PDA

View Full Version : Safety controversy


Wagonman
June 21, 2009, 01:24 AM
Has anyone seen the video from Tactical Response with the cameraman in front of the hot firing line while there was a course of fire being performed?

I was appalled at the unneccesary risk to say nothing of the violation of basic safety rules.

I watched his response and was further troubled, he compares being downrange to driving a car on the highway or riding w/o a motorcyle helmet.

T. O'Heir
June 21, 2009, 01:55 AM
"...he compares being downrange to..." Idiot.

tuscani11b
June 21, 2009, 05:00 AM
While I disagree with the camera mans assesment of what its like being downrange, Tactical response is a company that prides itself in its ability to teach students to shoot in a rapidly changing tactical environment. Unfortunatly the time when you need to discharge a firearm isnt at a paper target x distance away with range safety officers controling your every move. While I'm not advocating every range to be run this way, but it is incredibly valuable shooting experience if you want to truly emerse yourself in a tactical scenario

Dingoboyx
June 21, 2009, 05:43 AM
I would like to see it, do you (or anyone) have a link to it?:rolleyes:

MisterPX
June 21, 2009, 06:21 AM
So there will be nobody around when you may have to shoot someone in the real world? :rolleyes:

Real world training for real world incidents. Heck, I've been swept more times on a "safe" 180 range than I've ever been whilst downrange.

Double Naught Spy
June 21, 2009, 07:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqboR6gjOi8&feature=channel_page

Here is the Youtube version. Being down range like that is pretty bad. However, watch the shooters in the video. It will become apparent that several are not all that highly skilled...which makes being down range even more stupid. Those appear to be real, neophytic students.

Seriously, you hear the instructor calling, "Five shots to the little man. Five shots!"

Now, would you want to be a man squatting down between targets, like a little man, and hear that range command?

TailGator
June 21, 2009, 07:36 AM
Without disrespecting those who have expressed admiration for the training of Tactical Response, I would have a hard time accepting training or advice from a firm that so blatantly disregards basic firearm safety. After seeing that, my mind would question the validity of anything I was taught there.

seanie
June 21, 2009, 09:08 AM
That is just a terrible, terrible idea. What if the cameraman lost his footing? Or got a cramp? What if a freaking bee landed on him? All possible, and all reasons why it's never a good thing to be on the business end of a gun, no matter how safe you think you are.

scottaschultz
June 21, 2009, 09:13 AM
Safety controversy? There is no controversy! He is a moron! Why not just set the camera up on a tripod and use a remote? The IR remote for my Nikon costs about $12.00

And if this guy really enjoys being shot at that much, he should to go to the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan! I am sure he (or his widow) would get a lot more money for those pictures than of a bunch of people taking a CCW class!

Scott

Doc Intrepid
June 21, 2009, 09:17 AM
Certain levels of extremely advanced training can benefit from video footage being recorded of the shooters progressing through the scenario. But not at significant risk to the camera man. Fixed cameras could be used, remote cameras could be used, etc.

It comes down to "what would be the response if the camera man got shot?"

If the photos and story wound up on the front page of the Washington Post, would the average responsible shooter respond "...I can see how that could happen"; or would they say "what a dumbass!"

In this case, it looks like the latter...

(IMHO. YMMV.)

ZeSpectre
June 21, 2009, 09:21 AM
Here's what I know.
Had I been taking a class there the camearman would have either been off the line or I would have been going back to the main office for my full refund and then heading home to look up a better school.

Double Naught Spy
June 21, 2009, 09:30 AM
And if this guy really enjoys being shot at that much, he should to go to the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan! I am sure he (or his widow) would get a lot more money for those pictures than of a bunch of people taking a CCW class!

There is a big difference here. He isn't being shot AT. He is being shot TOWARD. Nobody is trying to shoot him. They aren't shooting at him. They are shooting BY him or in his general direction. This doesn't make it any less stupid, only that there is no intent to kill him. The difference is one of people driving by you on the highway and trying to commit vehicular homicide.

Personally, I would not stand on the middle white stripes between lanes and video cars going by me either. It isn't the intention to harm me that would worry me, but the inattention and mistakes on behalf of the drivers, or in this case, of the shooters.

pax
June 21, 2009, 09:32 AM
I think a downrange drill can be done safely.

I also think this video shows a downrange drill being done in a very unsafe manner.

We do live in a 360-degree world, and there might come a time when you need to fire a shot while a loved one is within a few feet of your intended impact point. There is value in stress innoculation, for most people. I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether a defensive shooter "needs" a downrange drill to be truly prepared (and thus whether it's a necessary risk or an unnecessary one), but I have no in-theory quarrel with those who teach it.

However, when a downrange drill is done, it should be done in a very cautious and controlled manner, with multiple safeguards. If you have the philosophy that the stress innoculation is important, then you need to provide it for your students in the safest possible manner. I do not think these guys did that.

Typically, what an instructor is trying to accomplish with a downrange drill is something some call "stress inoculation" and others call "emotional climate training." The goal is to allow the student to experience – in a safe environment – the full weight and magnitude of shooting near (but not at) an innocent human. Most responsible shooters are freaked out by that thought. Yet if & when the student uses a firearm for real in a defensive situation, it is entirely likely that someone they love and care about will be within feet (and possibly within mere inches) of the muzzle at the time they fire. If they are freaking out about the mere thought of firing near an innocent, they won't be able to make that shot when they need it, so the reasoning for the downrange drill is that if the student has already experienced and gotten over the extreme emotional "freak out" associated with needing to make a shot near but not at an innocent, they will be that much steadier under stress and that much more prepared to make that shot when it counts.

