “serve and protect” trusted them to do so.

    • avatarelnonio says:

      You’re right, instead of targets depicting kids with guns, they should use real kids with guns

      Missing the point, as usual. It all depends on how they are being used. IF the scenario says shoot anything with a firearm, it’s one thing. IF the scenario says don’t shoot innocent civilians, then the target is meant to give the officer something to decide: is a kid with a firearm a threat?

      It may be no different than the USPSA (or whatever they are called) using red and blue targets. Just more graphic.

      Nah, it’s easier to think that it’s all about desensitizing us to the idea of killing kids.

  2. avatarBlake says:

    It’s almost like DoD and DHS are preparing for, umm, let’s call it “civil unrest.”

  3. avatarIn Memphis says:

    Will they be making any with mettalic blue Tacomas?

  4. avatarWilliam says:

    I can’t wait to see the inevitable positive spins on this here. These were a part and parcel of the nearly 2 BILLION dollar DHS ammo purchases… or more than 5 for each man, woman and child in America.

    Enough to fight the Iraq War, at it’s fiercest point, for *24* years.

    Oh… nearly forgot: THEY’RE HOLLOWPOINTS. Lemme know next time you take target practice with HOLLOWPOINTS.

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      The govt. trains with hollow points because our tax dollars are paying for it. You would train with hollow points too if they were the same price as FMJ wouldnt you?

      • avatarC. Walther says:

        Funny story…before Sandy Hook, I did just that because my online go-to sold LE packs of hollow-point ammo for cheaper than I could buy FMJ at the local store.

        Of course, that was all back in the day, when times were simpler and the firearms apocalypse hadn’t happened yet…

      • avatarmountocean says:

        When they’re purchacing at this scale I’d guess the administrative burden of having two seperate ammo choices would out weigh the additional cost of an extra-bulk hollowpoint order.

      • avatarCory says:

        Those bulk boxes of Remington UMC were JHPs. I have several of them in 40S&W and 9mm, and were often cheaper than 2x of the Federal FMJs that I would normally practice with. Of course, this was back when Walmart actually carried ammo and didn’t have a perpetually empty ammo shelf.

  5. avatarDale says:

    Set the “waybac” machine back about 25 years to just after a training exercise.

    LE Training Sergeant: Rookie, why did you shoot the kid?
    LE Rookie: Well, it looked like he had a gun, I wasn’t sure.
    LE Training Sergeant: Jaysus H Christmas, you “weren’t sure?” Rookie you damned well better BE sure even if it means taking a bullet first ’cause if you shoot a kid with a cap gun you’re never gonna be able to live with that!

    My how attitudes have changed.

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      Shoot first, have the department cover your a$$ later seems to be the mantra now days.

    • avatarJim Barrett says:

      Well, 25 years ago it was common for kids to run around with cap guns playing “cops and robbers” and uncommon for kids to be shooting each other with real guns. Today, you rarely see kids playing with toy guns (OMG a kid with a toy gun!) and it seems more likely to have a child on child shooting incident.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      “You had to do it, that small child awkwardly holding a 1911 against his chest would’ve killed you otherwise! Officer safety first! Enjoy your vacation.”

  6. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    This made me ill literally.
    The web site is getting hammered so I wasn’t able to view the targets, but given the outrage of the Travon Martin target, this should make everyone mad!

    • avatarSammy says:

      What would msnbc have to say about targets with LE or SWAT images on them?

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      The maker of the kid targets also needs to realize that taking on an old lady who looks like a familiar senator but who is armed with a real pistol may be a challenge for LEO’s who need to pull the trigger to save their own lives.

  7. It doesn’t take much to imagine a plethora of wasteful uses of money like this across the government, leading me to aggravated rage ove the idea that because I work for the DoD I may lose a day of week of work come april if the sequestration happens. This would result in a 20% pay cut.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/20/pentagon-notifies-congress-likely-civilian-furloughs-over-budget-cuts/

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Sorry, bud. I want government spending cut any which way I can get it and if you’re a casualty of that, so be it.

      Complain to the idiots who think social welfare programs are untouchable sacred cows and generally don’t like the DoD. I’d rather they cut there first but cuts need to be made across the board.

