2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on July 23, 2015, 08:49:53 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hiTrgzHhVk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hiTrgzHhVk)
and the owner's response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3t0wuLDWQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3t0wuLDWQ)
but this isn't "Tier 1" ODD OCT training
-
Nice picture
-
Polar bear in a snow storm?
All I see is a white screen....
-
Huh?
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20e_1292474614
...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20e_1292474614
Click for video
-
OMFG!!!
-
I swear he has the best advertising that costs him nothing.
-
Training video....
Obviously not a good idea, but especially if those are trainees. LOL
-
Polar bear in a snow storm?
All I see is a white screen....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT9ErlOG-3E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT9ErlOG-3E)
and all of y'all who think otherwise are haterz and don't train!
-
The one thing worse than the idiot in front of the line of fire with a camera are the people with the guns willing to point a loaded gun downrange and pull the trigger while there is someone downrange. They are all idiots.
-
The one thing worse than the idiot in front of the line of fire with a camera are the people with the guns willing to point a loaded gun downrange and pull the trigger while there is someone downrange. They are all idiots.
Could not agree more!!!!
Aloha
-
Really, though, it comes down to personal risk acceptance. If that guy is willing to accept the increased risk of death that comes from letting trainees send bullets whizzing past his head, that's his choice... and if the trainees are willing to accept the increased risk of killing a man by shooting at targets while he's downrange, that's their choice(s).
All of that being said, I wouldn't make either choice for myself, and I won't be taking any training from Tactical Response. :shake:
-
Really, though, it comes down to personal risk acceptance. If that guy is willing to accept the increased risk of death that comes from letting trainees send bullets whizzing past his head, that's his choice... and if the trainees are willing to accept the increased risk of killing a man by shooting at targets while he's downrange, that's their choice(s).
All of that being said, I wouldn't make either choice for myself, and I won't be taking any training from Tactical Response. :shake:
I respectfully disagree with your statement about "...it comes down to personal risk acceptance" No matter how much the photographer is willing to be in the line of fire. And no matter how much the trainees are willing to "...send bullets whizzing past his head,...". There are supposed to be fully trained and non-compromising Range Safety Officers and the Head Range Officer which should never have let this occur. It goes completely to the integrity of the systems and the trained range personnel put in place at shooting ranges all over the U.S. If these trained RSO's are willing to compromise the integrity of their training and certification program, plus the operating rules set out then why do we even have these things in place to keep this from happening? If the RSO's are NRA trained and certified (Or another certification) they should lose their certifications. The insurance company the range is insured by should cancel their insurance.
I can't believe this was not only allowed to happen but that it was recorded and put up on YouTube.
-
I posted this to be sarcastic. Tactical Reponse's response to evryine is that they are too high speed to consider safety rules. As Larry Vickers demonstrated, Spetnaz go through live fire training similar to the camera man down range. Though Spetznaz arent in the same level as students. I wonder if a student shot and killed the photog, would the student be charged with a crime? I theorize that it would be similar to a person jumping in traffic. I wouldnt takr any courses. If I shot the photog, I dont know if Id forgive myself.
-
I respectfully disagree with your statement about "...it comes down to personal risk acceptance" No matter how much the photographer is willing to be in the line of fire. And no matter how much the trainees are willing to "...send bullets whizzing past his head,...". There are supposed to be fully trained and non-compromising Range Safety Officers and the Head Range Officer which should never have let this occur. It goes completely to the integrity of the systems and the trained range personnel put in place at shooting ranges all over the U.S. If these trained RSO's are willing to compromise the integrity of their training and certification program, plus the operating rules set out then why do we even have these things in place to keep this from happening? If the RSO's are NRA trained and certified (Or another certification) they should lose their certifications. The insurance company the range is insured by should cancel their insurance.
I can't believe this was not only allowed to happen but that it was recorded and put up on YouTube.