At the same time, those instructors who send students downrange during such drills (rather than going downrange themselves while students shoot) are typically trying to accomplish a similar stress inoculation goal: they want their students to experience, in a safe and controlled environment, what gunfire looks like from the front. Again, it is fully expected that any reasonable person will be disconcerted by both the idea and the actuality of having a gun fired in their general direction, even if it is not being fired at them. The reasoning here is that those who have experienced the emotional impact of such a situation but in a safe environment will be more prepared and better able to keep their cool under pressure if & when it happens in real life, and that they may recognize that they are being shot at somewhat sooner than someone who has never seen or experienced gunfire from the muzzle end. The goal has far less to do with anything macho than it does with simply getting over and past the extreme emotional reaction in training so that the student will be able to respond calmly and efficiently in real life.

By this point, whether you agree with the arguments or not, it should be clear why these goals cannot be accomplished with anything but live ammunition on a hot range.

Again, to be clear: I'm not saying these drills must be done and I'm sure not urging anyone to get out this weekend and run downrange! I'm just trying to articulate what instructors who do this type of drill are intending to accomplish when they do them.

Kathy

Doc Intrepid
June 21, 2009, 09:41 AM
No disagreement regarding either the utility or intentions of such drills.

My response is limited to an observation that, in this particular circumstance, fundamentals of safety appeared to be absent; and that typically such drills are run with extremely advanced shooters. Which also does not appear to be the case in this specific instance.

scottaschultz
June 21, 2009, 09:49 AM
There is a big difference here. He isn't being shot AT. He is being shot TOWARD.But combat photographers generally are not being shot AT. Their job just happens to put them in the line of fire.

Scott

Creature
June 21, 2009, 09:56 AM
I think a downrange drill can be done safely.

I also think this video shows a downrange drill being done in a very unsafe manner ...

Typically, what an instructor is trying to accomplish with a downrange drill is something some call "stress inoculation" and others call "emotional climate training."

That is not a downrange drill. This video shows a photographer apparently trying to capture a "true action" photo. This is a photographer who is very stupid.

Slopemeno
June 21, 2009, 11:02 AM
Summary; it's only a matter of time....

ZeSpectre
June 21, 2009, 11:05 AM
Apparently Tactical Response posted a response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3t0wuLDWQ

I'll let you form your own conclusions.

Creature
June 21, 2009, 01:36 PM
"True safety doesn't exist!" ...

Gimme a break. These guys need a refresher course in ORM. I imagine that had something gone terribly wrong, it would become company policy to never do that kind of stunt again ... if they could find an insurance company that would underwrite them again that is.

Double Naught Spy
June 21, 2009, 01:42 PM
Yeager does make a very convincing argument for why I will never take training with his company.

TailGator
June 21, 2009, 02:03 PM
Explaining this away as "stress inoculation" doesn't ring true with me, either. If that is what it was, why was there one person downrange, and why did he need to be holding a camera. I am an avid amateur photographer, and cameras require some focus and concentration. If this was a stress inoculation exercise, there is no reason to distract the downrange fellow by putting a camera in his hand and expecting him to get quality photographs.

While it is true that "true safety doesn't exist" in the sense that nothing is risk free, prudent people assess and manage risk. Some risks are within your control and some are not. Putting a distracted person beside a target in a live fire accident is the former.

The analogy to automobile traffic is utterly absurd.

I find it rather arrogant of him to try to turn the situation into a commercial with that macho pseudo-challenge at the end.

hogdogs
June 21, 2009, 02:30 PM
WOW... JUST WOW!!!:barf:
If it were stress inoculation they would have one person doing jumping jacks beside each target! So only 2 students deserve this "inoculation"?
what about the possible "flyer" round? And a cameraman is a viable scenario participant for a shooting exercise?
I am thinking my practice while me and a few buddies passed a bottle of whiskey wasn't so unsafe after all. we were actually drinking so we knew we could hit our mark if we were attacked while partying so it was cool, Right?:eek:
Brent

tuscani11b
June 21, 2009, 02:37 PM
I think too often people get caught up in the common misconceptions about what is and isnt safe. Unless you actively aim your weapon and another person, have it off safe, and ur finger on the trigger then your weapon isnt going to magically shoot anybody. Theres no such thing as an accidental discharge, and while as I said before I do think that a certain level of babying should be done at your average range with your average shooters, why would anybody pay the thousands of dollars to be trained to perform in a tactical environment only to be treated like children

JohnKSa
June 21, 2009, 02:39 PM
I change the batteries in my smoke detectors. I have a kitchen fire extinguisher. I wear my seatbelt. I don't ride a motorcycle. It would seem that qualifies me to comment per Mr. Yeager's rules.

Not much in the way of cohesive logic in the video response. A few really glaring logic flaws.

1. The fact that unavoidable safety risks exist in our daily lives is not justification for taking unnecessary risks or imposing unnecessary risks on others.

2. The fact that a person chooses to take risks in one area of his life does not automatically justify his taking unnecessary risks in other activities.

