People who are propagating the “unsafe” argument look to me to be pretty egotistical.

I’ve seen unsafe things, and the conduct in that video doesn’t quite meet that criteria.

If you think the stuff they were doing was unsafe, you should just stay away from outdoor ranges.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Haven’t found one yet where you cannot be in awe of their efforts and bravery.

Yeager is a coward but having opened his mouth he shows he is a fool too.

Condolences to those that lost their lives in that ambush. Deepest sympathies that such individuals spent their last few moments far from home and the presence of such a scumbag.

Please rate this comment: 1  1

“They were on a low-profile mission and his team leader was seen earlier shooting his MP5 in the roadway, so they had already been compromised and shouldn’t have been parked on that road to begin with. Before you spew vitriol about someone you don’t know, at least take the time to read the facts.”

How is it that you are defending the guy by saying:

1) They were on a low-profile mission (and)
2) His team leader was seen earlier shooting his MP5 in the roadway
3) they had already been compromised
4) shouldn’t have been parked on that road to begin with.

If he was lead driver and was in charge of the route, you just indicted him, not defended him.

If those facts were all evident, why wasn’t the great tactical instructor long gone before? The best way to leave an ambush is drive out!!! Why was he parked and sitting still when they were compromised and shouldn’t have been there?

From the ERSM AAR: Lead/Advance Vehicle James Yeager – Driver


He did not do his job.. To drive…

Further:

“According to James Yeager he could not identify enemy forces and 
thus he attempted to suppress the general vicinity of where he suspected 
enemy fire was coming from.  After having fired an estimated half a 
magazine of ammunition out of his M4 Yeager broke contact from the rear of 
his vehicle and maneuvered to the median to the south of the engagement”

Then why was he firing?

If he could identify a target he should have been returning fire from the median…

So.. He allowed a team mate to violate low profile mission? Allowed his team leader to fire a weapon in the street and then stayed on mission and didn’t abort? He didn’t abort after being compromised? Allowed himself, as the LEAD DRIVER, to end up on a road he shouldn’t have been? Then he failed to simply drive? Render Aid? Return Fire???

This is what you are saying?

And he is teaching this subject???? High Risk Civilian Contractor? Tactics..

SOP’s? Wasn’t he supposed to pop smoke to mask his call-sign and protect his wounded?

“Simon in accordance with team SOP’S deployed a smoke grenade to the 
north of the motorcade in order to mask the callsign.
”

Or attend to his wounded? Is that an SOP? He didn’t leave the ditch until coalition forces arrived.

You will default to what you mastered I believe he says in the video…

Obviously he hasn’t mastered driving stick… So he shouldn’t be teaching.

“Ian Harris and Mark 
Collen, each under heavy enemy fire, were the only two individuals during 
the contact who attempted to suppress enemy forces. ”

“James Yeager was in a 
location at the median where he could not engage enemy forces as he did no 
have a line of fire from his location.”

And from Yeager himself:

“I never knew during the firefight which vehicle (or house, or person, 
etc) was shooting at us and I was the first one in position to deliver 
accurate, sustained, and deadly return fire and I didn’t know where to aim 
my gun. “

Get in the game champ!!!

What happened to finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target James?

How about be sure of your target and what is behind and beyond it???

Lots of video and AARs here:
h t t p : // mountainrunner.us/2006/01/edinburgh_risk_.html

[END]

Please rate this comment: 0  0

BUT… H&K back in the 80s trained with hot weapons and 360 degree movements on the “flat range”. You weren’t breaking any new ground… pioneering any new concept!

It is so funny when some of the young trainers think they are “pioneering” training and coming up with “new concepts”… Magpul Dynamics is another example in their new handgun video. I am not saying you or Magpul are not conducting quality training… I am say don’t think you all are doing ANYTHING new!!!

You all need to do a bit of homework… and realize you all are not pioneering ANYTHING new!

