Safety controversy

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.)
Click to expand...

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. :/
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
I would have more respect for Yeager if he had just said "we screwed the pooch and it won't happen again"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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>
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
Last edited:
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?
 
...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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top