3. The fact that a person chooses to take risks in one or more area of his life does not disqualify him from being able assess or deplore unnecessary risks when he sees them.

4. The idea that students must have persons downrange while firing or they will be unable to fire with persons in front of the gun in a self-defense situation is demonstrably false. Clearly people can fire in SD scenarios with persons forward of the muzzle even if they never trained with people downrange.

The bottom line is that this school sees a need to stand out. Apparently they don't feel they can do it by any other means than controversy.

The plug at the end of the video would have been amusing except for the fact that it made me wonder what sort of potential student that kind of challenge appeals to. Not pleasant to think of folks like that with guns...

A couple more interesting points.

1. Apparently things were getting a little too hot--Mr. Yeager posted some responses and then disabled further text commenting on the rebuttal video.

2. The original training video was removed (although it appears that it has been reposted by a different person). The fact that they removed it suggests that perhaps they're not quite as proud of it as the rebuttal video would have us believe.

Creature
June 21, 2009, 03:14 PM
Double Naught Spy wrote: Yeager does make a very convincing argument for why I will never take training with his company.

That about sums it up for me too. I bet their insurance company sees that video and drops their coverage.

dipper
June 21, 2009, 03:20 PM
"Stress inoculation" indeed---what a load of drivel and "in theory" drivel indeed.

I watched the "response" video and the only thing I agree with what the man said started at the 8 minute mark when he was talking about "warriors"---he had that part right.
Do to our physical makeup and the genetic differences in our individual NERVOUS SYSTEMS we are not all warriors.

The armed forces spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per soldier trying to find the "warriors" that he speaks of, " the nine out of a hundred" and "the one out of a hundred" ---- These are those that earn the title Navy Seal and such and these are the men that take the shots on multiple pirates that are holding hostages at gunpoint...all while bobbing up and down on the high seas----REAL warriors that have trained to the point of exhaustion many times in situations that would make, yes 90% of use scream like little girls and run home to mommy.

At Tactical Response, we aren't looking for the 10 or the 80 but if your one of the 9 or 1, come see us.

What a load of crap....every wannabe Rambo thinks they are one of the few.... LOL give me a break.
Just how does this great trainer discern WHO is one of these few?
Like I said, the US Government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to sort this out....but the guys that show up to his class are put in a situation were they have a camera man in front of them.....beyond stupid.

How you react in a given situation has as much to do with your genetic makeup, YOUR nervous system, as it has to do with training....and in this case, very questionable training.

I don't know how long this tacticool course is and how much "stress inoculation" :rolleyes: students are exposed to.
Sounds like a sales pitch for all the Rambo wanabees out there.

Just stupid.

Hondo11
June 21, 2009, 03:21 PM
No surprise here. Yeager's a clown, although I have to admit, he's been able to con quite a few people and develop a cult-like following.

Nobody takes this guy seriously and most of those who do probably don't know any better.

This isn't an attempt to flame the guy. But it goes back to the old "know the guy who's advice/training you're taking." Nobody who KNOWS the deal with this guy will be surprised at seeing the video(s).

Yeager does make a very convincing argument for why I will never take training with his company.

There are a plenty of other reasons...if people only knew.

hogdogs
June 21, 2009, 03:23 PM
BOO YAAAA The hdogs won! I am the last response comment before he shut the option off and replied to me... "NO RULE WAS BROKEN..." My lily white hanky!
I grumble to know that this sum buck actually charges folks to take his WARRIOR COURSE! Paul Blart diploma and all!

Brent

Sigma 40 Blaster
June 21, 2009, 04:17 PM
Would anyone here participate in a training course that includes a 360 degree hot range? How about a 360 degree range plus multiple shooters?

I understand what everyone takes issue to is having one guy downrange while newb's are blastin away.

I've seen a lot of live fire drills involving multiple shooters (handguns, AR's...whatever) where there are shooters in front of you/around you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not itching to go stand by an IDPA target while someone else is shooting at it (nor do I really want to be the shooter in that scenario) but I can think of some instances where I'd like to experience working under non-traditional range conditions.

I'm not challenging that the video and video response were great ideas, just curious to see how many would participate in non-standard training drills with no range boundaries.

dipper
June 21, 2009, 04:26 PM
I'm not challenging that the video and video response were great ideas, just curious to see how many would participate in non-standard training drills with no range boundaries.


With Navy Seals and Airborne Rangers....those PROVEN to have the skills and mindset that SHOULD go with "non-standard" training?? Yes, I would participate and take a chance.

With Joe or Jane " call me Rambo " Lunchbucket? NO freakin' way.....I value my life a little more than that.

But, hey, if your one of the 9 or 1 ( in your mind anyway) give me a call!! LMAO!!

txbirddog
June 21, 2009, 04:50 PM
And if this guy really enjoys being shot at that much, he should to go to the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan! I am sure he (or his widow) would get a lot more money for those pictures than of a bunch of people taking a CCW class!

Scott


HE HAS!!! You????

OuTcAsT
June 21, 2009, 05:07 PM
I'll let you form your own conclusions.

I have, he's a moron.

Double Naught Spy
June 21, 2009, 05:15 PM
That about sums it up for me too. I bet their insurance company sees that video and drops their coverage.

I wonder if they necessarily even have insurance... :confused:

With Navy Seals and Airborne Rangers....those PROVEN to have the skills and mindset that SHOULD go with "non-standard" training?? Yes, I would participate and take a chance.

