"Non Traditional Threat" Training Targets


PDA






InkEd
February 19, 2013, 03:41 PM
I suppose there is some practical training applications for these targets, I find them to be a bit distasteful and don't believe the scenarios are frequent enough to make them part of standard training protocol.

Read the article, if you like, IMHO conspiracy theory undertones to it. The reason for posting the link is to show the pictures of the actual targets.

I would like to get the opinion (especially of current LEOs) about whether or not these targets provide any real advantages in training exercises.

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/

Like I said the article is a little "tinfoil hat" stuff BUT the targets THEMSELVES are the reason for the link. Ignore all the DHS stuff because the company sells to everyone and has targets of playing cards, animals etc too.

Mainly, I find them to be in rather poor taste and not really well-suited to the current political climate. What are your thoughts about these targets. Please keep things civil.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Non Traditional Threat" Training Targets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ATBackPackin
February 19, 2013, 03:50 PM
I think it is just a training exercise. As a LEO you cannot assume that somebody is not a threat just because of how they look. A pregnant woman takes it to the extreme, but you must be aware of everyone's hands no matter what they look like.

And no I am not a LEO.

Derek Zeanah
February 19, 2013, 03:54 PM
On my first run through the shoot house at Gunsite I ended up lowering my weapon rather than engaging when a target was female and hostile. I learned something about myself then, and these sorts of targets may be the sort of thing that can help work through deep-seated biases like I showed.

With that said, I'm not a fan. I'd call it bad taste.

ATBackPackin
February 19, 2013, 03:56 PM
I have to say after looking at all the targets, not just the pregnant woman, they are really kinda creepy.

InkEd
February 19, 2013, 04:00 PM
That's kind of my thoughts.

IMO these would be used more in shoot-houses /simulation towns rather than single lane stationary targets for general qualification. I just question the intelligence of releasing the ONES WITH CHILDREN onto the market right now.

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 04:01 PM
Remember folks, citing or linking to Infowars is a bannable offense!










No, not really, yet, but we're getting close!

InkEd
February 19, 2013, 04:04 PM
It is a bit of an out-there site but the link is for the PICS of the TARGETS.

In order to maintain a sense if fairness on THR, I will provide a link to
Alex Jones' Habberdashery Shop too.

http://www.reynoldskitchens.com/products/aluminum-foil/non-stick-foil/

MtnCreek
February 19, 2013, 04:06 PM
bannable offense
It should be.

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 04:06 PM
Having said the above: Ask a veteran police officer if there are folks who are "safe." Shoot/no-shoot decisions are extremely complicated and troubling and incredibly varied. Some of those presentations are pretty "out there" but not impossible by a long stretch. Some of them surely may need a SHOOT response. Some of them may not, even though a gun is present.

A company producing these more specialized training aids isn't necessarily helping to train up the super secret ninja troopers to come kill your kids and pregnant women.

Presenting officers (or defensive-minded folks!) with really troubling, frustrating, scary scenario training may help them to formulate better responses that may save lives. The more things you can expose someone to, the fewer things will shock them out of their OODA loop and leave them momentarily rudderless in the moment of decision.

bikerdoc
February 19, 2013, 04:07 PM
In bad taste, and very unlikely

there explanation:

The targets are, “meant to help the transition for officers who are faced with these highly unusual targets for the first time.”

The targets include “pregnant woman threat,” “older man with shotgun,” “older man in home with shotgun,” “older woman with gun,” “young school aged girl,” “young mother on playground,” and “little boy with real gun.”

As a retired LEO, I would say granny and gramps get no slack, the got the eyes and are holding correctly - bang.

The women and kids Im not sure I would shoot before talking. Thank God I never faced that kind of thing.

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 04:07 PM
Sorry, I didn't know. I will try to find the pics elsewhere and change the link.No need. Just try not to accept anything those nut-jobs say -- even a weather report.

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 04:10 PM
As a retired LEO, I would say granny and gramps get no slack, the got the eyes and are holding correctly - bang.