  8. avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

    WTF with this target? This “threat” has to be so statistically insignificant as to be non-existent. Yet somehow there is a need to train our betters police to prepare for this event? Surely training budgets would be better used by preparing for high(er) probability events.

  9. avataranonymous says:

    Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?

    James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.

    Zed: How’d you come to that conclusion?

    James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y’know, he’s just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin’ in the gym and bust me in my ass while I’m on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I’m realizing, y’know, he’s not snarling, he’s sneezing. Y’know, ain’t no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. 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. And to be honest, I’d appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.

    [pause]

    James Edwards: Or do I owe her an apology?

    [pause]

    James Edwards: That’s a good shot though…

  10. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    What parent would let their child’s photographic image be used in this way? Oh wait, we live in the world of Honey Boo Boo and Paris Hilton. Nevermind….

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      They probably got a nice little check. Maybe a shoppimg spree at Toys R Us for the kid

    • avatarStacy says:

      You didn’t catch the part where one of the quoted cops said he had made targets from pictures *of his own kids*?

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Does it matter if it was a cops kids though? What parent would do this at all? A cartoon rendering, maybe but this is a bit much

  11. avatarChuck J says:

    Imagine the field day a prosecutor or media outlet would have if, after a DGU, it was found out that a “civilian” had been training with these targets.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      “Holy perforated cardboard, Batman!”

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      Yeah, I’m thinking of making up targets with agents from the FBI, ATF, IRS, DHS, etc pointing guns. It seems to be getting much more likely that gun owners will be confronted by threats like that, these days. No hesitation, right?

      • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

        I thought of that, Henry. But there are laws against threatening public officials and government employees.

        PS – Your book is quaint in such a 1990′s kind of way.

      • avatarCliff says:

        Maybe we need photo-realistic targets of LEOS, SWAT, ATF, etc. in full assault gear and indicating where they are not protected by ballistic armor.

    • avatarAlex says:

      On the flipside, imagine the potential shitstorm that would ensue should a LEO who had been training with said target shoot an unarmed kid.

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        Like the mainstream media outrage over two Asian ladies delivering newspapers being shot by the LAPD? Yeah, don’t hold your breath.

  12. avatarPyratemime says:

    I understand the concept behind training aides like this, that a threat is a threat regardless of who they are. After all you are just as dead from a shot fired by a 10 year old girl as you are from a 25 year old man. (That is after all one of the reasons guns are good right? They equalize the fight between two physically different individuals.) That being said my personal concern with this comes from how these things may be used and I believe there is a distinct difference between what is appropriate training use by DoD and LEOs.

    DoD using these kinds of aides to ensure that soldiers in combat are mentally trained and prepared to identify an opposing combatant regardless of who they are and carry on the fight is, IMHO, a good thing. Especially as we amp up our involvement with AFRICOM and the heavy presence of child soldiers there.

    LEOs though have no combat mission where killing the enemy is the legitimate end state of the engagement. Training for an LEO confronted with a picture such as that above needs to focus on finding cover and working towards deescalation rather than immediate and hostile engagement.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Agree Pyra, my only response to a 10yo with a weapon is to run, not shoot. No logical intent to kill on the kid’s part. No possible way to justify shooting the kid, in my mind.

    • avatar16V says:

      Child soldiers, especially in the world of AFRICOM (which is the usual wonderfully convoluted cluster-uck everyone should read up on) carry rifles.

      Specifically those seen in the opening of Lord of War. Sure there’s the occasional G3, or RPG launcher, but generally one does not arm a child with a pistol. Rifles are much easier to control. Especially when AKs are ubiquitous.

      As our police are very seldom even wounded on the job (by grown-ups no less) – let alone killed, there is precisely no justification for this “training aid”.

      As to the military applications, last time I checked we weren’t fighting any jihadists in A-stan imported from the Cleveland grade school system.

  13. avatarJerry says:

    What, no BLACK people? Isn’t that racist? Oh, wait…. if there were black people targets that would be racist….. but if there aren’t, that is racist. I’m so confused. /s

    THIS would make a good target IMHO:

    http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-07-22/tn_1248234265999.jpg

  14. avatarbontai Joe says:

    That target represents a nightmare for most anyone. I hope and pray that I am never EVER confronted with that situation.