With Joe or Jane " call me Rambo " Lunchbucket? NO freakin' way.....I value my life a little more than that.

After seeing what fellow students unfamiliar to me, some of whom were experienced, could do wrong in standard training, I would not attempt to do non-standard training with strangers. The concern isn't for fear that they are Rambo types or anything that outrageous (although that is hugely possible), but simply that they are not up to the skills necessary to accomplish the task in a safe and controlled manner.
Explaining this away as "stress inoculation" doesn't ring true with me, either.

If that is what it was, why was there one person downrange, and why did he need to be holding a camera.
I think you misunderstood. It wasn't the cameraman getting stress inoculated, but the students. Those students are being inoculated against performance anxiety caused by camera shyness.:rolleyes:

hogdogs
June 21, 2009, 05:23 PM
Since statute of limitation isn't an issue now...
I have never been in "the service" Nor been "deployed" over seas but I have been faced off with muzzles and had lead slung at me as well as slung back! I have never considered having lead slung my way as I volunteer to take pics nor been willing to involve an unarmed participant in shooting drills..
No way No How will this ever be deemed anything but blatant unsafe gun handling! At least on TFL... maybe the WWW.geta lifeX.com forum sees it as fine but that is a gob of WARRIOR TRAINEES! None of the warriors I know realize they are warriors!
Brent

Creature
June 21, 2009, 06:03 PM
That about sums it up for me too. I bet their insurance company sees that video and drops their coverage.
I wonder if they necessarily even have insurance...

Surely you jest?

Can anyone verify please? Is TACTICAL RESPONSE a company who makes you sign a "participate in our training at your own risk" disclaimer?

Deaf Smith
June 21, 2009, 07:23 PM
he compares being downrange to driving a car on the highway or riding w/o a motorcyle helmet.

Wagonman,

First, if you think about it, every time a car drives past you it's like a 16 inch gun shell whizzed by. And if it struck you head on it would be just a huge impact (and in fact lots are killed just that way.) And every car 'misses' you by just a few feet. So there is some relevance to what he said.

Plus have you heard complaints about trick shooters that would shoot cigarettes or such out of people’s mouths?

Now with that being said, yes it’s a dangerous practice. Yes it’s not something I’d be eager to do. Yes someone can get shot. But, if the shooters are experienced and they volunteer to go, well it’s up to them.

Not my cup of tea, but did you know in WW2 they had GIs in foxholes while training and they would fire enemy guns over their heads so they could hear the report and recognize different weapons by the sound? Did you know we had GIs crawl under wire while machineguns fired real bullets over their heads, and if you stuck your head up it would be blown off?

Like I said, it's not my cup of tea but if others want that level of training, well it's their arse.

PSP
June 21, 2009, 08:01 PM
That looked like a really bad idea to me, certainly an unneccesary risk.

First, if you think about it, every time a car drives past you it's like a 16 inch gun shell whizzed by. And if it struck you head on it would be just a huge impact (and in fact lots are killed just that way.) And every car 'misses' you by just a few feet. So there is some relevance to what he said.


The point being, people die when things go wrong. Same thing on the range. There's a reason we don't use facing rows of targets being shot at by facing rows of shooters.

No other conclusion to be made other than it was a stupid mistake that should not be repeated.

thmsmgnm
June 21, 2009, 08:54 PM
Surely you jest?

Can anyone verify please? Is TACTICAL RESPONSE a company who makes you sign a "participate in our training at your own risk" disclaimer?


You mean there are ranges and training schools that don't have a Hold Harmless/You No Sue Me form? Because every gun club, every range, every training school, every ccw class from the NRA Range @ NRAHQ to the CCW classes (CA, Utah) I took in CA, to the ranges I attended for local Combat Pistol Matches, have all had YOU NO SUE forms.

Below is a Form For AN NRA Event Second Page Has A Medical Release and a Generic Liability Release included at the bottom of the form.

http://www.nrahq.org/compete/rules_images/09-ORD-Reg-Rel.pdf

Downrange Photoman Speaks Out.
http://blog.yeagerscorner.com/2009/06/21/interview-with-the-downrange-photographer.aspx

Zilmo
June 21, 2009, 09:09 PM
The guy is a moron, and no way would I be involved in a course like that.

pax
June 21, 2009, 10:31 PM
2. The original training video was removed (although it appears that it has been reposted by a different person). The fact that they removed it suggests that perhaps they're not quite as proud of it as the rebuttal video would have us believe.

The original video was not taken by TR nor authorized by them; they did not even have a copy before it was posted online.

(Sheesh, now it looks as if I'm defending 'em. I'm not. I just have an aversion to incorrect data.)

pax

sakeneko
June 21, 2009, 10:56 PM
The original video was not taken by TR nor authorized by them; they did not even have a copy before it was posted online.

(Sheesh, now it looks as if I'm defending 'em. I'm not. I just have an aversion to incorrect data.)

Gee, you sound like a technical writer. Wonder why that would be.... ;-)

I know *exactly* what you mean. I like writing that has facts, and has opinions, but I really like writing with facts that are accurate and with opinions that are correctly labeled as "opinions" or "analysis". In some circles that can be hard to get, unfortunately among them in mainstream journalism these days. :/

tuscani11b
June 21, 2009, 11:38 PM
Did you know we had GIs crawl under wire while machineguns fired real bullets over their heads, and if you stuck your head up it would be blown off?