The women and kids Im not sure I would shoot before talking. Thank God I never faced that kind of thing.
Right! And that's what I meant by saying some of them might NOT need a shoot response. All depends on what the trainers are trying to impart.

Kid with a gun? Pointed more or less AT you? What, you think no cop has ever walked into that situation before? That's reality. What do you do?

Maybe having that target appear helps a trainee put real brain muscle to work figuring out what he should do WHEN that happens to him.

Not all training targets are intended to be simply scored for accuracy.

HorseSoldier
February 19, 2013, 04:11 PM
I suppose there is some practical training applications for these targets, I find them to be a bit distasteful and don't believe the scenarios are frequent enough to make them part of standard training protocol.

It makes a point people have to be aware of. From an LE perspective, I don't think it is one of those deals where six minutes of reality is worth more than six months of training. Getting surprised by one of those targets in a shoot house environment might make an impression on a recruit or officer -- but the first (and only) time a drunk grandma turned on a dime on me and went from compliant to kicking me in the face when going into the patrol car for her ride to the drunk tank extinguished any willingness I might have to give someone the benefit of the doubt solely based on their appearance.

On a related note, I have used those sorts of targets in .mil shoot house training -- some company did a run of the same basic premise, only in Iraq appropriate clothings, where you'd have a kid or a woman who in some versions was holding a pepsi and in some a pistol or grenade.

Vector
February 19, 2013, 04:12 PM
If these are real from a "DHS supplier", I'd be very curious why they would need such things. Presumably local and state LEO's would be tasked with dealing with civilian threats, not some federal agency that has been loading up on ammo, guns, and armored trucks.

As to non traditional Silhouette targets in general, I find it funny how all the target images you find now days are whites, not blacks or browns. I guess the idea of target practice against whites is less worrisome for the PC crowd. On a somewhat related note, anyone notice how ADT/Brinks commercials for home invasions never portray black or brown actors breaking in?

`

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 04:14 PM
If these are real from a "DHS supplier", I'd be very curious why they would need such things. Presumably local and state LEO's would be tasked with dealing with civilian threats, not some federal agency that has been loading up on ammo, guns, and armored trucks.DHS is responsible for training hundreds of thousands of LEOs all across the country. DHS isn't the Army or the Marine Corps.

On a somewhat related note, anyone notice how ADT/Brinks commercials for home invasions never portray black or brown actors breaking in?That's not a related note, but it probably makes sense to reflect social sensitivities when making a commercial. They're selling a product, not making a documentary about social justice or prison demographics. They probably make all the homeowners attractive, fit people with nice upscale, clean houses, too ... just like real life... :rolleyes:

Trent
February 19, 2013, 04:17 PM
Infowars.. sigh.

That is really disgusting.

Funny thing how the manufacturer's website is dead/slow/not-responding.

Guess someone out there with a lot of disposable bandwidth took offense to what that company was doing.

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 04:22 PM
Consider that these aren't targets they're likely to sell many of to average Joe heading down to the range for an hour of plinking at "Little Jimmy with a Gun."

Put these in their proper context. They belong in a shoot house training environment where officers are preparing for the real world. Officers who will be making life-or-death shoot/no-shoot calls on the spot, out in the real world where some very "SCREWED" up stuff really does happen.

Again, there's probably at least one officer in almost every department in the US who has has encountered a child (of some age), pointing a real (or real-looking) gun.

It may be unsettling that these exist, and no, most folks won't understand them AT ALL, but they have a legit purpose.

InkEd
February 19, 2013, 04:24 PM
They supply to DHS and TONS OF RANGES and other places.

IGNORE THE ARTICLE. I posted it for the PICS ONLY.

It's just a discussion of whether or not they are in "poor taste" and whether they provide a useful aspect to training exercises. (Which it seems they do.)

I don't like the "Little boy with a real gun" one too much.

