Again, I am not condoning acts of stupidity, just pointing out that there are valid reasons for having a live non-target downrange of active shooters.

The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8alt5C-yc4

He is the driver of the lead vehicle. Marvel as he bails out, leaving his vehicle (and friends) to suffer withering fire from insurgents… and die because of it. His excuse was “the vehicle malfunctioned.”

He had the emergency brake on and the car was in neutral.

You can google the After Action Report of this attack and read very clearly that Yeager dropped the ball. He ran like a TRUE WARRIOR(tm).

But I digress, moving on…

AT NO TIME WHATSOEVER SHOULD CIVILIANS HAVE PEOPLE DOWNRANGE WHILE THEY FIRE.

NO REASON. NO REASON. NO REASON.

When I was in the Army Infantry we did live fire drills. BUT NEVER AT OUR OWN PEOPLE. We were always shooting in the SAME DIRECTION moving ON LINE. Never did we have ANYONE down range like this.

And if you bring up the Night Infiltration course in Basic Training, those are tracer rounds being fed into fixed M240B machine guns and fixed to be something in the range of 12 feet off of the ground. The trainees are crawling in a low prone position on the ground. Only if they stood up, and managed to jump 5 feet in the air would they be hit by a tracer bullet.

This cameraman is within a foot of the impact zone. UNACCEPTABLE. This camera man needs to be fired, and personally I believe James Yeager needs to be blacklisted and should train NO ONE on how to “tactically respond” to anything, let alone a firefight.

Civilian schools encouraging their students to fire while others are downrange are headed for disaster. James and Ken just narrowed the field of advanced schools I want to spend money on.

Tripod

How do you figure? Rule #4?

http://fourrulesofgunsafety.com/

No. He was doing a visual sweep of his surroundings after having shot. It’s something I believe in. You fight how you train. Forming a habit of re-holstering your weapon or fiddling with your magazines every time you finish firing a shot or shots makes as much sense as forming the habit of dumping your revolver’s empties in your pocket before reaching for the reload ammo. Look up the CA “Newhall massacre” for THAT one.

The link to the article on officer-on-officer killings is instructive. Common threads: late to the party and missing the briefing yet still being allowed to “play” (both exercises and actual operations), failure to re-inspect for unloaded arms after leaving the training site, poor/nonexistent muzzle control in both exercises and operations, and complacency in assuring UNLOADED when doing anything OTHER THAN unholstering with the intent to shoot. Needs to be some Ninja-type ethic of never unsheath your sword unless it’s going to get bloodied ethic or something, which constantly indoctrinates the truth that the sharp ends of these tools KILL.

I believe all of those problems are far greater than deciding that the “safe direction” rule includes anything outside of a narrow cone around the potential bullet path.

The un-nerving aspect of one trainer’s “Z” or whatever fire-and-advance exercise can be suitably trained using mannequins, as far as I’m concerned. If participants want to stand in for the dummies or advance around live humans, there may be a time and place for that, but if so, ONLY AFTER all participants have passed several runs of the dummy run with flying colors.

I only know of one place here in Denmark where they shoot with people downrange. It’s at the spec ops range, and it’s with scoped rifles, not handguns. They did it as a part of a sniper training course for journalists, where the instructor put a water bottle 1 meter away from him, continued his lecture, and then the bottle was hit by a single round, to illustrate the point.

That might seems a little reckless..and that was with a highty trained spec op prone shooter.. with rest.. with a scope..for a very specific reason.

Doing it with handguns like this.. seems like more balls than brains to me!

If you don’t agree with the way they train then don’t go. I am sure that their other schools that will be happy to take your money.

Reminded me of this picture- a Chinese soldier actually holding a target up.

http://www.cybersalt.org/cleanlaugh/images/03/militarycomplaining.htm

Yes, there is no true safety, there’s only best effort. This was not the best effort.

“We’ve always been controversial” is not a defense of dangerous firearm handling.

Call detractors jabbering internet commandos, then tell them to go to your forum! Fantastic! At least we can know what to expect if we join!

So if you’re not willing to fire a round when someone is in front of you, how will you ever do it? I don’t know? Why don’t you ask the countless people who shoot intruders or attackers having never shot a person before.

Oh! The driving comparison! Yes, that’s a good one to use, particularly in the case of firearms, because firearm sports have such a great safety rate, and driving is often use for comparison. Do you, perchance, know why firearm sports enjoy such a great safety rate? BECAUSE WE DON’T SHOOT GUNS WITH PEOPLE DOWNRANGE!

IT’S SAFER TO HAVE SOMEONE DOWNRANGE!?

Ladies… Gentlemen… The shark has been jumped. This is the equivalent of radio shock jocking. Why not just say everyone who disagrees isn’t a REAL WARRIOR™, and anyone who doesn’t take your course won’t get their REAL WARRIOR™ CERTIFICATE

But really, I guess it’s OK. I mean, it’s not like people are prone to flinch when firing guns.