They still do this at basic, and I've been involved in numerous 360 shoot houses and I can tell you there is a huge stigma attached to shooting and I really believe that in this type of setting they werent really doing anything wrong

JohnKSa
June 21, 2009, 11:42 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not itching to go stand by an IDPA target while someone else is shooting at it (nor do I really want to be the shooter in that scenario) but I can think of some instances where I'd like to experience working under non-traditional range conditions.There are options for this kind of training that don't involve the same level of risk as live ammunition. Paintball, simunitions and airsoft are all ways that one can get training in "non-traditional range conditions" without going downrange while live ammunition is being fired.The original video was not taken by TR nor authorized by them; they did not even have a copy before it was posted online.I didn't mean to imply that it was. It does seem that TR had something to do with taking it down. Here's why.

In the comments to the rebuttal video (before the comment feature was disabled by TR/Yeager) a person asked to see the original video--asked why it had been removed. Here's the exact quote:

"I am wondering why the video that has been the subject of this blow up has been removed. I never saw it, so I am obviously curious. You are unapologetically defending your actions, but at the same time you (or someone else) have deleted the evidence. This seems strange to me. Could you repost that video so some of us who were a little behind the 8 ball can see it? I am not trying to be an <edit>, I just want to be clear on what this controversy is about before I make up my mind.... "

Yeager's response was:"It wasn't my video and was posted without my permission. "

To which another person responded: "Right but it was a video of one of "your" instructors at one of "your" classes correct? Why remove it if you seem to make so much effort in justifying the actions of your people at your school? "

Yeager did not respond to that comment.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the response (and lack of response) from Yeager seem to imply that TR had something to do with the video being removed and also seems to indicate that they didn't necessarily want it posted in the first place. It seems clear that they also don't want it reposted. But that's not the most telling bit of information.

You will not find those comment nor Yeager's response if you simply look at the text comments. I remembered seeing it but when I went back to find it, it wasn't there. Someone (Yeager?) designated the question and its responses as "Spam" just before Yeager disabled comments for the video. You must specifically click for comments marked as spam to be displayed in order to see the question and Yeager's response that I quoted above.

Wagonman
June 22, 2009, 01:04 AM
First, if you think about it, every time a car drives past you it's like a 16 inch gun shell whizzed by. And if it struck you head on it would be just a huge impact (and in fact lots are killed just that way.) And every car 'misses' you by just a few feet. So there is some relevance to what he said

That makes almost no sense. If you are standing on the white line between lanes on the highway you are an idiot, same goes for being downrange on a hot range.

Comparing training that is apropos for "average" shooters with advanced training done by SEALS or GBs or whoever is ludicrous. The "shooters" get hours upon hours upon hours of training.

The point that when you see the elephant you aren't on a static range is not relevant.

I would have more respect for Yeager if he had just said "we screwed the pooch and it won't happen again" instead of playing Caine with psuedo intelectual quotes.

Rich Miranda
June 22, 2009, 01:54 AM
I would have more respect for Yeager if he had just said "we screwed the pooch and it won't happen again"

I have great respect for people who can admit mistakes. I try to be such a person. History has shown that admitting a mistake and moving on is very often the less scandalous way to go, and I believe that would have been the case here.

cloud8a
June 22, 2009, 02:50 AM
I do not like this! If you cannot train without a live person being at risk of live rounds why train? I mean crap why not have a live person break into a simulated house and really shoot him? There is some real tactical training for you!

I'm sorry but this is not the way things should be done.

Of course the best training is the closest training to what is real. But we cannot put real people at risk of getting killed just for training purposes.

You have to rely on yourself to make the best of what training you get. I mean damn this is not the way. RUNNING MAN!

Creature
June 22, 2009, 06:06 AM
I do not like this! If you cannot train without a live person being at risk of live rounds why train?

Okay...You go first to stand by the targets for the newbies to shoot at.

stargazer65
June 22, 2009, 06:25 AM
Keep in mind that cloud8a was being sarcastic in his post.

Maybe you were being sarcastic also creature?;)

Deaf Smith
June 22, 2009, 11:39 AM
So again... The military does this type of thing (shooting near people down range.) So what's your problem?

As long as the students are fine with it, well again, what is your problem?

Cause if you don't like it, don't go.

Brian Pfleuger
June 22, 2009, 12:11 PM
just curious to see how many would participate in non-standard training drills with no range boundaries.

Count me out, out of the county preferably.

anythingshiny
June 22, 2009, 03:19 PM
was not at the class in question but i have trained several times with tactical response.

the photog in question is a 100% btdt guy. he does not just walk downrange and start taking pictures. he watches the class and the indiv shooters, he asks if they are ok with him and if so he shoots photos. if not, then not.

it is NOT any training doctrine nor curriculum that the students must shoot.

there are none of the 4 rules broken.

is it touted as some warrior right of passage? no. far from it, the mentality of the class is fighting to survive an armed conflict. the 360 degree scans and the 'high sabrina' ready are all reality checks of a fight...not a nice flat NRA approved range with red lights that tell you when to stop shooting.

i understand the vehement internet feedback but stop for a real moment and consider that you will NOT pick the time, place and manner of your gunfight. you will not get to choose which direction the threat comes from nor what will be next to the threat.

there is a ton of chaff surrounding Yeager..and a lot of it is just that ..chaff.

i have trained at a few schools and have a number of hours under my belt. i found the instructors and the schools mindset to be professional and safe. you cannot judge the situation by 20 seconds of youtube.