Mk VII
February 19, 2013, 04:41 PM
The 'no-shoot' targets for police training used to be really obvious things like 'pastor' or 'old lady' etc while the 'thug' looked like someone from Central Casting. Now they have paste-on hands so you can give the clergyman a gun and make people think about what they are going to shoot/no shoot on.

silicosys4
February 19, 2013, 04:42 PM
I wouldn't buy them to use recreationally, and I'd wonder about someone who did. I understand how they can be used to train an officer to think quickly. I don't think its fair to hire a person to be a police officer and then purposefully leave out vital parts of their training because it addresses situations that are morally objectionable or hard for us to think about.

The-Reaver
February 19, 2013, 04:44 PM
I think its just getting the DHS used to shooting woman, children, & old folks defending their homes from unconstitutional search and seizures. Just my opinion.

InkEd
February 19, 2013, 05:00 PM
I don't think so...

I don't really trust DHS though. I see how they can be useful to police officers.

Vector
February 19, 2013, 05:02 PM
DHS is responsible for training hundreds of thousands of LEOs all across the country. DHS isn't the Army or the Marine Corps.

That's not a related note, but it probably makes sense to reflect social sensitivities when making a commercial. They're selling a product, not making a documentary about social justice or prison demographics. They probably make all the homeowners attractive, fit people with nice upscale, clean houses, too ... just like real life... :rolleyes:

Really?
Where did all the LEO's get their training prior to the DHS becoming an agency?

As to them not being an Army, if the reports that keep coming out are accurate, why are they acquiring so many rounds of ammo, guns, etc?

Lastly we can agree to disagree about the images not showing minorities having to do with political correctness. The same is probably true of the targets in the article because not a single one was of a black or brown person. Yet they have images of little children with guns. :eek:

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 05:14 PM
Really?
Where did all the LEO's get their training prior to the DHS becoming an agency?You really need to research what DHS is. Pretty much ALL federal law enforcement agencies were placed under the director of Homeland Security when that office was established in 2002.

Prior to that, all those agencies were independent and had to come up with their own training, info, EQUIPMENT, AMMO (training, and duty ammo), etc. DHS is intended to streamline a lot of that.

It isn't a great, fantastic, wonderful thing. But it isn't a secret army out to take over the US from the inside, or whatever the Alex Jones nutcases pretend to believe it is.

EDIT:

Here is the list of the various agencies and groups under DHS now:

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS)
United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Office of Air and Marine (OAM)
Office of Border Patrol (OBP)
Office of Field Operations (OFO)
Federal Protective Service (FPS)
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO)
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
Office of Intelligence
Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
United States Secret Service (USSS)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS)
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHSOIG)

So, every training round the USCG, Federal Marshals, Secret Service, etc. etc. shoot in training, or are issued for duty use, come through DHS. That's a whopping pile of rounds.

r1derbike
February 19, 2013, 05:14 PM
I always have a problem with a male holding a dewalt drill, like a pistol. I can't seem to get over that one.

As far as the kids/preggers...I'd pause just long enough to bark some commands, then reassess, possibly taking a round; wrong decision. I agree gramms and grampa would be a nobrainer. Engage.

ATBackPackin
February 19, 2013, 05:15 PM
I went to their website (http://www.letargets.com/) and they will not even let you access the different federal agencies targets. This had to have been leaked somehow if it is true.

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 05:20 PM
This had to have been leaked somehow if it is true.Well, that's what the Infowars group DO. Find stuff that many people don't know about or haven't ever thought much about and then write up the craziest, most chicken little, insane story they can come up with, and then report it with a straight face.

And the good folks out there in AM radio land unfortunately sometimes swallow it.

Justin
February 19, 2013, 05:21 PM
Reason Magazine's website has picked up this story as well.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/is-your-local-police-department-using-pi

sidheshooter
February 19, 2013, 05:33 PM
I've got no problem with "non-traditional" targets. One of my female, single mom friends who recently got into shooting for purposes of self defense observed (of the range targets, wryly): Where are the decently dressed white people for us to shoot at?

