Crazy gun targets sold buy company to DHS?

[revelarts]

I didn't imagine it'd gone this far, WTHeckfire is this about.

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/february2013/220213target.jpg

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-contractor-apologizes-for-selling-shooting-targets-of-children/


Offensive” cut-outs depicting pregnant women, gun owners in residential settings removed from website Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 22, 2013

A company which received $2 million dollars from the DHS has apologized and taken offline “no more hesitation” shooting targets which depicted pregnant women, children, and elderly gun owners in residential settings as “non-traditional threats,” following an online uproar. http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/february2013/220213target.jpg

As we first reported (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/) on Tuesday, Law Enforcement Targets Inc. (LET), a Minneapolis based company that has received almost $2 million dollars in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security over the last three years, recently began selling cardboard cut-out targets designed to desensitize police to “non-traditional threats,” including pregnant women, mothers in school playgrounds, and little boys, as well as elderly gun owners in their homes.
The company’s relationship with the DHS, along with thousands of law enforcement agencies, led to fears that the targets could be connected with Homeland Security’s purchase of roughly 2 billion rounds of ammunition (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/17/Feds-Buy-2-Billion-Rounds-Of-Ammunition) over the last year, which many fear is linked to preparations for mass social unrest. As we documented (http://www.infowars.com/company-behind-shooting-targets-of-children-received-2-million-from-dhs/), the LET’s contracts with the DHS were for “training aids” and “paperboard”.
In its apology, posted on the company’s website (http://www.letargets.com/) as well as Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LawEnforcementTargets/posts/615687631780992), LET acknowledged that the targets were requested by law enforcement agencies.

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.
The company’s excuse that the targets were designed to help police prevent “unnecessary loss of life” is highly dubious given that the images were all of armed individuals termed “non-traditional threats,” designed to ensure “no more hesitation” from police officers encountering them.
As one respondent to the company explained, “Look, each of the supposed “threats” appeared to be in their own home settings. They were also all holding a weapon….it is obvious these paper targets were never intended to be decoy (don’t shoot targets). It is apparent this was designed to assist in desensitizing the trainee.”...

[Missileman]

And so the desensitizing of American law enforcement begins...the military will follow shortly.

[revelarts]

Sadly a lot of the military were desensitized in Iraq. House to house searches, women and children old folks. Shooting into cars from a distant. Check points. Shooting into what looks like civilian crowds.
"...there are hurt kids in the van .. OH well, they shouldn't have brought them into a war zone... that's right... over"

[taft2012]

And so the desensitizing of American law enforcement begins...the military will follow shortly.

Are the police supposed to be "sensitive" to people pointing guns at them?

[revelarts]

Are the police supposed to be "sensitive" to people pointing guns at them?

Yes they are.
Are police suppose t take guns away from the people house to house?
or if thats what a new law says, that's what you'll do . you've got a pension to worry about.

Are people suppose to be safe in their home from warrentless police break ins?

[taft2012]

Yes they are.
Are police suppose t take guns away from the people house to house?
or if thats what a new law says, that's what you'll do . you've got a pension to worry about.

Are people suppose to be safe in their home from warrentless police break ins?

You're assuming an awful lot from a paper target there Skeezix.

Take off the tinfoil hat and look at the targets again.

[revelarts]

You're assuming an awful lot from a paper target there Skeezix.

Take off the tinfoil hat and look at the targets again.

i see women and children in their homes and backyards, what do you see officer?

[Voted4Reagan]

Yes they are.
Are police suppose t take guns away from the people house to house?
or if thats what a new law says, that's what you'll do . you've got a pension to worry about.

Are people suppose to be safe in their home from warrentless police break ins?

Rev... Think for a second... if you are able.

if a police officer hesitates for one second with a perp with a gun he wont be going home to his family.

Sorry... Pull a gun on a cop and you deserve to be blown away.

[revelarts]

Rev... Think for a second... if you are able.

if a police officer hesitates for one second with a perp with a gun he wont be going home to his family.

Sorry... Pull a gun on a cop and you deserve to be blown away.

In your own House V4R?
hmmm
Maybe, if you've done something wrong.
If not then the police are in the wrong for coming in and might get what any other intruder would get.

[taft2012]

i see women and children in their homes and backyards, what do you see officer?

I see guns pointed out me.

Granted, they may turn out to be fancy cigarette lighters, but pointing them at law enforcement in not recommended.:laugh:

[Voted4Reagan]

In your own House V4R?
hmmm
Maybe, if you've done something wrong.
If not then the police are in the wrong for coming in and might get what any other intruder would get.

If the police knock on your door, identify themselves and you know you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

Answer the door for them with a gun in your hand and you'll be in a serious boatload of trouble.

I trust the police enough to know that I will not be in any trouble unless I resist.

or do something really stupid.

[revelarts]

I see guns pointed out me.

Granted, they may turn out to be fancy cigarette lighters, but pointing them at law enforcement in not recommended.:laugh:

so you'd shoot the kid?

[taft2012]

so you'd shoot the kid?

I'm assuming then, you'd let the kid shoot you?

[revelarts]

I'm assuming then, you'd let the kid shoot you?

If it came to that I probably would.

[taft2012]

dp

[taft2012]

If it came to that I probably would.

