Here in America we want to respect law enforcers and for the most part I believe many Americans do that yet time and time again we are sorely disappointed with some of their behaviors. I don't see anyone asking this police officer who felt the need to vilify a dead child with a gun target I'm assuming to re-kill this kid in the mind of this officer not to have their own personal opinion about the victim but to embody the responsibility of being a professional law enforcer with the impact of influencing others around you certainly in my eyes sees that person as someone who is abusing their privilege of enforcing the law. That badge should not give people the right to do as they please.
The article stated the police officer was fired.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/offic … =ansnews11
That has to be the dumbest article I've ever seen. Now we not only hamstring our police, responsible for protecting our lives, with shabby equipment and poor wages, but we won't even let them train properly.
That we should expect our police to stop when a gun is pointed at them and pause to consider the age or condition of the person holding it, that the police will be happy to sacrifice their lives to maintain such a broken "code" is insanity. I can't imagine having to explain to a police widow that her husband wasn't allowed to shoot a pregnant woman threatening him; that he had to stand there and be shot because pregnant women will never, ever be a danger to anyone.
So shooting a picture of a hoodie is wrong but shooting a picture of a pregnant woman is okay. Right, glad we cleared that up.
Did you read the article? Did you understand why training was being done that way? Do you care at all about the lives of those hired for a handful of dollars to protect YOU?
Perhaps not, but I did, I do, and I most certainly do.
I do understand while cops are using pictures like that....I just think it's interesting that shooting pictures of a hoodie is taboo. Below is the target used by the police in question. But what I don't understand is how the public is more accepting of targets of pregnant women then it is of a black-hoodie....last time I watched video's of 7/11 robberies the suspect usually was someone in a hoodie and not pregnant women...what's more likely?
I see. I confess that I did not watch the video in the OP.
I very strongly suspect that the root of that decision and exaggeration is purely political. An empty hoody does not resemble Martin in the least, there cannot be a reasonable person that would claim it does.
I'm not sure about the claim that it is a "no shoot" target, but then we aren't shown the figures hands, if they are on the target at all. Perhaps merely that it offers no danger and is thus not a target?
On the other hand the target of a pregnant woman, girl or boy with a weapon pointed isn't about markmanship, either. It's training in the psychology of killing; when to shoot and when not to and is the exact opposite of the "martin" figure. It is designed to help eliminate hesitation from an instinctual (and wrong) feeling that those targets will not fire at all; that they pose no danger. If you really understand what the idiot in that link is complaining about you will also understand this.
Anyone that thinks a child with a weapon poses no danger needs to discuss the matter with a combat veteran of Vietnam, or maybe Iraq or Afghanistan. Our soldiers paid a very high price to learn better; let's not ask our cops and bystanders to pay the same price here.
Lol, I agree with you on the "no shoot target" claim...it seems pretty bs to me. But it also doesn't resemble Trayvon Martin either (and time will tell if shooting a picture of Trayvon Martin is right or wrong)
Don't know completely about the bs. It does look a little scary, it is very much "profiled"; between the two it would be easy to pop off a quick shot under pressure. So, train the cop not to; that it takes more than a gut reaction to a scary looking, half hidden, figure to shoot at it. In that respect maybe it makes some sense.
I think that there's an awful lot of this kind of thing that the general public (meaning me) doesn't think about or understand.
The hands are shown in the video and it appears the hoodie is holding a cell phone and some skittles are in the pocket. Not sure how this officer was fired over something so silly.
If the man lost his job for that target he needs to sue the department. It's a freaking hoodie!!! When did people get so hypersensitive that they will take offense to anything that resembles something, that might possibly be construed, by some, maybe, as possibly, sorta offensive, somehow?
More PC Bullshit.
The idea of holding up a gun target of a citizen for the gun range would not be so cavalier if those targets on the gun range were of our grandmother, daughter, mother, father, etc. By having such a target we are already vilifying and condemning this person who has not even face the legal process in America. Someone who is supposed to be a representative of the law as far as I'm concerned they couldn't have fired him fast enough.
So now, no matter what, a hoodie represents Trayvon Martin and can have no other meaning, is that correct?
PS- Trayvon is dead, so he will not be facing the legal system anytime soon. But you can bet had he lived he would have been a regular customer.
Similar circumstances tends to single out people. Similar circumstances are utilized by the police in order to fill what we called a profile.
Before vilifying one it has been said in this country one is Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Problem here is this case has become overblown like it has. So everyone has developed opinions on it. It seems like various LEO and other individuals are taking the side of Zimmerman, while other's a piling behind Trayvon Martin. While it's good not to vilify someone before they are found to be innocent or guilty, the Trayvon Martin case has had SO much of that already.
