Safety controversy

[dipper]

"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" students are exposed to.
Sounds like a sales pitch for all the Rambo wanabees out there.

Just stupid.

[Hondo11]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'll let you form your own conclusions.

I have, he's a moron.

[Double Naught Spy]

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...

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.

[hogdogs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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_i...RD-Reg-Rel.pdf

Downrange Photoman Speaks Out.
http://blog.yeagerscorner.com/2009/0...tographer.aspx

[Zilmo]

The guy is a moron, and no way would I be involved in a course like that.

[pax]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Keep in mind that cloud8a was being sarcastic in his post.

Maybe you were being sarcastic also creature?

[Deaf Smith]

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]

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.