davidmcbeth
Banned
SWAT team public relations statement:
What? You don't HAVE a pet? One will be provided! We bring extra dogs with us from the pound, if you don't have one, then we toss one in the bldg and shoot that one.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
No More Hesitation -Law Enforcement Targets go too far?
- Thread starter zack991
- Start date
SWAT team public relations statement:
What? You don't HAVE a pet? One will be provided! We bring extra dogs with us from the pound, if you don't have one, then we toss one in the bldg and shoot that one.
March Hare
Regular Member
They are getting hammered on facebook, none of it good.
One guy is trying to make it sound better, but he's getting shredded.
I'm going to check the targets at my local range and let them know how I feel if they have any from this 'company'.
-MH
One guy is trying to make it sound better, but he's getting shredded.
I'm going to check the targets at my local range and let them know how I feel if they have any from this 'company'.
-MH
Well I am glad I backed up the images.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Now's the time to demand the firing of whoever dreamed up the idea.
And, to know which agencies bought such targets.
Probably wouldn't hurt to FOIA* your local large police department to see if they ordered any. And, especially, who ordered them.
Then make sure the local press knows about it, if any were ordered.
Ordered, not purchased. Purchases can always be cancelled mid-process.
*FOIA = Freedom of Information Act. The name can vary by state. Sometimes called Open Records Request, Sunshine Law Request, etc.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Officer being trained to view citizens as lethal threats, is bad policy; it alienates the LEO from the citizen; it contributes to loss of life on both sides. Distrust erodes what ought to be a healthy relationship between LEO's, and Civilians.
77zach
Regular Member
I thought those they were both civilians.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Readers,
Just to put B lady's signature line in perspective.
Vigor was the code word for powerful. When Hamilton wrote that, he was trying to sneak one over on that newspaper's readers. There is absolutely no way a powerful central government (that he was advocating) was essential to the security of liberty. In fact just the opposite. The anti-Federalists saw it coming. Almost everything they said would happen with the new fedgov has come true--big, bloated, too-powerful central government that usurped and came to overshadow the sovereign states.
Hamilton was monarchist. Also, he is on record as wanting to establish here a heirachical society like England (titles of nobility and so forth).
And, Hamilton was one of the original violators of the constititution. He was George Washinton's Secretary of Treasury. While holding that post he arranged a complex system of tying the states revolutionary war debts to the federal government so that the wealthy holders of that debt would have a financial interest in the power and success of the new fedgov. Even Washington is on record as saying the system was so complex almost nobody could untangle it.
While Secretary of Treasury, Hamilton tangled repeatedly with Thomas Jefferson, Washington's Secretary of State. On one point, Hamilton showed himself to be one of the earliest violators of the constitution. Hamilton advocated a national bank. When congress voted for one, Washington requested in writing the opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson regarding the constitutionality. The kernel of Jefferson's response was that a national bank, while convenient--it was being promoted as convenient--was not necessary (under the necessary and proper clause). Jefferson even defined necessary for Washington--essential, cannot be done without. Hamilton responded with a 14K-15K word memo advocating the national bank bill. Unfortunately for the nation, Washington signed the bill, and Madison the next one. It took a herculean effort on the part of Andrew Jackson to put period to the banksters on the national level when he was able to defeat the renewal of the second national bank charter. The period of roughly 1840 - 1890 without a national bank was one of unparalleled economic growth and prosperity, a period when the value of the dollar actually rose steadily. (The value of the dollar has fallen by at least 92% since the third national bank was instituted one hundred years ago: The Federal Reserve)
Hamilton is on record lamenting that he was born in the wrong society.
He was a slime. Nothing he wrote is to be trusted. Use his words (lies) against him and the over-reachers when convenient, but trust almost nothing you see by him.
John Jay was Federalist. Read his words carefully, and evaluate them carefully before adopting them as your own. Here's a hint at what these boys were up to: we already had a federation, a federal government, under the Articles of Confederation. At that time, the words federation and confederacy were synonymous. So, for these people to create a new constitution and call themselves Federalists was a public-relations image lie. If they were truly federalists, they would have left the Articles of Confederation in place or perhaps tuned them up (as was the original mandate for the convention), rather than write a new constitution for a new national government that numerous detractors foresaw as growing into the monster we have today. They pulled a fast one, and left the objectors with the name anti-Federalists, despite the fact the so-called anti-Federalists were for the most part happier with the federation established under the Articles of Confederation.