If your talking about wanting to get someone fired for vilifying someone how about firing Obama? Wasn't it him that came out and said that if he had a son, it would look like Trayvon Martin? While Obama's actions certainly don't excuse that of the Police Officer's choice in targets, if you take a look at the actual target it's really not that bad.
Search for my comment 2 posts ago and you'll see a picture of the target. A simple black hoodie with a bulleye. No skittles in hand or photoshopped picture of Trayvon Martin...a black hoodie. I'd say that 90 percent of the 7/11 robberies have one of the thugs wearing a hoodie.
It's been a little while back where on the news I'm sure I can get all the details right but it boiled down to the police officer talking to the resident and a young child approaches with a gun and was killed by the police officer when the gun was merely a toy.
With out hesitation when one straps on that gun and face the public, when everyone is the enemy who beside yourself are you protecting?
Perhaps if you read the article containing the link further up pertaining to no hesitation when training police officers my comments will be more relevant to you.
That's the FEDS not local police. Why would the Obama admin want to be desensitizing it's people that way, makes you wonder what the Glorious O has in store for us doesn't it?
Anyhow, there was nothing wrong with that target, just a bunch of hypersensitive liberals looking for a chance to scream out once again about poor little Trayvon. He should not have been fired.
Cannot agree which you-Should have been Fired if one is working in the capacity of law enforcement they should conduct themselves in such a way that they call into question their behavior as was done with Mister Zimmerman.
So what exactly did he do wrong, what is wrong with that target and why?
It only means something if the offended class wants it to mean something, otherwise it's a target that accurately portrays someone you might encounter on the streets. Period, it has no further, nefarious meaning other than that.
(Full disclosure, I am a retired LEO)
Most things in life are based on determination. People do not know if Mister O.J. Simpson is a killer but for lots of people they have determined that he is.
If a suspect is seen running away from a crime wearing a yellow jacket than you saying you don't have any problem walking around in that same area wearing a yellow jacket because after all it's just a yellow jacket.
You usually don't have problems with the police when you comply with their demands. Wearing a hoodie doesn't make you a criminal but criminals do wear hoodies. You act as if a Police officer does not have the right to defend himself.
"You usually don't have problems with the police when you comply with the demands."
I'm afraid there are a lot of dead innocent citizens killed by the police that a wouldn't agree with that statement.
Defending oneself against a toddler or a 2-year-old would be justifiable as the child dies clutching onto their water pistol.
If you don't think OJ is guilty as hell then you have no business even attempting to discuss law enforcement with me. I was there so I know what the evidence showed (not on-scene but I saw all the crime scene photos and pics of his hands and knew two of the investigators)
So again I am going to ask you, what, exactly, was wrong with that target and why? Why is it simply not another model of basic silhouette target? What makes it different or offensive? Surely you can answer this.
Well it sounds to me SuperKey that you are right in all the jurors were wrong imagine that.
I've outlined in above before if you are giving people the impression something is what it isn't that is wrong.
John Gotti was exonerated in 3 trials, he was however guilty as hell!
So the answer is no, you can in no way articulate what is wrong with that target other than you 'perceive' it to be wrong?
And a man should lose his job because of your perception should he?
Fortunately this is America and we are all entitled to our point of view. I believe we've exhausted many of the avenues pertaining to this issue so I am going to take my leave, everyone have a nice day.
So the answer is still, no you can't then?
I love how liberals crumble when you ask them one, simple question..."why"?
by vveasey4 years ago
If Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claims, wouldn't the screams have sounded muffled? Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found on Martin's hands so was it Zimmerman or Martin screaming?
by Longhunter5 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/official-charges- … 38994.htmlIt's about damn time but can he get a fair trial?Will all groups on both sides of this issue accept the outcome of a trial and move on?
by Credence24 years ago
Being caught up in the debate, I slept on it and upon awakening realized that I, too, have allowed myself to caught in the hysteria. When I or anyone allows this to overwhelm it shortcircuits one's reasoning...
by realtalk2473 years ago
USA Today reportedFERGUSON, MO. — Attorney General Eric Holder flew to Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday as the nation's chief law enforcement officer leading an investigation into a police shooting.He also arrived as an...
by Don W2 years ago
Another example of unreasonable (and therefore unlawful) force being used by a police officer who was evidently away on the day they covered "de escalation" at the...
by SpanStar4 years ago
The 2 representatives who sponsored "The Stand Your Ground Law" have openly and publicly stated that Mister George Zimmerman does not qualify under the statutes of this law. ...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.