You know, I was kind of joking about that REAL WARRIOR™ CERTIFICATE, but you are just too predictable. So you’re not looking for the 10 or the 80? Do you guys have a 10/80 test you do to make sure your students won’t flinch and accidentally kill your photographer? I guess that’s just a chance you’re willing to take.

I’m not.

that and then he spends the rest of the video talking about how leet his training is…

he is cocky and reckless and someone is going to die because of that… ill stay far away thank you…

And I’d return the next day with a TRO (temporary restraining order) to ensure safe practices are implemented.

I don’t know who provides the liability insurance for the Camden, TN range where Tactical Response operates. But most ranges are able to operate by virtue of a $1,000,000 NRA policy. I can assure you that the practice shown on the video would lead to the retraction of insurance coverage.

If Tactical Response is operating without insurance, all the more reason to avoid the TR school. As far as I’m concerned these folks are a black mark on the industry and should be hounded out of business.

Comparing this to breaking some of the four rules for training purposes is utter nonsense. This is not you dry firing at your teevee, this is you discharging your firearm at a target, with a live human being under three feet away.

You want to practice shooting at an actual human being? Buy a full length mirror, set it up so it shows the reflection of a person safely behind a berm or bullet proof media, and shoot at the mirror.

The idea that “this is how the professionals train” is nonsense. The realities of the military, particularly special forces, is that they are going to intentionally be put in positions where they will be shot at, and will need to shoot at, and kill people. Besides, being ordered to shoot bullets over the heads of people crawling in the dirt under threat of imprisonment is very different than attending a training course, walking up to the line, pointing your gun two inches of muzzle movement from a live human being, and voluntarily pulling the trigger because the instructor told you, “don’t worry, it’s cool.”

And that photographer is showing some real effort at a Darwin award. Letting people who’s only known qualifications are that they have a few hundred bucks and a few hundred rounds of ammo shoot at targets three feet from him.

Three’s plenty of stupid to go around.

Back in 2003 there was a similar explosion of agnst over Ken Hackathorn training classes where students stood next targets while other students shot at the targets. When word leaked out of the practice much fury raged.

It even made a splash in American Handgunner September/October 2003 when Clint Smith wrote in his “Reality Check” column decrying the stupidity of the exercise (without naming names as far as my memory is concerned). Several letters were published in the next edition including a letter from one of the sudent who participated in the exercise.

Student Letter and Ken Hackathorn’s Response at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_166_27/ai_109264968/

None of the academies I’ve attended would have allowed this stupidity. I would not allow it on my range. If I was a student at this class, I would have left the range immediately and not returned.

There are reasons (some justifiable, some not) why police and military agencies train the way they do, but there is absolutely no justification for this incident. It is taking a huge risk just to get publicity photos — photographs that can easily be obtained with a camera, tripod, and remote release without running this risk.

its all fun and games till someone gets their ass shot off…

Also, a few years back a Fox News reporter pulled a similar stunt by going downrange and setting up a target or a watermelon(I can’t remember which) between himself and another man for a sniper to shoot at while they sat in chairs to demonstrate his fearlessness, I suppose. I haven’t seen another of their reporters do anything like that since.

I think this guy’s insurance agent just got a better idea.

I’ve done some tactical training where other shooters were shooting very close to me, above me and beside me. But never with someone downrange… And never without a valid reason.

You want a photo from down range, but a tripod and a remote shutter release (or just set the timer!)

Accidental discharge my foot.

Standing between the targets like the instructor in the video seems rather pointless to me. It might not need to be a huge risk, assuming highly trained shooters. But are all the shooters at such courses really that experienced? And as mentioned there is always the risk of malfunctioning weapons.
And why does he do it? It’s doesn’t look like it’s an integral part of the training. Pointless.

God willing, I will *never* have to deal with someone who wants to kill me. I prepare for the worst but hope for the best. And the guy standing in the booth next to me might be an inexperienced shooter (or worse) so why take any chances?

Besides, even my 15 year old camera has a remote, a timer and a tripod mount for a reason.

http://sketchycrew.com.au/Funny/TargetHolderChinaMilitaryPolice.jpg

I just figured this was some sort of punishment detail for this guy. I never dreamed somebody (who wasn’t desperate) would ever do this voluntarily.

Not only is this extremely dangerous, it’s also completely pointless. Outside of the “hurr durr I are liek special furces” effect, what experience does it give ? That shooting while needlessly endangering nearby friendly units is a good thing ? Or that you are always an absolute gun-god who will never commit any mistake ? (protip, no one is)

If I was a student, I’d have walked out at that moment.

I’ve stood next to a target like that, but that was military training. I wouldn’t do it just to get a good photo but each to his own.