What if (and I don't know if it was) this training occurred on private property, run exclusively by this Tactical Response guy? I 100% agree that 1) IF there were any certified RSOs there, their certifications should be revoked by the applicable agency; we don't know that there were, and 2) if I were a decision-maker at the insurance company that holds his policy, I'd either revoke it so fast it would make his tatical-operator-bearded head spin, or charge him a premium equal to the amount of the policy payout.
The key thing for me here is that as long as EVERYONE INVOLVED is aware of, and accepts, the risks involved, I've got no authority to tell them they can't. I can say that they SHOULDN'T, but not that they CAN'T. If this was happening at a range where the range operator was unaware of what was going on, that would be a foul. If I operated that range, they'd be ejected, never to return.
Like I said, I wouldn't participate in that activity, either as a photographer or as a shooter. BUT, if I were on my own land, with a group of people who all understood and accepted the risks involved, who should be able to tell me I can't?
-
If a student shot and killed the photog, would he/she be charged with: Involuntary manslaughter ?
Defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.
Then there's the other side of the argument, where people point out that is the way to train realistically.
If you are incapable of NOT shooting someone in front of you then you have no business using a firearm in a deadly force situation. When was the last time someone had a defensive gun use on a square range with a 180 degree firing line and only bad guys down range? Not shooting things you don't want to shoot is just as important a skill, if not more so, than being able to shoot the things you do want to shoot.
-
If a student shot and killed the photog, would he/she be charged with: Involuntary manslaughter ?
Defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.
Then there's the other side of the argument, where people point out that is the way to train realistically.
More like negligent homicide: Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against people who, through criminal negligence, allow others to die.
criminal negligence is a surrogate mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is not, strictly speaking, a mens rea because it refers to an objective standard of behaviour expected of the defendant and does not refer to his mental state.
-
What if (and I don't know if it was) this training occurred on private property, run exclusively by this Tactical Response guy? I 100% agree that 1) IF there were any certified RSOs there, their certifications should be revoked by the applicable agency; we don't know that there were, and 2) if I were a decision-maker at the insurance company that holds his policy, I'd either revoke it so fast it would make his tatical-operator-bearded head spin, or charge him a premium equal to the amount of the policy payout.
The key thing for me here is that as long as EVERYONE INVOLVED is aware of, and accepts, the risks involved, I've got no authority to tell them they can't. I can say that they SHOULDN'T, but not that they CAN'T. If this was happening at a range where the range operator was unaware of what was going on, that would be a foul. If I operated that range, they'd be ejected, never to return.
Like I said, I wouldn't participate in that activity, either as a photographer or as a shooter. BUT, if I were on my own land, with a group of people who all understood and accepted the risks involved, who should be able to tell me I can't?
I understand what you are saying. It just goes against all safety is paramount no matter what. That's all. Even if it was on private property safety should never be compromised. If these people want to be idiots then I guess they are going to be idiots.
The other thing that bothers me is that they video taped this and put it on YouTube. The Antis and PC people would love to get their hands on this to rally for more gun control. Why give them more evidence of stupid and dangerous behavior?
-
I posted this to be sarcastic. Tactical Reponse's response to evryine is that they are too high speed to consider safety rules. As Larry Vickers demonstrated, Spetnaz go through live fire training similar to the camera man down range. Though Spetznaz arent in the same level as students. I wonder if a student shot and killed the photog, would the student be charged with a crime? I theorize that it would be similar to a person jumping in traffic. I wouldnt takr any courses. If I shot the photog, I dont know if Id forgive myself.
You would definitely get charged with manslaughter at least at least that's my non lawyer opinion.
-
I'd certainly hope that those stating that the decision is the photographer's responsibility would consider the repercussions of such an incident happening at KHSC.
If similar situations exist or have existed at KHSC, specifically at one of the action bays, regardless of livefire or simply dry firing with someone down range or in that specific "safe direction", I'd hope and expect it to be reported to a KHSC RSO or the KHSC Range Master immediately.
Consider any death at KHSC as a result of the death of a down range photographer would result in immediate range closure for an indeterminate amount of time.