< puts on flame suit>

TailGator
June 22, 2009, 04:20 PM
Anythingshiny, your explanation makes better sense than Yeager's, to be honest, but it also contradicts Yeager. Yeager himself defended this as a stress inoculation exercise.

is it touted as some warrior right of passage?

Again, by Yeager, yes, it was.

Glad you had a good experience with him, but his credibility isn't real high with some folks because of the way he responded to the criticism.

Creature
June 22, 2009, 04:20 PM
Maybe you were being sarcastic also creature?

:rolleyes:

Doc Intrepid
June 22, 2009, 04:45 PM
Alternately, consider the courtroom impact of this entire episode on future litigation, when the inevitable happens and someone downrange gets hit and injured - even with a part of a target or other secondary projectiles, nevermind with a round.

(Remember if your insurance company pays out on an injury to Party A, they reserve the right to sue to recover payments from the insurance company of Party B who may be found responsible. And neither Party A nor Party B have much to say in the matter - its handled by the insurance companies...)

Lawyer for the injured party: "members of the jury, we would like to show you this video clip from youtube, regarding a prior episode with Mr. Yeager's company, in which the safety of this behavior was previously debated. This proves that potential injury was patently foreseeable..."

"and now we would like you to see Mr. Yeager's comments regarding criticism of his training operations..."

"And now we'd like to present a few dozen expert witnesses that will testify before you that trainees (such as law enforcement officers) can be trained to engage armed adversaries without having photographers downrange..."

Hmmm...

Wonder what his insurance underwriters (or, if self-insured, his parent company) is going to have to say about the fall-out of this 'precedent'?

:rolleyes:

Wagonman
June 22, 2009, 11:20 PM
Has Mas opined on this anywhere?

Slopemeno
June 22, 2009, 11:36 PM
So lets say you as a student sign a release, and whoops, you ding the photographer. Think he'll sue you for loss of income, etc etc? You held THEM blameless, but do they hold YOU blameless?

JohnKSa
June 23, 2009, 12:57 AM
...you will NOT pick the time, place and manner of your gunfight. you will not get to choose which direction the threat comes from nor what will be next to the threat.What in the world has that got to do with putting people downrange during live fire? Many of the better training facilities are equipped with ranges/shoot-houses that allow a person to engage threats from virtually any direction. That doesn't require putting people next to targets that are being fired upon.there is a ton of chaff surrounding Yeager..and a lot of it is just that ..chaff.The question you should be asking yourself is: WHY "there is a ton of chaff surrounding Yeager"....you cannot judge the situation by 20 seconds of youtube.You just finished explaining that what was on the 20 seconds of youtube was not unusual for the school. Yeager also confirmed that in his rebuttal video. Which means that 20 seconds of youtube is representative of what goes on and therefore is a reasonable basis for judging the situation.

anythingshiny
June 23, 2009, 10:51 AM
"What in the world has that got to do with putting people downrange during live fire? Many of the better training facilities are equipped with ranges/shoot-houses that allow a person to engage threats from virtually any direction. That doesn't require putting people next to targets that are being fired upon."

My comment about not choosing the time place etc had more to do with folks opinion of the 360 scan and the high sabrina ready position than the fact that a photographer was downrange.

Regarding the chaff and James Yeager...there is a 'cult of personality' that folks think they see. The ambush on BIAP as a catalyst for hatred is insanely blown out of proportion and that, to me, has spilled over to opinion of his school. The school itself is made up of many quality instructors who are safe, sane and very professional. I consider my self a well educated and rounded individual...do I 100% 'drink the koolaid'? No, I dont..I take what tools and mindset that I see fit and add them to the toolbox and move on.

No where in my post did I say this was 'usual' for the training..in fact I said quite the contrary. "it is NOT any training doctrine nor curriculum that the students must shoot".

In one class, the photographer asked if I was comfortable with him taking pictures next to my target. I made the decision that I was comfortable with my skill set and that I broke none of the 4 cardinal rules. That was my decision. It was not mandated or pushed upon me in any way, shape or form. Had I said.." hey dude, I'm not comfortable with that or I dont feel safe.." it would have ended there.

Could something have gone really really wrong? yes..absolutely it could have...in my opinion it was the same risk that I took even standing on the line with folks I dont personally know. I can control some things and not others...I made that decsion and feel comfortable with it, as did the photographer.

It is not my intention to be defensive on the issue, because I feel there were no 'rules' violated. Were any of the 4 rules violated in that video or at other classes? Don't know..wasn't there and isn't me doing the shooting.

I abhor the ' I am a warrior ' posturing that occurs on the internet and yes some of that goes on at Tactical Response exactly the same as on WT or ARFCOM or GlockTalk, but when I think of why I carry a gun, it is because I want to be prepared. And in my mind, being prepared is a big task.

So, YES there is a risk and YES it could have gone south with huge consequences...but so can everything else whether or not I had a say in it.

Hondo11
June 23, 2009, 01:17 PM
The ambush on BIAP as a catalyst for hatred is insanely blown out of proportion and that, to me, has spilled over to opinion of his school.