Which reminds me. Regarding Hamilton. Scholars have long known about a letter from Hamilton to Washington* in the early Spring/late winter of 1787 hinting that the convention called to tune up the Articles of Confederation would morph into a convention to write an entirely new, powerful, and national government. The state legislatures did not give their delegates authority to write a new constitution. A number of delegates left in protest, citing their lack of authority to write a new constitution. Patrick Henry himself smelled a rat and either declined to attend or refused the nomination to attend (I forget which). The New York delegation quit--except one: Alexander Hamilton.
Some real eye-openers on how people really felt and what they foresaw in the new constitution. Most of the states submitted the new constitution to state conventions for rejection or ratification. Only one state submitted the constitution to a full vote by the citizens--Rhode Island. The people of Rhode Island rejected the new constitution by a margin of almost 11-1. In the rest of the states, the votes in the state conventions were startling compared to the parchment idolatry were are spoonfed in school these many years. Votes were, for example, 59-49, and 30 - 26. Lots of resistance to the constitution. It was by no means viewed as the wonderful palladin of liberty, even in the stacked state conventions, that we are taught today.
The Federalist Papers were essentially a PR job. They were letters-to-the-editor of the battle-ground states. The so-called Federalists had a good count of which states were necessary (9 of 13) for the constitution to take effect. Two or three states (New York? Virginia?) were understood to be crucial. So, the authors wrote a series of essays for publication in the newspapers of the crucial states in order to convince people to support the constitution. (Notice that--the constitution needed lots of convincing; it wasn't acceptable on its own.) The Federalist Papers contain some obvious whoppers. For example, in one the author assures readers that the new national legislature will be restrained because the legislators themselves will be subject to the very laws they pass. Suuuuuure. Riiiiiight.
*Hamilton and Washington knew each other from the revolutionary war. Hamilton was an artillery officer under Washington. And, perhaps was his aide-de-camp at one point, although I could be wrong about this last one.
Last edited:
We-the-People
Regular Member
LEO's ARE civillians. Only military personnel are not civillians.
We-the-People
Regular Member
Alexander Hamilton's treatise to George Washington in support of the First Bank of the United States is where we get the "implied powers" doctrine from. You know, the one that the feds are constantly using to expand their powers and bring us such popular items as "Obamacare".
When Jefferson wrote that the First Bank would be convienient but was not necessary, he also wrote that the Constitution does not allow the fed to do things because they are convienient, they MUST be NECESSARY.....and a national bank is not necessary, just convienient. But here we are today with the federal reserve bank......a bastion of corruption and thievery if ever there was one. The methodologies they employ to allow the federal government to continue "printing" money (most of it is digital imagination these days) would put you or I in prison for the rest of our lives. Yet because the federal government enjoys the benefit of their crimes, they continue on, devaluing the money in your pocket effectively stealing your hard earned money with an invisible "tax" called inflation.
When Jefferson wrote that the First Bank would be convienient but was not necessary, he also wrote that the Constitution does not allow the fed to do things because they are convienient, they MUST be NECESSARY.....and a national bank is not necessary, just convienient. But here we are today with the federal reserve bank......a bastion of corruption and thievery if ever there was one. The methodologies they employ to allow the federal government to continue "printing" money (most of it is digital imagination these days) would put you or I in prison for the rest of our lives. Yet because the federal government enjoys the benefit of their crimes, they continue on, devaluing the money in your pocket effectively stealing your hard earned money with an invisible "tax" called inflation.
rottman43055
Regular Member
Good to be back
The honest discussion on this thread is why after a year off from being a hard core gun rights acvtivist & getting back on forums, I value this one.
many good observations here. These Targets are noting but conditioning to shoot down people defending their homes & in todays environment the targets would have to be white.
Thanks to the OP for this thread.
The honest discussion on this thread is why after a year off from being a hard core gun rights acvtivist & getting back on forums, I value this one.
many good observations here. These Targets are noting but conditioning to shoot down people defending their homes & in todays environment the targets would have to be white.
Thanks to the OP for this thread.
OC for ME
Regular Member
It does not appear that cops are adverse to shooting folks of all "types." This has been documented repeatedly. It will occur again, repeatedly. Church ladies, kids, old folks in their home, pets. The variations are virtually endless. These targets are unnecessary.
Cops need no transition, all they need is QI, paid up insurance, and any real or imagined threat.
