Targets: Please tell me this is a joke

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpectreBlofeld said:
I think the issue here, at the most base level, is that these targets are teaching the idea that anyone holding a gun - or what looks like one - is a target, to be shot. Not a threat - subtle distinction - but a target, which must be shot at. Because these cardboard cutouts are literally that - they are targets, made for shooting. You put them up at the range and you put holes in them. In the real world, there are threats. Threats MIGHT be manifested in the form of pregnant women and children holding guns, or things that look like guns. It doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that you shouldn't automatically kill anything that looks like a target. They only become a 'target' if the threat level and situation calls for the action.

So, what are the purpose of these range targets? They're not for accuracy - a plain old bull's eye pattern is better for that. They only exist for one reason - to encourage you to shoot people you'd normally not want to shoot. The problem here is that it turns problems into targets that must be shot.
Click to expand...

Too many incorrect assumptions.

The officers that train with these targets are not standing at a counter in a 50ft indoor range perfecting their Weaver stance and shooting for groups.

These targets are used in some version of a Shoot House, often with 360 degree fire zones, simulated buildings/rooms, with officers in motion, clearing rooms, working a situation, however the scenario is given to them.

It's "Ok guys, here's the scenario. You've been called to this house for a domestic. When you arrive, you find a man who has a bloody nose and he is obviously agitated. Begin talking to him..."

Now, they're in the house talking to a guy like it's a real call and this lady pops out from behind a door...

THAT is why they use these targets. At one time, one of the counties near me had some of these that were red-neck animated. The target would be holding a gun held by velcro at low ready, the officer would do the old "DROP THE GUN! DROP THE GUN!", the training officers had a string attached to the gun and arm. Sometimes he'd drop the gun, sometimes the arm would raise to point at the officer, sometimes he would START to raise his arm but he was just TOSSING the gun.

I'm actually surprised that more officers haven't chimed in to talk about this kind of training.

There's no conspiracy here. It's just training for real life.
 
Tucker 1371

Along with some of their other recent activities I agree, concerning indeed. I had been hearing a rumor about DHS buying up all the 5.7x28 but never got a source or reason why but I guess this quote explains it...

Quote:
This is particularly alarming given the fact that the*Department of Homeland Security has purchased roughly 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year, enough to wage a near 30 year war...
^^^FN P90s?
Click to expand...

The government makes large quantity purchases to save money and likely uses large amounts of ammunition i.e. millions of rounds in training each year.

As for the 5.7x28 ammunition purchases, the Secret Service (which has been a DHS agency since 2003), use the FN P90s and the FN 5.7 pistol. It wouldn't be surprising to see government agencies purchasing large amounts of this caliber for federal law enforcement training.

You might check out this article at Tactical Life.com, it states that DHS uses, "15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises."

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/news/feds-respond-why-is-the-department-of-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/?hp=news_title
 
There is evidence from simulation studies that officers are too slow and reluctant to respond appropriately to women with guns and perhaps too fast to shoot at minorities.

You can disagree on political grounds but there are data for that. Training programs have been designed to correct for these biases and have been successful.

You may recall an old video about Surviving Edged Weapons - IIRC, officers got tagged by women as they underestimated the threat or didn't detect it.
 
I heard that the LAPD was using the same silhouettes but of a Blue Toyota Tacoma truck instead of people. Just look at how well THAT turned out!

By the way guys, my pregnant wife was a silhouette model. Sure, she has a temper, but be kind!:D
 
Sgt Lumpy summed it up well in post 21........

Don't read too much into it.

You're a cop. You're faced with a pregnant lady pointing a gun at you. What do you do?

Substitute pregnant lady with old man, young boy, whatever you want. They're not teaching cops to kill kids and pregnant ladies. They're teaching cops to stay alive by taking appropriate action (firing) on appropriate targets (armed subjects pointing a gun at YOU).
Click to expand...

....evil comes in different forms. Some things aren't always what they appear to be. Psychopathic women get pregnant......all the time. Old white men and white haired women get dementia or have mental health issues.......all the time. Bullets fired by a ten year old kill just as fast as those shot by a 21 year old gangbanger. I have a good friend that works in a institution for criminally insane youth. He has many stories of young kids and guns....and axes, and machetes. Criminals have for decades used young kids as runners for illegal activities. Many of them carry guns, are far from innocent, and have no qualms of pulling the trigger on a LEO, regardless of what some want to believe. Those targets are training tools used to teach what may and what may not be a threat, nothing more. How anyone can or would claim they are being used to train LE to attack innocent civilians for some imaginary conspiracy is beyond comprehension.
 
My brother was a trainer in officer survival for a large southern city for much of his LEO career. Because of that I was able to sit in on many of his classes while visiting. One thing that was identified during that training was that "old man with a gun" is one of the most dangerous calls to go on. There is a much greater chance that an old man will shoot than other demographics.