    • avatarC. Walther says:

      *point at something in a safe direction*

      “Hey kid, I bet you can’t hit that thing over there!”

      *grab gun while he’s distracted*

      Probably won’t work all of the time for various reasons, but it’s one of the better things I’ve read about how to deal with such a situation.

  15. avatarSteve says:

    Pornography for tyrants. Interesting.

    Maybe we need our own line of targets featuring armed politicians.

  16. It’s even worse than it looks. I managed to get a screen shot of the entire “No More Hesitation” line yesterday.

    http://jeremyknauff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/nmhfull.jpg

    This sickens me.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      They’re all normal law-biding looking folks with guns, you know, the types that don’t currently shoot cops. This is not coincidence. The government wants their agents to be able to shoot down any who resist their tyrannical rule without a second thought or remorse.

      The old man and the old woman are in houses, suggesting that their homes are being invaded by the shooter.

      • avatarRedleg says:

        Did anyone also notice that every single one of them is white? Look at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report to see who is committing the most violent crime. Then tell me that there isn’t something wrong with every single target depicted being white rather than a true and accurate representation based on the percentages of actual criminals in America who are committing violent crimes. They would be about a third white, black, and Hispanic if they were truly intended to be what the company says they are.

        I concur with others here that these are intended to desensitize the agents who might be confronted by those defending themselves or stand up for America during some sort of economic collapse, etc.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          The manufacture probably had a set of ‘young black and hispanic folks’ targets, only to find that their major customers weren’t interested, pointing out that they were already fairly comfortable shooting those people.

      • avatarPyratemime says:

        Not disagreeing with you but playing devils advocate. Let’s assume that officers are doing a legally warranted raid on a legitimately verified drug house. Is it so beyond the realm of reasonable possibility that the dealers in the house may A. be elderly, or B. pregnant?

        If it is within the realm of reasonable possibility and if we acknowledge that criminals are the primary source of violence with firearms then is it not also reasonable to accept that some subset of training needs to involve the threat posed by those individuals should they choose to use firearms against an LEO?

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          Ignoring the significant problem I have with the War on Drugs, which I feel has led to this kind of insanity, do any of the people depicted on the targets look like meth users or producers to you? Hell, the old man doesn’t even look like a moonshiner.

          Looks like Uncle Jim, while the obese woman reminds me of a local church receptionist.

          You might have a point if any of them were snaggle-toothed psychos with ****ed up faces wielding sawed-offs. They aren’t.

        • avatar16V says:

          Let’s assume that officers are doing a legally warranted raid on a legitimately verified drug house.

          Can we assume they rode unicorns too? Because both of those conditions being fulfilled in a standard drug-raid are pretty slim.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          Which is why they should not be doing “raids” at all. They should knock on the freaking door and wait to be let in. Unless there is an active shooter or a hostage they should not be kicking in any doors.

  17. avatarNobody says:

    So just how many duly sworn officers of the law have been killed by little kids, pregnant women, old men, and the like, exactly? In history. Because they hesitated. Zero? One?

    If these targets are such a huge help we’ve certainly been kept in the dark about all the shooting deaths said hesitation has incurred, haven’t we? Oh, wait…

    Or is Law Enforcement Targets’ business model propped up by a ‘friendly’ lock-out RFQ from DHS?

  18. avatarST says:

    Sorry to say, this kind of target is becoming necessary in these degenerate times. Many bad guys in the ghetto fully realize that people under 18 won’t be charged with adult time if they do adult time.

    If a 14 year old points a gun at me with intent to use it, I will respond in kind. In order to feel bad about your choices you have to be alive to do so.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      I get your point ST and I agree but this kid does not appear to be a 14 year old or gang banger

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Are you blind? A nine year old boy awkwardly holding a pistol out in the woods is in no way a gangbanger. Don’t be obtuse.

      • avatarPyratemime says:

        Because the illegal marajuana farms, meth labs, and moonshiners only happen in urban ghettos? Additionally, you won’t die just the same from a poorly aimed shot to the head as you will from a well aimed one?