Cops need no transition, all they need is QI, paid up insurance, and any real or imagined threat.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
A "healthy relationship" that exists between two classes of people; one with the power and assumed authority to imprison, maim or kill the other with almost zero accountability for their actions.
Oh yes, very healthy indeed.
*In a consensual relationship, that's known as abuse. Yet when done as a costumed collective, it is suddenly okay, because...well, because.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
While I understand fully the reactions as derived from the apparent intentions, consider their viability in "shoot, don't shoot" training.
I would think that any ordering/purchasing for such training would be minimal at best and there are better targets available I believe.
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/study shoot-or-not.pdf
http://www.meggitttrainingsystems.com/Commercial-ranges/Commercial-simulation-equipment/FATS-L7.aspx
I would think that any ordering/purchasing for such training would be minimal at best and there are better targets available I believe.
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/study shoot-or-not.pdf
http://www.meggitttrainingsystems.com/Commercial-ranges/Commercial-simulation-equipment/FATS-L7.aspx
nonameisgood
Regular Member
As though the risk is really all that high anyway.
It must be Stat Thursday:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
For the 535,651 sworn LEOs, according to the FBI, 75 LEO were "killed feloniously" last year:
23 officers were killed during arrest situations.
15 officers died in ambush situations.
11 officers were slain during traffic pursuits or stops.
9 officers were killed during tactical situations (barricaded offender, hostage taking, high-risk entry, etc.).
7 officers were murdered answering disturbance calls.
5 officers were slain while investigating suspicious persons or circumstances.
1 officer was killed while conducting investigative activity (surveillance, search, interview, etc.).
1 officer was killed while transporting or maintaining custody of a prisoner.
--
That means the chance of being killed on the job by a bad guy was 16 per 100,000 officers
About the same rate as for death by influenza of the US population in 2011.
1/11 the rate of death from cancer
1/12 of the rate of death from heart disease
About the same as occupation fatality rates for "Mining" and "Transportation and warehousing", and 67% of the rate for "Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting"
--
Weapons
Of officers killed in 2011, most (63) were killed with firearms. Of these, 50 were killed with handguns.
5 officers had their weapons stolen.
3 officers were killed with their own weapons.
10 officers attempted to use their weapons; 17 officers fired their weapons.
21 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.
...
Profile of alleged known assailants
In 2011, 77 alleged offenders were identified in connection with the 72 law enforcement officers feloniously killed. Of those offenders, the following characteristics are known:
The average age of the alleged offenders was 32 years old.
The average height was 5 feet 9 inches tall, and the average weight was 181 pounds.
75 of the alleged offenders were male; 2 were female.
43 of the alleged offenders were white, 29 were black, 2 were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1 was Asian/Pacific Islander. The race was not reported for 2 offenders.
Most (64) of the alleged offenders had prior criminal arrests.
17 of the alleged offenders were under judicial supervision at the time of the incidents.
8 of the alleged offenders were under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of the fatal incidents.
7 of the alleged offenders were under the influence of alcohol or were intoxicated at the time of the fatal incidents.
--
Most were white, by a large margin.
So, let's go to assaults. One very telling stat:
"9.4 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured."
And:
"4.0 percent of the officers were assaulted with firearms." (In context, that is 4% of the officers who were assaulted, were assaulted with a firearm, NOT 4% of all officers.)
Nearly 80% of assaults, and 28% of injuries were a result of "personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet)..." (Really, personal weapons? Guess we are pretty much all "armed".)
--
Unofficial reports (the FBI doesn't keep this data):
People killed by police with justification: 387
(http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-for...otings-by-police-not-collected-134256308.html)
There are no stats on how many people were shot by police, or more specifically, how many were incorrectly shot by police who were too afraid to do their job safely - not to bash officers in general, but to point out that there are shootings which were not justifiable, and that training to shoot more people is a bad idea.
It must be Stat Thursday:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
For the 535,651 sworn LEOs, according to the FBI, 75 LEO were "killed feloniously" last year:
23 officers were killed during arrest situations.
15 officers died in ambush situations.
11 officers were slain during traffic pursuits or stops.
9 officers were killed during tactical situations (barricaded offender, hostage taking, high-risk entry, etc.).
7 officers were murdered answering disturbance calls.
5 officers were slain while investigating suspicious persons or circumstances.
1 officer was killed while conducting investigative activity (surveillance, search, interview, etc.).
1 officer was killed while transporting or maintaining custody of a prisoner.
