DHS Buying Shooting Targets of American Gun Owners

[uglypitbull]

How sick and twisted is this???

of “non-traditional threat” targets that include pregnant women, mothers in playgrounds and elderly American gun owners.[/quote]

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-pr ... un-owners/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[moonwhim]

Alex Jones has been saying for years that the government will turn on the American people and declare them to be the new terrorist threat......now the DHS and Military will be shooting at these targets, over and over and over.......hmmmm any conditioning going on here??

[Col. Flagg]

Once I learned the truth about 9/11 back in 2004, the federal government became to me, for all intents and purposes, criminal and illegitimate and it's become rather plain and obvious what's been going on - the power structure is looking to silence dissidents... those who are awake and aware to the many deceptions being perpetrated upon us who are speaking out about their dastardly deeds, from the criminal activities emanating at the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank ($16+ trillion in bail-outs globally since 2008) to the military-industrial complex plundering the public purse for trillions in the name of the bogus 'war on terror' to our big banks, mega corporations and Wall Street holding the nation hostage with unlimited bail-outs or else to the 9/11 event itself which saw many of these criminal financial activities covered up, evidence destroyed in missile strikes (Pentagon) or controlled demolitons (New York City) in a massive insurance fraud operation (Larry Silverstein). :ymapplause: #-o :ymsick: X( In this regard, it's become rather apparent that the illegally and fraudulently-created DHS is preparing for civil unrest and is buying up all the ammo it can with money created out of thin air in preparation to quell unrest and civil disobedience once the dollar loses its reserve currency status or is devalued by the 'Fed', resulting in severe financial pain and hardship for every American.

[InfoWarrior82]

Either 1. This is a practical joke OR 2. All the evidence one needs to know that our government has evil intentions

[mirkwood]

Targets like this have been around for a long time. At least 10 years.

[moonwhim]

The products are all described as "threat" targets on the company website. They are called "non traditional threats" and "no hesitation" - as in no hesitation in blowing that little kid away.

Law Enforcement “Requested” Shooting Targets of Pregnant Women
DHS supplier responds to outrage over “no hesitation” targets which include children

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 20, 2013

Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., a provider of shooting targets to the Department of Homeland Security, has admitted that targets depicting pregnant women were “requested” by law enforcement agencies.

As you can hear in the YouTube clip above, Blaine Cooper enquired about the company’s “no hesitation” targets, which also feature children, elderly gun owners and mothers in playgrounds, and was told that the target showing a pregnant woman was a “requested law enforcement target for training.”

The representative refused to answer why police would be interested in training to shoot pregnant women, but went on to explain, “unfortunately our world is made up of people, pregnant or otherwise, that are gun owners not for the right reasons,” adding that the targets were to “train police officers”.

The woman refused to give her name, accusing Cooper of being “angry.” “Could you understand why I’m upset if the government is trying to make targets to kill citizens – I don’t feel that’s right,” he responded.

Cooper also makes reference to the DHS’ purchase of 2 billion bullets, “enough rounds to kill every citizen of the United States five times over.”

The representative also claims that the targets could be used for “don’t shoot” training, which is somewhat dubious given that they are called “no hesitation” targets and every single one of them is described as a “threat” target in the product description.

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

Our story yesterday about the targets caused outrage, crashing Law Enforcement Targets, Inc.’s website and leading the company to release a statement on Facebook inviting comment and criticism about the products.

LET Inc brags on its website that it is a full service provider of training targets for the DHS, the Justice Department and thousands of law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The company has has racked up $5.5 million worth of contracts with the federal government, with almost $2 million dollars coming from Homeland Security.

Another customer who called the company claims he was told that the targets were, “strictly for Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies.”

Asked by Mike Riggs at Reason about the targets, the company responded, “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.”

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/law-enforcement ... ant-women/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[moonwhim]

[mouse]

PLEASE CALL THEIR OFFICE NUMBER: 1-888-489-7830 They will not be available so you can leave a message like I did. Please briefly address your feelings on the issue and make sure to press # after you complete your thoughts. They need to know the PEOPLE do not approve. here is their website: http://www.letargets.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They are already experiencing high traffic difficulties to their website which is a good sign.

