"No More Hesitation" Targets

From Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. via Reason [reason.com]on their "No More Hesitation" series of targets:

"The subjects in NMH targets were chosen in order to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training. I found while speaking with officers and trainers in the law enforcement community that there is a hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition (one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty). This hesitation time may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served."

Not sure where to start. Combining the NRA's desire to put a cop in every school, plus training local law enforcement to shoot with "No More Hesitation"? I can't help but think that everyone should probably be hesitant to shoot someone who's one of these targets.

Wow, no kidding. Because there is no better way to deal with a kid like that than to shoot him? Even if it is a real pistol, the expression on his face is all wrong. Not that I'd want to shoot one of them either, but all pictures and video I've seen of child soldiers out of third world countries shows hollow eyes and either blank or gleeful (as in happy to tear wings off a fly) expressions.

If we are reduced to practicing shooting our own children as a society, if they are the threat, we have bigger issues to deal with than cops hesitating.

That is why police and military are trained to look SPECIFICALLY AT THE HANDS of their targets, since that is where a weapon would be....looking at face, age, sex, etc is distracting for enough milliseconds to cost them their lives....ascertain the threat first and foremost, regardless of clothing, age, sex, etc.

I have mixed feelings about the target with the small boy, as there are several alternatives that, depending on the situation, might be used to resolve a similar real-life situation without immediately resorting to deadly force. To train for "no hesitation" shooting in this situation would not be optimal, IMHO.

However, for the pregnant woman, in a real-life situation, if she is pointing a weapon at an officer and is an immediate threat to his life or the life of someone else, then that threat must be immediately neutralized. The fact that she is apparently pregnant does not give her free license to kill LEO's using her pregnancy as a shield or as a reason for such free license, nor should an LEO be expected to sacrifice himself or someone else's life due to that fact.

I'm as pro-gun as one is likely to find. I concealed and open carry.

If a six year old approaches me with a firearm, there is a zero percent chance of me firing on him/ her. I'll gladly take my chances on a bullet wound or two than have to live with shooting a child on my conscience. No way.

This is pretty disgusting but no surprise at all given this administration's agenda.

There could be a valid use for the targets such as the small boy with a gun in a controlled training situation that utilizes "good guy / bad guy" pop-up targets along with alternatives other than immediate or "no hesitation" firing.

The article is not clear if that is or is not the purpose of these targets in actual use.

Quote from nobama : There could be a valid use for the targets such as the small boy with a gun in a controlled training situation that utilizes "good guy / bad guy" pop-up targets along with alternatives other than immediate or "no hesitation" firing. The article is not clear if that is or is not the purpose of these targets in actual use.

The little boy is described as a 'non-traditional threat' designed to prepare for the worst possible situation.

Like someone else said, the face on this kid is crazy if he is in fact supposed to be a threat.

Quote from Blazing Saddles Story of the Waco Kid : What happened? Well, it got so that every piss-ant prairie punk... ...who thought he could shoot a gun... ...would ride into town to try out the Waco Kid. I must have killed more men than Cecil B. DeMille. It got pretty gritty. I started to hear the word "draw" in my sleep. Then one day... ...I was just walking down the street and I heard a voice behind me say... ..."Reach for it, mister!" I spun around. And there I was face to face... ...with a 6-year-old kid! Well, I just threw my guns down and walked away. The little bastard shot me in the ass!

Anyone else think of this scene?

Quote from Danman114 : The little boy is described as a 'non-traditional threat' designed to prepare for the worst possible situation. Like someone else said, the face on this kid is crazy if he is in fact supposed to be a threat.

Anyone pointing a gun at you is a "threat", and the fact that it is a little boy is definitely "non traditional" and definitely is very high on the list of "worst possible situations".

However, threats sometimes can be handled in many ways other than strictly lethal force depending on the threat and the situation.

Quote from dealgate : This is pretty disgusting but no surprise at all given this administration's agenda.

You have ANY evidence that this comes from the WH or DoJ?

I should also point out that for LEO's sometimes there has to be a degree of hesitation in order to assess the situation and the threat, and it is not proper training or procedure to be conditioned to shoot immediately just at the sight of a weapon.

Example: A plain clothes LEO in a situation such as the theater shooting or the mall shooting incidents (or some other high risk situation) encounters an off-duty LEO carrying his firearm at the ready position. He would be absolutely wrong to start shooting at the sight of the weapon without assessing the situation and the threat.

Example: If an LEO responds to a call of a possible intruder at a residence and upon arrival encounters an elderly subject with a shotgun or a pregnant female with a gun who out of fear is pointing the gun at anything. The LEO would obviously be wrong in shooting just at the sight of a weapon without accurately assessing the threat and the situation.

This is why training involving shoot / don't shoot in various situations is necessary and this IMHO is where targets such as the ones in the OP have a purpose in that training. Not all targets have to be shot at to be effective for training purposes.

I realize however that my opinion is contrary to the point of the article which seems to suggest that LEO's train to shoot little boys and pregnant women (which they do not do here in WA), and is contrary to the OP quote regarding the purpose of "no more hesitation" targets. I personally do not agree with that purpose and that method of training if that is in fact true.

I just realized Law Enforcement Targets a company I have purchased from several times in the past.

I still find it odd that these paper targets [amazon.com] are
A) illegal for sale to those under 18
B) subject to state and local restrictions

IIRC, these are illegal for non-LE use in some of the non-free states.

It's a piece of paper for crying out loud!

Quote from 124nic8 : You have ANY evidence that this comes from the WH or DoJ?

Apparently there was such ruckus over this, Law Enforcement Targets (the manufacturer, who is a DHS contractor) has apologized and removed them from their website.

http://www.letargets.com/

https://www.letshooting.com/let/s..._image.php