Not necessarily. Was that particular ambush unique? Yes and no. Lots of people have been ambushed, numerous times, sometimes daily, on Irish. What made it somewhat unique was the poor performance of some of the people involved, including Mr. Yeager. What made it very unique is the fact that it was captured on video the way it was. What made it even MORE unique is that 3 guys died. (Mr. Yeager slandered the dead men and suggested that if they had "fought to cover" (his convenient description for his actions), as he did, then they might be alive.) And what made it almost completely unique is the fact that one of the poorest performers on that day came home and decided to make a "how to be a contracter" DVD, as if he was an expert on the matter.

It speaks to his character and motivation, and his willingness to purport himself to be an expert on things he is not.

Here he is again doing something ridiculous, and then defending it with a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

You are more than welcome to give him your money. I really could care less (other than not liking seeing people prosper from a crap product...in general) how you rate or value his "expertise"...that's your business. But let's not gloss over some very real facts about the guy.

I will give him this. He is a great salesman...or, more accurately, "BS-er". His little Heraclitis quote was brilliant. He already had people commenting things like, "I can't wait to come to your training and be one of the 9/1."

Double Naught Spy
June 23, 2009, 01:24 PM
Regarding the chaff and James Yeager...there is a 'cult of personality' that folks think they see. The ambush on BIAP as a catalyst for hatred is insanely blown out of proportion and that, to me, has spilled over to opinion of his school.

Well anything, you brought up the chaff about Yeager's supposed poor performance in Iraq and getting lots of people killed on April 20, 2005. However, I don't see any of that here, just chaff about the unsafe range and drivel put out by Yeager to defend it. There may be people here who don't like his school, but there are likely people here that don't like various schools and for various reasons. I would be willing to bet that many of the people here have no idea about the incident in question, outside of Bagdad, because they have never heard of it until now.

Yeager may have a good school with qualified instructors. Heck, the best instruction I received from Thunder Ranch in Texas had NOTHING to do with Clint Smith. Unless you are a one-man operation, you have to have other instructors. Ideally, you have good instructors that will make your school look good.

However, in Yeager fashion, he addressed the unsafe aspect of the video with a bunch of garbage and double talk, self promoting his supposed cutting edge techniques along the way. It is sort of like his 1000 round Glock video where the Glock experiences several malfunctions while being fired by Yeager, not the other shooter, and Yeager blames the "cheap" ammo. How ironic the cheap ammo only failed to work for him, but he blames the ammo and not himself. I am starting to see a pattern with Yeager...

It is fine that you had a good experience. That doesn't make what went on proper or safe and contrary to what Yeager was saying, the training did no stress inoculate the students. That was garbage pure and simple. If it was done for them, then why were they not all stress inoculated? Because what he is talking about being done is garbage, that is why. This wasn't for the students. It was to get some cool action shots of the class for promoting Tactical Response and/or for the making of product videos to sell by Tactical Response.

scottaschultz
June 23, 2009, 01:57 PM
If anyone missed it from the original post: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/17/highly-controversial-training-video/

And if you look at the guy in the white shirt who is shooting in the general direction of the target of the soon-to-be late photographer's right, he has some sort of misfire, looks around totally clueless, stands up and finally puts another magazine in his gun and starts firing again. These aren't some mercenaries training for jungle duty! These are just ordinary city folk that appear to be handling a firearm for the first time.

Scott

Brian Pfleuger
June 23, 2009, 02:47 PM
I would not fire a gun with any innocent person downrange. I would not shoot with anyone who would. End of story.

Wagonman
June 23, 2009, 04:19 PM
succinct and correct well done Peetza :cool:

Double Naught Spy
June 23, 2009, 05:41 PM
What makes you think he is innocent? :p

hogdogs
June 23, 2009, 05:49 PM
B.O.T.D???
Benefit of the doubt...
The more I read of this feller, the more I question his ability to provide quality training to anyone! Not the paparazzi.. the yaeger guy! Not much in his google history says he is qualified to train citizens in the free world!
Brent

Al Thompson
June 23, 2009, 11:26 PM
I was struck by the wild variation in skills displayed. Two folks were "Zebco-ing" their draw stroke and the guy who did a 360 seemed to be following some bizarre dance steps to a tune only he could hear.

Ditto on the "Yeager and Suarez - two of a kind" thoughts..

:(

ranburr
June 24, 2009, 12:04 AM
This kind of stupidity is typical of Yeager. If he had any sense, he would have admitted fault, made corrections and move on. This guy's ego won't allow him to do anything but self promote. I have never seen a bigger, "I am super warrior" self promoter. The truth is, the one time in this guy's life that he had a chance to prove himself, he failed miserably. I could forgive the guy for his failings and even give him credit as an instructor (those who can do those who can't teach). But, he's just too stupid to accept the fact that he is not the world's greatest ninja and that he's made mistakes. I challenge anyone to tell me how this training course was "enhanced" by having a moron down range?

JohnKSa
June 24, 2009, 12:15 AM
No where in my post did I say this was 'usual' for the training..in fact I said quite the contrary. "it is NOT any training doctrine nor curriculum that the students must shoot".I'm not interested in debating the definition of the word: "usual". The point is that it is not UNusual for this to happen during training at TR. Yeager's rebuttal clearly made it sound like it was not only something that was done regularly but he also made it sound like it was important in the training.