        My point here is that there are legitimate training uses for these targets. In some cases (like the child) training needs to involve finding cover and trying to deescalate. For some of the others who are pointing the weapon with aggressive posture I say they have chosen a target (the trainee) and intend to pull the trigger to destroy that target.

        Really isn’t the furor over this the same emotional response we get after the antis for? When they say guns are evil we respond its not the guns its how they are used. Same idea here, the targets aren’t evil but they can be put to evil use if the training with them is inappropriate.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          There’s no emotional furor. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask why they’re training to shoot normal-looking people instead of the threats they occasionally face.

          What kind of environment are they expecting to be operating in? These look like targets an occupying army might use to train their soldier, so they wouldn’t hesitate shooting members of the resistance.

        • avatar16V says:

          If you ever do find a woodsy-owl pot grow/meth lab, (odds on you never will) you will encounter one of two scenarios:

          A: The guards have seen/heard you coming from miles away. They saw the chopper, heard the four-wheelers, and determined that it was time to go. They are long gone by the time you got there. They may have torched the camp so as not to leave any evidence.

          B: It’s you playing Ricky Ranger after stumbling on to what you shouldn’t. Solo against 3 or 4 guards. They know you’re alone, but may have called in, so they’ll likely split as long as you didn’t see them. If you did see them, well, it might end like Southern Comfort.

          C: In no case will you find a 6 year old white suburban kid with a .38 pointed at you. The few backwoods/swamp kids who just might do that, will have 3 rounds in you before you see him.

          There’s a reason people do things like growing pot and processing coca deep in the woods. They don’t want trouble. They almost always split long before the coppers/DEA arrive. Shootouts are the last thing anyone wants.

          The suggestion that anyone is bringing their 3rd grader out to see their grow op, or meth lab points out just how preposterous this brainwashing of ‘the drug war’ has become.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          The life of a citizen, even a criminal’s, is worth more than the life of a government employee’s.

      • avatarCliff says:

        The only training that these should be used for is to have the LEOs apologizing for barging into the wrong home and scaring the crap out of law-abiding citizens. It is obvious in each and every case that the cop is at the wrong address, regardless what the warrant says.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      Because retreating and getting the situation under control would undermine your “authority”. FOAD.

  19. avatarJsmith says:

    I’d rather get shot than pop a little, innocent kid with a gun.

  20. avatarDon says:

    What about a family pet with a gun?

  21. avatarDP.Science says:

    There’s something unbelievably tragic and ironic about their slogan, “Targeting for a Safer America.” Especially in the context of this target… and the fact that they’re a major supplier to police and DHS. I guess guns are good for peace and safety after all.

  22. avatarThomas Paine says:

    hey, they’re all white. That’s racist.

  23. avatarsindaan68 says:

    Saw this story on the blaze. All the targets were white people too.

  24. avatarGyufygy says:

    Yeah, there’s no way this could POSSIBLY go wrong. None at all.

    Sheeeeeit.

  25. avatarJohn Boch says:

    Waiting for the “no more hesitation” target with the cop pictured. Or a soldier.

    Just kidding.

    GSL Defense Training has ordered hundreds of dollars of targets from them in the last two or three years.

    No more.

    John

  26. avatarLance says:

    Should see Portland OR cops they shoot unarmed men anytime no hesitation to kill the public.

  27. avatarإبليس says:

    “We’ll I’ve found a new lust for life: art. So when the police community asked me to contribute I couldn’t resist.” – Lon Horiuchi on his signature line of LE targets.

  28. avatarjwm says:

    Scarey, sickening, repugnent, need I go on? I remember watching an episode of cops filmed in Russia when the reds were still in power. The rules of engagement for communist police were that they could not shoot a minor regardless of how the minor was armed or behaving.

    How well they followed thatr rule I do not know. But that was the commie cops with a rule like that in place. Apparently our rulers now do not have the same sense of morality that the commies had.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      I remember those episodes. They were undoubtedly corrupt but they seemed more well-behaved than a lot of America’s current crop of Knights In Blue Armor, probably because they didn’t get a lot of pay, perks, or lifelong pensions.

      I’m pretty sure a lot of that was filmed during the Gorbachev-era, too. They were probably way worse before that.