Here is what it comes down to… marketing. All this is marketing tactics… and nothing more. The goal is not to put out the ultimate of training. The goal is to keep the flow of business rolling to stay in business. Period!

Please rate this comment: 0  0

1. There is nothing imoral or evil with standing next to a target while someone else shoots at it.

2. There is nothing imoral or evil about not wanting to stand next to a target while someone else shoots at it.

1+2 = Do what you want, I don’t care and I would appreciate you returning the favor.

It’s so funny to hear mall ninjas and couch commandos debate this issue and make it sound like Tactical Response is responsible for genocide.

“I didn’t say it was imoral or wicked, it’s just stupid!”. I know, just know, that one of you is about to say that. Well, forgive me, I forgot that you are in fact the universal authority in charge of defining all words and ideas, and that if you say it’s stupid then it must be so.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

you think the SEALS ever have to shoot past a buddy?

Please rate this comment: 0  1

What you DON’T do is take your teen and all your friend’s teens, and have them drive around you while you take pictures. Something is liable to happen. Maybe it won’t 9 times out of 10 or even 99 times out of 100, but woe is the cry “I did it a hundred times before and no one got hurt!”

The reality of this situation is that Tactical Response wasn’t training their students to be cool when they are faced with a differential target area, they were staging a photo op. The two situations look very different. One has a dummy victim, individual shooters, not a group, an open course, and highly trained students. The other has a cameraman, a bunch of dumb first timers, and a huge opportunity for hurt. All the students should have walked out.

Even without anyone putting their muzzle over the cameraman directly, he could have been severely injured or killed purely by ricochet.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

They were on a low-profile mission and his team leader was seen earlier shooting his MP5 in the roadway, so they had already been compromised and shouldn’t have been parked on that road to begin with. Before you spew vitriol about someone you don’t know, at least take the time to read the facts.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Cameras have tripods, remotes, and timers. There is no need to put people at increased risk. If you want to destroy a few hundred dollar camera setup, it is fine by me. People shot not be placed in locations where they may be “accidentally” shot.

I bet his insurance company would not like to see that video. If the cameraman was killed, i wonder how his wife and kids would feel?

The response video is full of lame excuses. He has dropped into my “no go” list of firearms instructors.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

“Mindset of the Warrior” my foot. This guy has shown his true colors and shouldn’t be trusted to train me, you, or anyone about how to respond tactically in a firefight. If anything, he’s a perfect example of a man who thinks his Magpul accessories and ACU patterned doohickeys make him a tactical genius.

Do you want this man shooting near you at a range so you can take pictures of him?

Please rate this comment: 0  0

They do so based on the knowledge and experience with in the context of sky diving and it’s through experience that they are able to pass on what one would consider best practice to their students in any give situation even if at times they break their own rules.

It is a given that with in the sport there is a need to have rules that ensures the safety of all involved for no reason other than to have a standard and a level of expatiation of all of those involved. The one-eighty rule is simply there as a means of controlling the direction of the muzzle with out having to trust the individual holding the firearm and trusting in their ability to handle the weapon in a safe manner regardless of the situation.

With in that context I can see how the rules needs to be applied in any given situation yet the need to properly train someone in the use of a sidearm, and it’s proper handling in a safe manner, at times requires the need to do so that is not consider by many as best practice.

A police office for example should only pull their sidearm if they have the intention to use it and such use is generally not under the safety rules as governed by the controlled environment such as an organized firing range.

This changes the rules that differs from a paper target and handling the weapon in an efficient and safe manner to focus of what is occurring down range that requires the unobstructed decision making of when to use deadly force.

Granted range safety rules should be followed at all times but an office of the law needs to learn how to handle their sidearm and that needs to included the ability to do a full 360 degree turn safely and effortlessly and look upon their weapon as an extension of law enforcement rather than applying rules that are best suited as part of the sport aspect.

What is safe and safety on the other hand is not inherent from the rules but based on the individual and their confidence to make the right decisions when there are no rules that apply to a given situation.