The point is that the stuff going on in that video happens at TR all the time. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of "usual" or "representative", but people who go there/train there should expect to see it and that fits most people's definition of "usual" and "representative".The ambush on BIAP as a catalyst for hatred is insanely blown out of proportion and that, to me, has spilled over to opinion of his school.I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This isn't about what Yeager has done in the past (I don't even know what he's done in the past), it's about what he is doing today and what he's defending in his rebuttal video.

That said, I have to say that it wouldn't surprise me to find that there were some sort of SNAFU in Mr. Yeager's past. And it won't surprise me when he has his next one either.So, YES there is a risk and YES it could have gone south with huge consequences...but so can everything else whether or not I had a say in it.Bad things happen. The goal of intelligent people is to be able to walk away after a bad thing happens knowing that they didn't do stupid things to help create the problem.

Creature
June 25, 2009, 04:09 PM
Its been a few days since the incident...is this company even still in business?

Double Naught Spy
June 25, 2009, 06:13 PM
Creature, of course they are and they will continue to be. They have a loyal following of people who consider themselves to be "warriors." He is big on the "warrior mentality" as expressed in his rebuttal video. Yeager, to a certain extent, is another gun school guru that is blindly followed because "he has been there and done that" and the like. So until people start getting hurt, no doubt his school will remain in business.

As noted, his "warriors" in that video are awfully neophytic. Being "warriors" doesn't make the students competent.

ImprobableJoe
June 25, 2009, 06:23 PM
I remember doing a live-fire exercise with an M16 in Marine Combat Training, and moving the barrel past about 40 degrees off of straight-ahead downrange... and that was the last thing I remember for a minute or so, because a couple of instructors tackled me so hard I blacked out. I can't imagine any safe and sane instructor intentionally putting anyone IN FRONT OF the line of fire.

Jay1958
June 26, 2009, 09:37 AM
Unbelievable! As I was reading these posts about a photographer 'downrange', and then saw Yeager's rebuttal video, with him talking about the 180-degree rule, I imagined that perhaps the photographer had been somewhere in front of, but -off to the side- of the firing line...

Whoa! then I saw the actual video, and there is the photographer crouched down between two silhouette targets that there is barely room for him to squeeze in between...

Inexcusable - unsafe - it leaves me almost speechless. I can't understand how anybody could even attempt to defend this type of behavior.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 26, 2009, 10:11 AM
Just thinking about this - my mind flashed back to an IDPA match where a competitor who I'd seen shoot several times draw his 1911 and shoot around into the ground about an inch from the foot of the SO and a foot from the foot of the Score keeper (me). :eek:

I also know that that the IDPA indoor champ match just a few months ago a long time competitor shot himself down the leg and luckily the EMTs there saved him from a bleed out.

So squatting down isn't a gurantee of squat.

Jay1958
June 26, 2009, 10:28 AM
Are there any links to this? There must be a lesson to be learned here.

I also know that that the IDPA indoor champ match just a few months ago a long time competitor shot himself down the leg and luckily the EMTs there saved him from a bleed out.

csmsss
June 26, 2009, 10:52 AM
There must be a lesson to be learned here.Yep. A pretty simple one. Lots of folks who consider themselves experts or warriors or who master one aspect of shooting get very arrogant when it comes to safety and wind up needlessly putting themselves or others in harm's way. I've seen plenty of these folks at various ranges, and whenever I do see one, I exit immediately.

w_houle
June 26, 2009, 11:15 AM
1993, Ft. Sill, Oklahoma.
We crawled down one lane, came over, and then crawled up onto a firing M-60 firing 1 in 5 tracer mix. The shots were going about 3' over our heads. Just so long as everyone is doing like they are supposed to, then what's the problem?

hogdogs
June 26, 2009, 11:19 AM
I bet that ft.sill incident is following a lot of previous official military training. Just a guess....
I still say if you want photo ops on a live fire range, you could opt for remotely operated gear. Then if something goes wrong yer out a simple replaceable camera and motorized mount... No one would have their mental stability jeopardized for shooting a BTDT camera feller!

Brent

w_houle
June 26, 2009, 11:48 AM
My last post was my knee jerk reaction, then I read some more and drew a different conclusion.

Creature
June 26, 2009, 04:03 PM
So until people start getting hurt, no doubt his school will remain in business.

So my question remains: undoubtedly no-liability waivers are being signed before commencement of any training. But is a school like this required to carry some kind of insurance, permit or license?

TailGator
June 26, 2009, 04:27 PM
I have been told that no waiver is valid against overt negligence. Lawyers?

ranburr
June 26, 2009, 10:30 PM
1993, Ft. Sill, Oklahoma.
We crawled down one lane, came over, and then crawled up onto a firing M-60 firing 1 in 5 tracer mix. The shots were going about 3' over our heads. Just so long as everyone is doing like they are supposed to, then what's the problem?

Having been someone who actually fired those M60s, I can tell you that it was from an elevated position and the rounds were actually closer to 20ft above your head. The illusion of rounds being closer than they really were was courtesey of a combination of darkness, smoke, noise, stress, fatigue, and shouting Drill Sgts.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 28, 2009, 10:53 AM
I don't have a link to the SW accident. I know the guy's brother. But just info, at a local match the other day an IPSC type put one through his kneecap. So even experienced folks do slip up, another example.