Fair enough. In that case it's a good thing you stay home smoking weed and playing video games.

However, you should check yourself when it comes to judging real life men, in real life life-and-death situations, making real life men's life-and-death decisions in split seconds.

[revelarts]

Fair enough. In that case it's a good thing you stay home smoking weed and playing video games.
manoman,
Isn't the police's job to protect "civilians", at the risk of their own well being. Is a grinning child that might have a real gun excluded from the group police are suppose to protect and serve?

You probably need to stay home smoking weed and playing video games if you think the primary mission of police is to stay alive at all cost.

[taft2012]

manoman,
Isn't the police's job to protect "civilians", at the risk of their own well being. Is a grinning child that might have a real gun excluded from the group police are suppose to protect and serve?

You probably need to stay home smoking weed and playing video games if you think the primary mission of police is to stay alive at all cost.

I could walk you through all this step by step, but I know from whence your argument originates. I'm in NYC, and I've worked for liberals all my life. Essentially, the only cops liberals like are dead cops. The only time liberals think a cop did a heroic job is when the cop is dead. With literally dozens of us dead on 9/11, there were actually 2 or 3 days there that liberals thought we could no wrong.

To liberals, cops "protecting" civilians at the risk of their own lives, does indeed mean allowing them to gun us down. Yes.

By "the kid" I'm assuming you mean the little boy. It's hard to tell from the small pic, but blown up into target size it might be clearer if it's a gun or not in his hand. In reality, I might or might not shoot... a decision that could cost me my life. That's a real decision made in a split second that a man has to live with for the rest of life, or die with.

And such decisions are made in very different environs than sitting in front of a computer with a fat spliff hanging out of one's lips.

Depending how far away from the kid I was, I might be able to leap for cover. The way he's holding the gun would prevent him from keeping me aligned as a target. It's hard to tell from just this picture.

This kid would probably be safest in NYC than other regions though, where aspiring David Koresh and Randy Weaver wannabe potheads tell their kids things like, "If a police officer steps foot over this line, SHOOT HIM! It's our right!" Your insatiable desire for the chronic and flawed interpretations of search and seizure laws puts more people in harm's way than one cop could ever do... :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I don't want more dead cops i want more fired cops.

And More cops that didn't put every person in a negative light at glance because they have a different POV.

[taft2012]

I don't want more dead cops i want more fired cops.

And More cops that didn't put every person in a negative light at glance because they have a different POV.

And of course pointing a firearm at a police officer is included in the definition of a "different POV."

[mundame]

I could walk you through all this step by step, but I know from whence your argument originates. I'm in NYC, and I've worked for liberals all my life. Essentially, the only cops liberals like are dead cops. The only time liberals think a cop did a heroic job is when the cop is dead. With literally dozens of us dead on 9/11, there were actually 2 or 3 days there that liberals thought we could no wrong.

To liberals, cops "protecting" civilians at the risk of their own lives, does indeed mean allowing them to gun us down. Yes.



I just want you to know I don't think that at all! And I so much appreciate police working to help us.



But considering the thread topic ---- I want to go the other way entirely. I was at a local gun range two days ago and they had the darndest targets!!

Zombies. One set was before dinner, the other after ....dinner, with the zombie mouth all red with blood.

I think this is a good idea. I have read that disaster drills in California are conducted against zombies; it's a great way to not seem to target any group specifically as enemies, and besides, everyone knows who zombies actually are in real terms: mobs screaming for blood, out of control, like you see in Egypt all the time and such places.

http://www.airsplat.com/Images/AC-TARGET-CHRIS-TMB.jpg

[Missileman]

Are the police supposed to be "sensitive" to people pointing guns at them?

Hmm, would you recommend headshot, center body mass, or maybe low center(so you can score a 2-fer) if you are aiming at a pregnant woman target? Is it all three to get max score?

You don't need to have an image on a target to achieve/maintain proficiency, the good ol' head/body silhouette targets are all that's needed.

[Missileman]

If the police knock on your door, identify themselves and you know you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

Answer the door for them with a gun in your hand and you'll be in a serious boatload of trouble.

I trust the police enough to know that I will not be in any trouble unless I resist.

or do something really stupid.

Nope...nothing to worry about there.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=home%20invasion%20pretending%20to%20be%20 police&pc=conduit&ptag=A792384B768404A45B1F&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127&ShowAppsUI=1

[Kathianne]

http://fox13now.com/2012/10/05/slc-police-apologize-for-no-knock-raid-on-wrong-house/


SLC Police apologize for no-knock raid on wrong house Posted on: 5:59 pm, October 5, 2012, by Zach Whitney (http://fox13now.com/author/kstuzachwhitney/)

A 76-year-old woman was inside the home when police broke down her front door with guns drawn.


“It’s something that has not happened in the police department, that I know of,” said Chief Burbank. “It’s something that we just don’t experience; it’s an unacceptable mistake.”


Burbank said he sat with the woman and her family the following morning and apologized, adding they would fix the damage that occurred during the raid.
...



Granted it was a mistake, not the first or last time though. One of the problems when controls are missing, like warrants.

Then there are the possibilities of people misusing the police:

http://www.google.com/search?q=swating&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a