Sooooo

I’m not all that concerned that someone was standing in front of the firing line as I wonder about the qualifications of the shooter. Overall not the smartest thing to do but I don’t see it being any less dangerous than jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I would have though it would make for a short course.

Lesson 1- RUN! when under fire run away as fast as you can

Congratulations, you all passed!

He says he has never had an accident in 10 years of training…I would like to add “yet” to that statement as with everything in life, Murphys law finds a way of stamping its authority eventually, and James will end up getting someone else killed.

For those who don’t know James Yaegers pedigree, check out how he responds to being shot at…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-fjrRB7WPQ

He is the guy who can be seen at 23 seconds running from the car on the right and hiding at the berm on the left, instead of returning fire or getting his wounded boys off the X…makes you want to sign up for one of his courses huh?

Please rate this comment: 0  1

“For any other group, including civilians — absolutely and unequivocally — no way, no how, and at no time should that be taking place.”

Playing Devil’s advocate here, I assume you are grouping the aforementioned exhibition shooters in with this statement. If that is the case, I think one could argue, that these exhibition shooters are as prolific or even more prolific with firearms than Special Operations Groups.

Let’s say, for the sake of an argument, that these civilian exhibition shooters are “as good” as SOG operators. Going by the rules of your statement they would have never been allowed to develop their shows to full potential due to the fact that they are civilians. Should tightrope walkers be arrested for working without a net. Think of all the amazing things we have accomplished as humans because someone took a risk that was unsafe.

Not everyone has what it takes to be an operator, but should they deny their God given talent to use a firearm just because they don’t want to enlist or flunk selection/buds or the q-course. Not everyone wants to live through SERE, but that’s no reason to deny that they are master with a firearm. Also, should civilians not be allowed to become as masterful with firearms as SOG’s? From what I understand everyone in the USA is charged with the safety of her sovereignty. Everyone who is able is expected to take up arms and defend her from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Should those that would defend her not become as skillful as those that make living of it? My point here being…sometime ago, somewhere, someone took that first shot near friendlies in training to evolve their skill level. Why should we deny that level of training in our civilian counter parts?

We all have the ability to reason and take calculated risks and those calculations will vary from person to person and from situation to situation. Thanks for listening and debating this topic with logic and reason.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

For any other group, including civilians — absolutely and unequivocally — no way, no how, and at no time should that be taking place.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

1. Every week in Army basic a new group of recruits crawls through a fied of simulated artillery fire (which yes could hurt you if you went into one of the depressions and that has happened by recruits that freak out) while Drill Sergeants fire LIVE TRACER round over the heads of hundreds of low crawling recruits?

2. Exhibition shooters like Bryon Ferguson shoot items our of the hand of his wife. Yes he uses a bow but are you any less dead with an arrow in your chest?

3. Military units conduct live fire exercises with observers and they certainly break the 90% plane in all of them by as much or more as this training exercise did?

Please rate this comment: 0  0

As to whether this was “unsafe” or not is up to the individual. Some people think skydiving is “unsafe”, but people still do it anyway…and they DON’T have to do it. It is completely voluntary just like the cameraman’s willingness to take the photo. I’ve seen Bob Munden shoot aspirin out of the air with a revolver, I’ve seen an old couple, (The Fabulous Topperwiens), shoot cigarettes out of each others mouths. Witnessing that level of proficiency with a firearm, I would have no problem letting them lob rounds at or around me, as long as they weren’t intent on killing me that is . Army Delta, as well as other Special Forces groups, practice shooting in a kill house with live ammo and there sure as hell ain’t no 180 degree line. Should they not practice these types of drills with live ammo? The point of the training is to be in total control of a live weapon with others around you, even down range of you. I would assume that the cameraman was comfortable with the shooting proficiency and safety of the shooters on the range that day, otherwise he would not have taken the photo.

In summation, if you personally think it would be unsafe to stand down range of a shooter, regardless of their skill, then by all means don’t do it.

Please rate this comment: 0  0