-
Uhhh, did he bust out a Heraclitus quote in order to justify his bad judgment? If you think that was dangerous, then you are one of the 10 that don't belong or at least the 80 who are targets. It is in fact you who should be ashamed for not always shooting at a live person, you are just Peloponesian fodder. Guess it worked because now I feel like a pu$$y for thinking what a dumb a$$ he was for putting someone's life in danger for no good reason then trying to justify it. All that crap about creating realism and mastering shooting near people is BS. He did not put the camera man there for training purposes otherwise he would have put a man between every target. If I were one of the other guys in the class, I would ask for my money back because they didn't get the "realistic but not really dangerous" training. I don't see his ass standing by the targets.
His incoherent posturing reminds me of the French taunting in the Monty Python movie. Well...minus the flying livestock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey0wvGiAH9g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey0wvGiAH9g)
Modified for this situation:
Arthur: Go and tell your master that we have witnessed an unsafe practice in his shooting class. If he will change his ways, he may join us in our quest for training without going to jail for murder.
Frenchman: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen-- he thinks you are pu$$ies for even thinking that is unsafe, you see?
Arthur: (to Lancelot) What?
Lancelot: He says we're all pu$$ies....
Arthur: (confused) Are you sure that we are pu$$ies for thinking that?
Frenchman: Oh yes, you are all pu$$ies, even Heraclitus and the Pellaponesians say so.
(whispers to the other soldiers:) I told them Heraclitus think they are pu$$ies!
(they snicker)
Arthur: (taken a bit off balance) Well... ah, um... Can you not shoot two feet from a camera man's head?
Frenchman: Of course not! You are internet commandoes who are too afraid to get out and train.
Arthur: Well, what are you then?
Frenchman: (Indignant) I am a real warrior! Why do you think I do this bad ass training, you silly wimps.?!
Galahad: Why are you shooting at your cameraman?
Frenchman: Mind your own business!
Frenchman: You don't frighten us, pu$$y pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person! Ah blow my nose at your, so-called "safety rules"!
(the Frenchman proceeds to bang on his chest with his hands and stick out his
tongue at the knights, making strange noises.)
Galahad: What a strange person.
Arthur: (getting mad) Now look here, my good ma--
Frenchman: Ah don' wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food-trough
wiper! Ah fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and
your father smelt of elderberries!
Galahad: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
Frenchman: No!! Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
-
I'd certainly hope that those stating that the decision is the photographer's responsibility would consider the repercussions of such an incident happening at KHSC.
If similar situations exist or have existed at KHSC, specifically at one of the action bays, regardless of livefire or simply dry firing with someone down range or in that specific "safe direction", I'd hope and expect it to be reported to a KHSC RSO or the KHSC Range Master immediately.
Consider any death at KHSC as a result of the death of a down range photographer would result in immediate range closure for an indeterminate amount of time.
But this DIDN'T happen at KHSC. I think it's a pretty safe bet that this occurred on a private range owned by Tactical Response.
As a long time military aviator, I heard the words "safety is paramount" more times than I can count. It always seemed a little odd to me, because if safety was truly paramount, we'd never fly any airplanes, or shoot any guns. Flying involves inherent risk... and so does shooting. Aerobatic maneuvers involve significantly higher risk of crashing than cruising straight and level to a destination, but pilots are still allowed to assume that risk for themselves. Federal aviation regulations restrict where and how a pilot may fly acrobatically, primarily to protect others (in the air and on the ground) who are not involved in that activity. In like terms, shooting involves inherent risk. Drawing from holsters, shooting fast, and shooting while on the move involve more risk than standing at a square range popping off one round per second... but we're still allowed to assume that risk for ourselves.
I stand by my words. Everybody involved in that video knew the level of risk involved, and I didn't see any evidence that the guy that runs Tactical Response in any way forced that photographer to take pictures from in between targets. If ALL of those consenting adults understood the risk, it's THEIR choice to participate, and I've got no dog in that fight. Like I said, I wouldn't be anywhere near one of those classes, I wouldn't sell them insurance, and if I had certified anyone there as a range official, I'd pull their certification. But it's not up to me to make them stop.
