Training a New Generation of Cops for the Police State

A new generation of cops are being trained in the latest desensitization tactics in order give them that inner sense of freedom they need in order to shoot children and pregnant women without hesitation.  No.  Really:

No doubt somebody will offer a logical, reasonable explanation why cops need to be trained to blow off the heads of pregnant women and children without hesitation. But from where I sit with the commoners, it looks to me like the state wants a militarized police force that is willing to blow off the heads of pregnant women and children without hesitation and there is no reasonable explanation for such training beyond “We are creating a police state that regards Americans as a subject people to be threatened with terminal force, including pregnant women and children.”

The Soviets would be proud.

"IMO, from this day forward, anybody who continues to support Trump is complicit in his ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"You're right and I struggle mightily with this and with the desire to see them ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"Number 2 seems to be factually incorrect. As far as I can tell, the U.S. ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Beyond calls to resist in the abstract, there have to be substantive material objectives.We’re here ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tominellay

    This is disgraceful, and it dishonors the nation.

  • deiseach

    I know, since there have been tragic cases reported in the papers, that sometimes there are kids with real guns – they get into their parent’s or other relative’s gun cabinet and bring a handgun to school to show their classmates.

    But do you really want the reaction of the cops to be not “Hey, little Billy, hand that over to me, okay?” but “Blow the sucker’s brains out!” To be trained to instinctively – and I mean on reflex, without the intervening ‘ brain works out is this legit or not’ slowing down of reaction time – react to ‘perceived threat, shoot to kill’?

  • victor

    I’d love to have been in the product pitch meeting where they came up with these. “Well, boys, sales of our ‘crazy meth addict in trailer’ target are way down. We need to get creative here — innovate! What do police departments really want?” Presumably the focus groups rejected “labradoodle puppy with Glock in his mouth” as being too extreme. For now.

    These two targets alone are way creepier than any video game could be and that’s in no small part because they’re meant to be fired at by real law enforcement officers with real guns. Truly sick.

    • Police are already routinely shooting dogs. It actually isn’t too early for that.

  • It’s been difficult to find just what is up with these things. Almost every story is on a blog, or linked to another blog, and most of the blogs are decidedly government critical and/or pro-gun owner (many of the blogs take issue with the idea that several targets are portrayed as lawful gun owners, in addition to the obvious problems). Several state these were at the request of the DHS. Does that mean this company had already developed it, and the DHS came in and signed on the dotted line? Did this company make these at the DHS’s request? Also, which PDs are using these? One blog asked the question, but it was just a question – no answer. I went to the company’s website, but couldn’t find this line of products. The server seems to be overloaded right now, but what searches I made didn’t bring any results, including searching the word ‘hesitation’. So my questions are: just who came up with this idea? The Company itself (disturbing)? Or the DHS (very, very disturbing)? Is the purpose, as the blogs all say the website suggests, to teach police to just shoot first? Is it, as a couple comments suggested, to teach the police *not* to shoot first, but to discern beyond ‘he’s got a nug!’? There are many ways that this is beyond disturbing, but I would like to see more information to know just who is behind it, and what the ultimate purpose is.

    • Stu

      It’s an outgrowth from our current state of war. Whether we like it or not, other cultures routinely employ women and children in combat because they know we will will hesitate when confronted with such a non-congruent image and that hesitation has been enough go give the enemy the jump on our troops. In response, the military has taken step to train our soldier to focus on the threat instead of other aspects of a potential foe and that has resulted in shapes similar to these upon which some of our soldiers train. Now while that whole situation can be another conversation, somehow this sort of training seems to have crept into the national scene (or is just being marketed to homeland forces). And that’s just wrong and bizarre.

    • Timbot2000

      I did manage to access the actual product page at
      The targets are for sale and can be ordered from the website. The company orients its products to Law Enforcement organizations.
      “Is it, as a couple comments suggested, to teach the police *not* to shoot first, but to discern beyond ‘he’s got a nug!’? ”
      Then why is the product line called “No More Hesitation”?

      • I found a products page, but couldn’t get it to load. This one still isn’t. Based on some of the blogs, the site is being overwhelmed right now. Don’t know why, unless it’s this story. But yeah, that’s what I’m looking for. The big question is, once we figure out who’s doing what and why, what do we do about it?

    • Mark Shea

      “No more hesitation” is kind of self-explanatory, isn’t it?

      • I hadn’t been able to find that line on the company’s webpage. That’s what I meant.

  • kara

    Was there a crimewave involving armed pregnant women and children that I wasn’t aware of? Honestly, even if there was, these are too evil/ ugly for words. Even the facial expressions seem weird and unnatural.

    • No doubt: “Here, Timmy. Hold this gun and pose for this picture so thousands of police officers around the country can shoot at you.”

      • CK

        “Was there a crimewave involving armed pregnant women and children that I wasn’t aware of?”

        Recall the tragedy at Ruby Ridge were Federal snipers shot a boy in the back and killed a pregnant woman holding a toddler with a head shot. Recall that these arguable murders were performed in the name of Federal gun control under the tolerant Clinton Administration. At Ruby Ridge, the Federal agents made the mistake of letting Randy Weaver survive such that he was acquitted. The lesson learned from Ruby Ridge, don’t hesitate, kill all.

        • Kevin

          Ruby Ridge happened under Bush I.

  • meunke

    If these had been made and targeted for the civilian market, the outrage would be deafening.

    this of course shows why law enforcement should be trusted with weapons, but not civilians.


  • CK

    This sort of desensitization is meant to combat any sort of virtuous formation lingering in a cop’s upbringing that would lead a cop to hesitate in a manner where he would rather die than dishonor himself by shooting a child, pregnant woman, or any other likely innocent.

    “This time, however, the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers, they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.” – Alasdair Macintyre, After Virtue

    • This is true. The State has always been utterly terrified of soldiers and peace officers who decide for themselves which way to shoot.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    On the one hand, every police officer I have ever known would find this absolutely disgusting.

    On the other hand, I read stories of the LAPD shooting a little old lady because the pickup she is in kinda/sorta looks like it might be the same pickup being driven by a suspect.

  • John Mark Christensen

    Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
    Jay: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.

  • KM

    “…it looks to me like the state wants a militarized police force…”

    May I offer another possible explanation? Who profits from selling weapons to both the police and the citizenry? Certain companies do, and they’re not about to give up that profit stream. It’s a vicious circle these companies help create: Militarize the police who are simply “reacting” to more armed citizens who have more access to sophisticated weaponry. In turn the citizens are “reacting” to a more militarized police state and so need to arm themselves.

    Meanwhile the weapons makers are raking in the profits, and profit further by our endless wars. The “state” is much more corporatist than ever. This is an issue that goes beyond liberal/conservative.