and the owner's response:

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?

...


Click for video

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....

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.   

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.   

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.