[jdtech]

PLEASE CALL THEIR OFFICE NUMBER: 1-888-489-7830 They will not be available so you can leave a message like I did. Please briefly address your feelings on the issue and make sure to press # after you complete your thoughts. They need to know the PEOPLE do not approve. here is their website: http://www.letargets.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They are already experiencing high traffic difficulties to their website which is a good sign.

I went to that website, and was able to find the "no hesitation" targets. While not shown on the front page, a simple search for "hesitation" listed the 7 targets as described on infowars.

While I understand the need for training, this is just plain wrong. Guns are an "asocial" tool, meant to be used only when normal means of communication have failed. Citizens such as those depicted will need to feel really threatened in order to pull a gun...which means that police facing such a situation will have already seriously failed to uphold the law...

[uglypitbull]

Targets like this have been around for a long time. At least 10 years.

Are you referring to the Hogans Alley style "what NOT to shoot" posters?
These are not the same....these are designed to normalize the trainee to shoot at everyday citizens. Look at the pictures again.

[Fairminded]

On a more morbid note, I bet all the people who let the company take their pictures for those targets REALLY regret it.

[uglypitbull]

update: “Offensive” cut-outs depicting pregnant women, gun owners in residential settings removed from website"

I am curious to know if this just means they took them down, or if they stopped selling them. My guy tells me they just took them down.

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-contractor- ... -children/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[moonwhim]

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.

As we first reported 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 over the last year, which many fear is linked to preparations for mass social unrest. As we documented, the LET’s contracts with the DHS were for “training aids” and “paperboard”.

In its apology, posted on the company’s website as well as Facebook, 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.”

In addition, the company had previously struck a different tone when it told Reason’s Mike Riggs that the targets were designed to combat, “hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition.”
Although the targets have been taken off the company’s website, it’s unclear whether or not they have been removed from sale entirely.

Mike Lilly, a retired 32-year police officer, demanded that the targets be discontinued completely.
“Whomever convinced you this was a good idea needs psychological counseling. Proper training and readiness is NOT dependent on shooting pictures of pregnant women and children. Anyone who says otherwise is seriously mistaken or has another agenda It is noted that you say they were taken OFFLINE. Have they been DISCONTINUED AND RECALLED?” he stated.
Lilly’s concern was echoed by retired City of Houston police officer T.F. Stern, who asked why police officers were being trained “to feel nothing’s wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own home.”

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-contractor- ... -children/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LateOutOfBed]

Well, just because they pulled them from the website doesn't mean they won't sell them to DHS and other corrupt agencies that are prepping to kill their own people.

But, at least our outrage was heard and a small impact was made.

-- Geoff

[Fairminded]

Well, just because they pulled them from the website doesn't mean they won't sell them to DHS and other corrupt agencies that are prepping to kill their own people.

But, at least our outrage was heard and a small impact was made.

-- Geoff

Yep, we succeeded in informing the bad guys that they still need to keep some things secret. The way they were parading everything out in the open recently I bet that came as a surprise.

[LateOutOfBed]

Well, just because they pulled them from the website doesn't mean they won't sell them to DHS and other corrupt agencies that are prepping to kill their own people.

But, at least our outrage was heard and a small impact was made.

-- Geoff

Yep, we succeeded in informing the bad guys that they still need to keep some things secret. The way they were parading everything out in the open recently I bet that came as a surprise.

My thoughts exactly... :-$

[Eddie Lyle]

The original article I read quoted the marketing manager of the target manufacture thusly:

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).

From this article (I've never read this site before except this one article): http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/is-yo ... t-using-pi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What sick sad man would print enlarged photos of his own kids to practice target shooting at? What would the police think if we printed up targets of them to practice on?

[Fiannan]

This would be on every news channel in the USA if one of the targets was a man wearing a sombrero. Just saying.