--
That means the chance of being killed on the job by a bad guy was 16 per 100,000 officers
About the same rate as for death by influenza of the US population in 2011.
1/11 the rate of death from cancer
1/12 of the rate of death from heart disease
About the same as occupation fatality rates for "Mining" and "Transportation and warehousing", and 67% of the rate for "Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting"
--
Weapons
Of officers killed in 2011, most (63) were killed with firearms. Of these, 50 were killed with handguns.
5 officers had their weapons stolen.
3 officers were killed with their own weapons.
10 officers attempted to use their weapons; 17 officers fired their weapons.
21 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.
...
Profile of alleged known assailants
In 2011, 77 alleged offenders were identified in connection with the 72 law enforcement officers feloniously killed. Of those offenders, the following characteristics are known:
The average age of the alleged offenders was 32 years old.
The average height was 5 feet 9 inches tall, and the average weight was 181 pounds.
75 of the alleged offenders were male; 2 were female.
43 of the alleged offenders were white, 29 were black, 2 were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1 was Asian/Pacific Islander. The race was not reported for 2 offenders.
Most (64) of the alleged offenders had prior criminal arrests.
17 of the alleged offenders were under judicial supervision at the time of the incidents.
8 of the alleged offenders were under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of the fatal incidents.
7 of the alleged offenders were under the influence of alcohol or were intoxicated at the time of the fatal incidents.
--
Most were white, by a large margin.
So, let's go to assaults. One very telling stat:
"9.4 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured."
And:
"4.0 percent of the officers were assaulted with firearms." (In context, that is 4% of the officers who were assaulted, were assaulted with a firearm, NOT 4% of all officers.)
Nearly 80% of assaults, and 28% of injuries were a result of "personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet)..." (Really, personal weapons? Guess we are pretty much all "armed".)
--
Unofficial reports (the FBI doesn't keep this data):
People killed by police with justification: 387
(http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-for...otings-by-police-not-collected-134256308.html)
There are no stats on how many people were shot by police, or more specifically, how many were incorrectly shot by police who were too afraid to do their job safely - not to bash officers in general, but to point out that there are shootings which were not justifiable, and that training to shoot more people is a bad idea.
papa bear
Regular Member
my first response was of shock and disgust. but then i got to wondering, if it was real. i have not been able to find a source for such targets. could be exclusive to DHS, but still NADA.
there could be legitimate reasons for having such targets, for those times that a Bg could be an innocent looking target. i am wondering how many agents would quit if they had to use such targets.
the old man could be a bootlegger that is trying to kill you. the young girl with the kid could be a kidnapper trying to steal a child. the little boy is a hard one to convince me. but in all you could just get behind cover and wait them out.
if they come up with unarmed targets then i would probably worry more
there could be legitimate reasons for having such targets, for those times that a Bg could be an innocent looking target. i am wondering how many agents would quit if they had to use such targets.
the old man could be a bootlegger that is trying to kill you. the young girl with the kid could be a kidnapper trying to steal a child. the little boy is a hard one to convince me. but in all you could just get behind cover and wait them out.
if they come up with unarmed targets then i would probably worry more
Jeff. State
Banned
I spend some time on an LEO site. 99% of them could care less about public opinion.
"Officer safety" is ALL that matters, it takes priority over public safety, The Constitution, etc. etc. etc. These targets are a training device to advance "officer safety". Whatever it takes "to go home at the end of their shift".
Many now think of themselves as "warriors" when they go out to do their jobs. To many of them, yes, WE are "civilians" no longer CITIZENS.
The "thin blue line" and the silence it DEMANDS is just one more level of corruption in the Just-US system.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
LEO's are not Civilians, in their duty as LEO's. LEO's are a coercive state-sanctioned arm of Government.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
They are SUPPOSED to be civilian, and ARE not military, despite what they think their role may be. It is not inherent in the law enforcement role, and in fact, the military is fundamentally not a law enforcement organization and policing civilians by the military has always been a mistake.
That's not to say that we have not improperly blurred that line. We have trouble for a few reasons, not the least of which is our ungodly reverence of all things military, and our acquiescence to authority. And the making of people who resist the government into wacko extremists, when they are just normal people trying to stand up for themselves.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I'm not referring to what they are supposed to--theoretically--be.
I agree that LEO, and Military are not the same.
Imperialism, is just one of our--America's--favorite things. Are you enjoy the lovely bed?