A guy in an armani suit or a pregnant young lady with a G19 and the will to use it is as deadly a threat as the guy who looks like he just stepped off the set of "Dirty Harry" playing the part of a snitch.

ATBackPackin
February 19, 2013, 05:46 PM
Well, that's what the Infowars group DO. Find stuff that many people don't know about or haven't ever thought much about and then write up the craziest, most chicken little, insane story they can come up with, and then report it with a straight face.

And the good folks out there in AM radio land unfortunately sometimes swallow it.
I understand that Sam. What I was trying to say was that your computer must be part of some government network to even access those targets. When I tried to look at the targets for the different government agencies, it told me that my computer did not have the necessary access to view them. So this information had to come from some government employee.

Jorg Nysgerrig
February 19, 2013, 06:01 PM
What I was trying to say was that your computer must be part of some government network to even access those targets
And you would be wrong. 100% Wrong.

You've come to an incorrect conclusion based on one observation. The website is being overwhelmed and you got an error because the site couldn't respond to your request, not because you aren't part of "some government network".

If you click and wait long enough (assuming the connection doesn't time out) you can view each of the "agency targets".

The FBI one is the the FBI/Q target. The Coast Guard on is an outboard motor. The Fish and Wildlife one is a standard silhouette. The Customs one is a silhouette with some numbers on it. The others I pulled up are similar. None of them show the "non-traditional" thread targets described.

So this information had to come from some government employee.
This conclusion is also without substance. Your computer couldn't access a page, therefore, it is limited to government employees who must have leaked it? It's is exactly this kind of assumption that perpetuates this sort of nonsense.

The targets mentioned were available under their "scenario section" which is right above the sections for zombie and alien targets.

Just because DHS may have purchases something from this company doesn't mean they purchased the targets in question. Notice how the articles are written. A company that sells to DHS also has these targets, implying that DHS is buying them. Based on their "evidence", DHS may also be stocking up on werewolf and IPSC targets as well, since they sell both of those.

c4v3man
February 19, 2013, 06:09 PM
Based on their "evidence" DHS may also be stocked up on werewolf and IPSC targets as well, since they sell both of those.

Thank god we won't be alone in the impending fight against werewolves. Hopefully they're stocking up on glittery vampire targets as well...

ATBackPackin
February 19, 2013, 06:17 PM
And you would be wrong. 100% Wrong.

You've come to an incorrect conclusion based on one observation. The website is being overwhelmed and you got an error because the site couldn't respond to your request, not because you aren't part of "some government network".

If you click and wait long enough (assuming the connection doesn't time out) you can view each of the "agency targets".

The FBI one is the the FBI/Q target. The Coast Guard on is an outboard motor. The Fish and Wildlife one is a standard silhouette. The Customs one is a silhouette with some numbers on it. The others I pulled up are similar. None of them show the "non-traditional" thread targets described.


This conclusion is also without substance. Your computer couldn't access a page, therefore, it is limited to government employees who must have leaked it? It's is exactly this kind of assumption that perpetuates this sort of nonsense.

The targets mentioned were available under their "scenario section" which is right above the sections for zombie and alien targets.

Just because DHS may have purchases something from this company doesn't mean they purchased the targets in question. Notice how the articles are written. A company that sells to DHS also has these targets, implying that DHS is buying them. Based on their "evidence", DHS may also be stocking up on werewolf and IPSC targets as well, since they sell both of those.
Thanks for the correction of my assumption. It certainly wasn't malicious and could have been done without all the freakin attitude!

I tried four times to access them and I was told every time that my computer did not have access. So yes it was a poor assumption on my part, but leave the I'm better than you attitude out of it.

3GunEric
February 19, 2013, 08:01 PM
In many situations "realistic" targets of Bin Laden or other terrorist types are forbidden. Seems ok if targets look like US citizens - well to some anyway.

I think these are in very poor taste and seem to lack diversity.

Sam1911
February 19, 2013, 09:37 PM
Let's call this asked and answered before it draws more flies.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Non Traditional Threat" Training Targets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!