As an NRA Personal Protection instructor, this thread makes it easy for me to understand why the NRA makes us use "non humanoid" targets in our sanctioned classes. Mucho controversial, no?

Gunfighting is ugly, and presents ugly, life-changing choices.
 
As an NRA Personal Protection instructor, this thread makes it easy for me to understand why the NRA makes us use "non humanoid" targets in our sanctioned classes. Mucho controversial, no?
Click to expand...

Yes -- and that is one of the reasons I think of NRA classes as a good place to start, but a terrible place to stop, for those who are serious about learning to protect themselves.

Gunfighting is ugly, and presents ugly, life-changing choices.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

pax
 
Thank you pax, what you posted, and the descriptions in it, finally shook loose what bothers me about those targets.
Look closely at them again, their faces, do any of them look out of control, crazy, angry? Determined maybe.
The kid looks like he's smiling for heaven's sake!
They don't look deadly because of their expression's and body language..
Now I'm sure I will be given arguments of you can't rely on that! but before you jump on that band wagon I have a few questions for you. When you were in school and fistfights were normal, did you know when things reached the point of violence? I always did I bet you did too.
I dealt with aggressive and violent patients for 20 years. I knew darn well which ones were dangerous, I wasn't magic, we all did. The cops did too, better than we did maybe.
It's possible Grandpa with the shotgun looks dangerous. The rest of them simply don't.
IMHO that's what all of us have been picking up on. The reason this is relevant is this, if you train officers to shoot at people with normal expressions does that mean they will ignore their instincts and fire when confronted with someone who isn't a danger?
Re-do the posters use better actors/actresses and I will reluctantly have no problem with them.
By the way, yes I know in pax's example the officers were saying they were surprised, but I'm having trouble believing that someone that high on cocaine, partying all night aside from the murder looked completely normal. Even the one she described as "the genius" of the group, while high, knew that this was a dangerous person. My opinion, a little artistic license there.
 
Hey, there are women suicide bombers, you could hide a lot in a maternaty outfit. When I was in Vietnam a marine was giving kids candy when one pulled a grenade. The Marine was faster. We have a lot of fanatics in the USA.
 
I agree with you thiebault. I'm also pretty sure if you passed one on the street as she was about to blow things up your instincts would kick in and and you would realize that something about her seemed wrong.
 
Nothing new

I have known trainers who would approach an officer's wife and get her permission to photograph her pointing a gun. She is told that it will be used on her husband during training.

The officer/husband is told that the suspect matches the description of his wife and that she is armed and has already killed one person and is threatening to kill the hostage. The officer enters and is faced with shooting his wife or having him and the hostage killed.

(note: those targets are only a one time deal used in judgment training)
 
That's powerful stuff. Thanks for posting it, Pax. It gives a good idea of what it's like to have to make sense of a really nasty situation, on the fly, with not much time to think it through -- or to think at all. That's a blog that's worth bookmarking.
scrubcedar said:
I agree with you thiebault. I'm also pretty sure if you passed one on the street as she was about to blow things up your instincts would kick in and and you would realize that something about her seemed wrong.
Click to expand...
About that "instinct" thing... "instinct," these days, is mostly a word for the results of experience and training. More of both (especially good training) equals better instincts.
IMHO that's what all of us have been picking up on. The reason this is relevant is this, if you train officers to shoot at people with normal expressions does that mean they will ignore their instincts and fire when confronted with someone who isn't a danger?
Click to expand...
I think you're right that this is part of what makes them disturbing, Scrubcedar. But it seems to me that's the value of them: if you have to make a split-second, shoot/no-shoot decision, noticing that the "normal-looking" person is pointing a gun at you might be more important than reacting to facial expressions. (Especially in the age of Botox, which even professional poker players are using these days... :cool:)

These targets are like anything else, it seems to me. They can be put to good uses, as Pax and others have noted -- or bad. Just like... umm... guns.
 
You're right I forgot Botox. Okay, that's it, if Joan Rivers comes toward you holding a gun.... :D I always appreciate the humor you find in this stuff Vanya:)
 
You might check out this article at Tactical Life.com, it states that DHS uses, "15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises."

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/...?hp=news_title
Click to expand...

Doing the math the DHS uses 15 million times 5 years or 75 million rounds a year yet has purchased 1.6 billion rounds or more than a 20 year supply.

Regarding the desensitizing targets why is there no targets of someone dressed up as a SWAT or LEO or security guard or a kid with an Air-Soft? Surely those uniforms are easy to get a hold of. Most of the rationale here supporting these targets seems to be that people with guns are evil and a threat yet more than ever law abiding citizens are arming themselves because LEOs are unable to protect them. Not one of these targets I have seen shows a shot being taken. Are LEOs now going around busting down doors without announcing who they are? Excuse me I should rephrase that; are DHS agents now being trained to kill anyone with a gun and does that include LEOs, kids, pregnant women, young girls and the elderly? Should they shoot Biden with his shotgun or President Obama with his skeet gun? Or in those cases there would be pause for consideration?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top