  29. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    All they need now is a picture of a little white girl playing with her pet Corgi. Better yet, make it painted like a Norman Rockwell job.

    The target will be scored as follows:

    1. Shoot the little girl first: -1. She didn’t pose a threat – yet. Bad cop, no donuts for you.

    2. Shoot the Corgi first: +1. The Corgi had teeth, and stubby little feet, so according to the Chief and the DA, that might have “posed a threat to officer safety.” OK, you can take a donut. But no jelly donuts… you haven’t shown yourself to be an individual with initiative and “superlative tactical decision making capabilities.”

    3. Shoot the Corgi first, and then shoot the little girl when she started to cry five seconds later. +2.

    The Corgi was shot first, as is obvious for officer safety, then the little girl was shot to insure that there were no conflicting accounts for the press to quote, thereby reducing the paperwork necessary for the Chief and the DA’s office. It is chalked up to “misidentification” because you thought the little girl was a gang-banger and the Corgi… well, if anyone asks, the light was dim and you thought it was a Rottie.

    Excellent tactical decision-making abilities were exhibited. You’re now in line for a promotion.

    Good cop, you get jelly donuts.

    • avatar16V says:

      4. You remembered why you carry a drop-gun. You place it in the little girl’s cold, dead hands and then grab the bottle of crocodile tears for when the press arrives.

      Chief can then explain that although this was tragic, the officer feared for his life and thank god they train for this possibility.

      Promotion to tactical, and donuts for a week.

  30. avatartruthbetold says:

    So let me get this straight. You guys are complaining about the unjustified shootings of “non-traditional” subjects AND the utter existence of a training aid used to improve threat identification…. this particular piece of paper, ostensibly intended to be used by officers, as well as anyone with a credit card (LE Targets does not limit sales to agencies) and the desire to incorporate more representative training into their regimen??? Good one!

    It’s a freaking piece of paper. And there are tens of thousands of police officers quietly serving their communities honorably. But I suppose we shouldn’t be giving them the tools to do their jobs more effectively? I mean, I’m sure you got us all covered.

    Nice work TTAG and community. If you want to alienate another slice of the firearms enthusiast community – namely police officers – let the BS DHS contract conspiracy theorists hold court in your forum.

    Well, anyway, my 2 hour, taxpayer-funded lunch break is over. Time to go “accidentally” kill some innocent people!

    • avatarRedleg says:

      @ truthbetold,

      “…Nice work TTAG and community. If you want to alienate another slice of the firearms enthusiast community – namely police officers…”

      The feeling is mutual. Cops do that fine all on their own these days. Just ask Staff Sgt. Nathan Haddad about cops alienating all the rest of us non-cops:

      http://offgridsurvival.com/decoratedcombatveteran-arrested-newyorkfelonies-armagazines/

      He’s facing a Class D felony and 35 years for owning a friggen metal box. Some douche of a cop turned a routine traffic stop in to a fishing expedition and now a decorated combat vet who was a pillar of the community is looking at the inside of a concrete cell for the rest of his adult life. All the cop had to do was issue the citation and move on but instead he had to make something more out of it and enforce an unconstitutional law rather than keep his oath and use some discretion. Unfortunately far too many people like SSG Haddad still think cops are our friends and are there to “protect and serve” rather than the truth of the matter that they are only there to ENFORCE the kings edicts. SSG Haddad got a very rude wake up call as to the reality of the situation…so cry me a river truthbetold.

      This is what ever more veterans and military are starting to think about cops as this former Special Forces sergeant so bluntly express here:

      https://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-suggestion-to-oathkeepers/

      If you’re not out enforcing unconstitutional BS, great, you’re one of the good guys but if you are then perhaps you should look in the mirror and reassess things?

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Let us remember that David Gregory got off scot-free for the same thing: possession of an illegal magazine. The DC cops waffled, delayed, mumbled BS out both sides of their mouths about the case, and then declined to enforce the law.

        So now we know how the cops will roll. If you’re connected, you get off. If you’re one of the proles, bend over.

        BTW, for those who are not familiar with where SSG Haddad was arrested, it’s way up north in NY state – surrounding Watertown, right on the St. Lawrence River. A mostly rural county, supposedly not inclined to support the SAFE act, etc.

        • avatarRedleg says:

          After spending three years at Fort Drum with the 10th I can tell you that cops there are no different than anywhere else.

          Even the so called “Oath Keepers” who say they will not confiscate guns will still throw you in jail for a standard capacity mag, carrying without state sanction or having an unregistered gun. When I’ve asked them about the hypocrisy of not enforcing only some unconstitutional laws but not all they always get very defensive and resort to things like “don’t blame me, blame the law makers” or “I’m just doing my job” or “I will lose my job and pension and no one will be able to take care of my family” so be warned…they are not your friend and are not there to help you…and NEVER consent to any searches and ALWAYS keep your mouth shut. The sooner you learn those lessons the sooner you decrease your chances of ending up in SSG Haddad’s shoes.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      Dear Government employee,
      FOAD
      Sincerely,
      An Armed Citizen.

  31. avatarSkyMan77 says:

    This is more proof that law enforcement is being forced to abandon the idea of being peace officers. 2 to the chest and 1 to the head shouldn’t be muscle memory when dealing with issues like what’s being presented in these targets.

  32. avatarJim says:

    As a Wisconsinite, the irony of a Minnesota company using a cut-out of an 8-year old boy wearing a Bucky Badger (University of Wisconsin) sweatshirt is not lost on me… They’re just mad all they could get was a washed up Brett Favre, and not Aaron Rodgers…

    On a serious note, as was stated somewhere else, if the day comes that cops are facing pregnant women and 8-year olds with guns, it’s pretty safe to assume that the cops are now the bad guys…

  33. avatarPascal says:

    Where are the equal opportunity “no more hesitation” black, asian, latino etc. targets? I guess whites are becoming the minority might as well finish them off first.

  34. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    The unlikelihood of the scenario depicted in this target eliminates all possibilities of its use, other than that of desensitizing LEOs.

    A LEO should absolutely hesitate in this case, because the likelihood of it being a real threat is far lower than the alternative scenarios where it isn’t.

    I find the target disgusting.

    And frankly, with no other info on the scenario, I would personally risk the bullet to avoid ending this child’s life. I believe any self-respecting human being would.

  35. avatarmike marriam says:

    This editorial starts with a false premise: courts have ruled LEOs have no legal obligation to protect anybody.

  36. avatarAccur81 says:

    As an LEO, I can say that we definitely do not need this sh!t. The LAPD will be paying out for the blue Tacoma, as well they should – more taxpayer waste just like the DHS and ATF. Thanks to TTAG for reporting the truth, disturbing as it is. Clearly the need to “keep and bear arms” continues. I’ll be contacting the company and voicing my displeasure. Peace Officers still exist, but not as many as I’d like, so stay frosty.

    • avatarJim says:

      And watch out for kids in U of M or Vikings sweatshirts while you’re out there…

    • avatarRedleg says:

      Thank you Accur81! I remember when most cops were “Peace Officers” instead of “Law ENFORCEMENT Officers” and it was great. I was friends with most of them in the community and I would have risked my life to come to their aid if need be. Unfortunately most of the punks today who want to act like they are in the military and treat citizens as the enemy have changed my mind on being willing to risk myself on their behalf should the need arise but then I live in Southern Kalifonia and cops here are a completely different breed these days. They don’t care that you spent two decades in the military and have probably seen more crap than they’ll ever see, they just want their authority respect. They don’t realize that respect is a two way street.

      Anyway, thanks for being a “Peace Officer”…I wish there were more!

  37. avatarHasdrubal says:

    For what it’s worth, my department uses plain targets with no human features. We had some photo targets when I was in the academy, but even then, they all looked like 1970′s movie scumbags.

  38. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    A few years back the local police busted some knuckleheads here in town with coke or weed or some other nonsense and they found a generic life-size LEO target in the apartment along with the dope. The city newspaper, city police, sheriffs and lapdog newspaper commenters all went total absolute ape shit over that target. It got talked about endlessly for weeks.

    So this kiddie target here should shut the town down I guess. What? No?

  39. avatartruthbetold says:

    Well, those boys sure figured me out. How about another super-genius sample of one. This one might not go far towards shoring up your worldview of big brother and goose stepping storm troopers though. I have never shot a child. I have never shot a pregnant woman. I have never gone on a “fishing trip” looking for prosecutable ambiguities in gun laws. Have I left anything out? Oh yeah, I wrote all of my elected officials and let them know that the Second Amendment doesn’t end with over/under shotguns.

    Thank you very much and I will find my firearms enthusiast news and information elsewhere.

  40. avatarSGC says:

    Pregnant women, old people, and “kids” can kill you just as fast and as dead as a 21 year old gangbanger or a 42 year old soverign citizen…or a pair of teenage nutjobs, or just one 18 year old kid off his meds. Failure to realize that just shows ignorance of the real world.

    I think photorealistic targets are a great training tool, whether it be kids, dogs, old people, pregnant women, zombies, nazis, or anything else that can kill you. The whole purpose of those targets is to make you hesitate and identify the weapon…real or not, shoot/don’t shoot.

    It may not be politically correct, it may not be “nice”, but it’s true to life. You fight how you train, and if you don’t train for any possiblity, that quarter second of heistation could cost you your life or someone elses.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      They’re called “No Hesitation” targets. So no, their purpose is not to make you hesitate.

    • avatar16V says:

      Please tell us about your last shootout or armed confrontation with a white pregnant woman.

      Please detail your last shootout with Korean/Vietnam War vet.

      Please do tell us all about the last time you even read a report about a 10-ish year old white (or any other color) suburban kid killing a copper in the USA. Or even seriously pointing a gun at one.

      I’m really, truly curious. Because that kinda theoretical crap doesn’t happen in North St. Louis. Or even East St. Louis. Or the Southside of Chicago (at least that I’ve ever heard about).

      Since officer shootings almost never happen at all, do tell me why we are supposed to accept training to kill kids, for a scenario 100 times less likely than getting run over doing a traffic stop.

  41. avatarRalph says:

    This isn’t news. SWAT’s been training on Lassie and Old Yeller targets for years.

  42. avatarJoseph says:

    +100 – I stopped a car on traffic that fit the vague description of a vehicle that had fired shots downtown. When it pulled over, I didn’t draw my gun as she got out of her car because I saw she was a pregnan woman (yes, I was a rookie at the time.) As I walked up suddenly I saw the handgun coming up towards my face. I was able to deflect it because she hesitated just for a moment. She later stated, “I should have shot that fucking cop like I started to.” I’m just fine with female targets or any others for shoot-don’t shoot training.

  43. avatarRoger Cain says:

    Over government has NO problem with abortion, so why would they have any issue shooting a pregnant woman or a young child.

  44. avatarSilver says:

    Desensitization targets. Simply another sign of the inevitable future of this nation.

  45. avatarHarold Smith says:

    Interesting how most (if not all) of these perverse targets seem to be depicting White people as the “threat”. I wonder if there would be as many apologist trolls trying to “rationalize” it if it were, say, Jews, for example, being depicted as the “threat”?

  46. avatarDave S says:

    Dont want to be desensitized to such things.

    Back in the day, it was almost “fire only if fired upon”
    Cops were cheap, Liability lawsuits were expensive.

    And killing an innocent fetus?, Yeah that would be good!
    And can a kid THAT young form INTENT that would justify Use of Deadly Force?

    Questions I would not be eager to trust to a Jury!
    (always wear your armor!)

  47. avatarJerryboy says:

    looks exactly like something Adam Lanza would’ve used and enjoyed.

  48. avatarDirty Henry says:

    What would the reaction be if someone was distributing targets that look like law enforcement officials and military personnel?

  49. avatarChip says:

    They have removed the targets from their website. This image is their response:

    https://www.letshooting.com/let/spotlight_image.php

    “we apologize for the offensive nature of our ‘no hesitation’ products. These products have been taken offline due to the opinions expressed by so many, including members of the law enforcement community”

    There is more to the message but that is the key point.

  50. avatarChef Tom says:

    Just went to the site to look at them and they have a message.
    They stopped selling them ( or perhaps just not shown on the site? )

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.