-
But this DIDN'T happen at KHSC. I think it's a pretty safe bet that this occurred on a private range owned by Tactical Response.
As a long time military aviator, I heard the words "safety is paramount" more times than I can count. It always seemed a little odd to me, because if safety was truly paramount, we'd never fly any airplanes, or shoot any guns. Flying involves inherent risk... and so does shooting. Aerobatic maneuvers involve significantly higher risk of crashing than cruising straight and level to a destination, but pilots are still allowed to assume that risk for themselves. Federal aviation regulations restrict where and how a pilot may fly acrobatically, primarily to protect others (in the air and on the ground) who are not involved in that activity. In like terms, shooting involves inherent risk. Drawing from holsters, shooting fast, and shooting while on the move involve more risk than standing at a square range popping off one round per second... but we're still allowed to assume that risk for ourselves.
I stand by my words. Everybody involved in that video knew the level of risk involved, and I didn't see any evidence that the guy that runs Tactical Response in any way forced that photographer to take pictures from in between targets. If ALL of those consenting adults understood the risk, it's THEIR choice to participate, and I've got no dog in that fight. Like I said, I wouldn't be anywhere near one of those classes, I wouldn't sell them insurance, and if I had certified anyone there as a range official, I'd pull their certification. But it's not up to me to make them stop.
So you are saying that all participants were completely willing and not pressured even unintentionally to go along with it?
In the military, we have this thing called ORM or Operational Risk Management. This means you weigh the risk vs gain of each activity.
Are cool action shots worth risking the camera man's life and the livelihood of the shooter and range owner? Have they never heard of a tripod?
As for legality, I'm pretty sure it's legal for consenting adults to play russian roulette too, until someone looses.
-
So you are saying that all participants were completely willing and not pressured even unintentionally to go along with it?
In the military, we have this thing called ORM or Operational Risk Management. This means you weigh the risk vs gain of each activity.
Are cool action shots worth risking the camera man's life and the livelihood of the shooter and range owner? Have they never heard of a tripod?
As for legality, I'm pretty sure it's legal for consenting adults to play russian roulette too, until someone looses.
Actually, it's against the law in all 57 states to commit suicide.
The penalty is death .... >:D
-
Actually, it's against the law in all 57 states to commit suicide.
The penalty is death .... >:D
Nice Obama joke... Never forget
-
Everyone one of the shooters and the photographer are nothing but a bunch of FUCKING IDIOTS!!!
-
Everyone one of the shooters and the photographer are nothing but a bunch of FUCKING IDIOTS!!!
You're obviously not training realistically...
-
So you are saying that all participants were completely willing and not pressured even unintentionally to go along with it?
In the military, we have this thing called ORM or Operational Risk Management. This means you weigh the risk vs gain of each activity.
Are cool action shots worth risking the camera man's life and the livelihood of the shooter and range owner? Have they never heard of a tripod?
As for legality, I'm pretty sure it's legal for consenting adults to play russian roulette too, until someone looses.
I'm not saying that it's a fact that "all participants were completely willing and not pressured." Note the word "If" at the beginning of my sentence. IF anyone was coerced into participating, then that would be a different matter... but we have no evidence of that.
Very familiar with ORM, and when we started using it, everybody quit saying "safety is paramount" because we realized it wasn't. Once again, if safety was truly paramount, we wouldn't do things like shoot guns, fly airplanes go underwater in submarines, or get out of bed in the morning. If the photographer was willing to put himself in that position (which it certainly appears he was, based on a follow-up video he did), and the class participants were willing to shoot with him there, that's their choice. And they'll all have to live (or not) with the consequences of their choices. Who should intervene? Law enforcement?
Are cool action shots worth life and livelihood? I don't think so, but once again... Not my choice to make.
Everyone one of the shooters and the photographer are nothing but a bunch of FUCKING IDIOTS!!!
I'm with you 100% on that one. And they have every right in the world to be idiots, as long as no one was/is coerced into accepting risk they would otherwise not be willing to accept.
-
You're obviously not training realistically...
Obviously. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: