• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Sheep and Sheepdogs, or: That Guy at the Range

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#31
The “sheepdog” analogy is simplistic, but this is completely uncalled for. You had a cogent argument going, and then just dropped a turd in the punchbowl. Not only is it insulting, you seem to be either misunderstanding Grossman’s argument completely, or deliberately setting up a straw man....Buying a bunch of guns doesn’t make you a sheepdog. The sheepdog is an armed citizen with the noble goal of protecting the vulnerable from those who would do them harm...
I think you misunderstood who I was alluding to, definitely not the shooter in Las Vegas but at least one of the folks who was in the crowd at the time.
 
Last edited:

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#32
...You guys have a problem with the messenger. I don't understand the hate. But if this really jacks you up then remove him from the equation and study up on it yourself.
Because I think he is pretty close to being a fraud, and likely gets my taxpayer money to 'train' folks.
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#33
I think you misunderstood who I was alluding to, definitely not the shooter in Las Vegas but at least one of the folks who was in the crowd at the time.
Copy your PM; my apologies. I completely misread the subject of the post.

The fate of the Instagram guy just goes to show why talking tough is a bad idea. You have to be able to back it up, and none of us who haven’t been shot at could predict how we’d react.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#34
Training coupled with instinct helps ensure police, firefighters and military personnel react to crises situations in an appropriate manner but I think most of Grossman's spiel is nothing but pure pabulum.
Instinct: 1. an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

Proof you don't understand the subject. The innate fixed pattern for all animals is to avoid danger until forced to confront it. Law enforcement and military training is to OVERRIDE the instinct to avoid deadly encounters. Understanding the psychology and the physiological responses one experiences, along with duty or a sense of obligation and an aggressive victorious mindset is needed to counter instinct in most every close encounter with danger. That ordinary people sometimes rise to the occasion is remarkable precisely because it is so unusual. They did not do what was instinctual. That is why those that did are rightly being lionized in the press now. A very small number of people in the Vegas shooting put themselves in mortal danger to help strangers. That is OK. It is normal. The vast majority did act with instinct, avoiding danger and helping those close to them they actually cared for. That is human nature. It is NOT human nature or instinctual to investigate an active shooter in a hotel room as an unarmed security guard. It is not in human nature to kick down a door in Fallujah after your buddy got shot doing the same thing hours before. We get people to do things like that by understanding the science. It is most certainly not pabulum.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#35
Instinct: 1. an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.

Proof you don't understand the subject....That ordinary people sometimes rise to the occasion is remarkable precisely because it is so unusual. They did not do what was instinctual....
They did what was instinctual to them.

The psychology underpinning the training and conditioning of police, firefighters and soldiers isn't pabalum but Grossman's take on it seems to be. I'm sure he would tell me otherwise if my organization paid for some his training though.
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
#36
The sheepdog is an armed citizen with the noble goal of protecting the vulnerable from those who would do them harm.
Listened to an interesting podcast* this week hosted by a guy who's pretty knowledgable on the topic of shooting. Unless your sheepdog is walking around with a round chambered, spends considerable time at the range (to include close quarters training), and has thoroughly thought through (chair flew) multiple employment scenarios, than he's left with nothing more than that "noble goal" - which is something entirely different than actual capability/proficiency.

Separately, this jackass is really lucky he didn't get his ass kicked by the cop in the video.


*I heard of the podcast during recent episode of Joe Rogan Experience.
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#37
Listened to an interesting podcast* this week hosted by a guy who's pretty knowledgable on the topic of shooting. Unless your sheepdog is walking around with a round chambered, spends considerable time at the range (to include close quarters training), and has thoroughly thought through (chair flew) multiple employment scenarios, than he's left with nothing more than that "noble goal" - which is something entirely different than actual capability/proficiency.

Separately, this jackass is really lucky he didn't get his ass kicked by the cop in the video.
I don't disagree. But you can also make the same argument about law enforcement. Not every cop does that, either.

Inconveniently for the right, the vast majority of cops and CCW holders will never be anywhere close to needing to employ their weapon. Inconveniently for the left, CCW licensees have astronomically smaller rates of violent crime, and are statistically highly unlikely to misuse their weapon.

And the Instagram dude is a fucking idiot.
 

NavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
#38
I don't disagree. But you can also make the same argument about law enforcement. Not every cop does that, either.

Inconveniently for the right, the vast majority of cops and CCW holders will never be anywhere close to needing to employ their weapon. Inconveniently for the left, CCW licensees have astronomically smaller rates of violent crime, and are statistically highly unlikely to misuse their weapon.

And the Instagram dude is a fucking idiot.
When you say employ the weapon are you saying draw and shoot or just draw, if draw and shoot I would add many CCW holders draw and don't shoot, just that action stops the criminal action from continuing.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#39
They did what was instinctual to them.

The psychology underpinning the training and conditioning of police, firefighters and soldiers isn't pabalum but Grossman's take on it seems to be. I'm sure he would tell me otherwise if my organization paid for some his training though.
Give me a brake. If we all have a different instinct, it isn't instinct at all. Go ahead and rewrite the English language if you must. "seems to be" is the most defining phase used in this debate yet. You simply do not know because your knowledge of Grossman is based on unfriendly articles, and more important, you are not independently familiar the science behind his training. If not familiar with the science, you can't draw a conclusion about his take on it, even when based on out of context unfriendly accounts . Snotty comment about him charging for his training aside, no need to wait for his lectures. Better yet, read something about the science behind his training. I hear you can still get free books from a place called a library.

Listened to an interesting podcast* this week hosted by a guy who's pretty knowledgable on the topic of shooting. Unless your sheepdog is walking around with a round chambered, spends considerable time at the range (to include close quarters training), and has thoroughly thought through (chair flew) multiple employment scenarios, than he's left with nothing more than that "noble goal" - which is something entirely different than actual capability/proficiency.

Separately, this jackass is really lucky he didn't get his ass kicked by the cop in the video.


*I heard of the podcast during recent episode of Joe Rogan Experience.
You are correct of course. But if this guy went to the range to train tactically someone might call him "that guy", a tool. As mentioned, lots, probably most at many agencies, don't even train to this level. They are betting on the odds they won't need to perform to that level. If they bet wrong their widows may hope they took their training more seriously. Your reference to chair flying inspires another thought. Aviators have the same problem. This applies to aviation and most aviators are not as prepared as we should be. We are betting on the odds as well. We have all been run through a scenario in the sim that we thought was so rare as to not require much of your time and effort. We have all let the book get dusty until days before a check ride. Most aviators and cops, think they will rise to the occasion when confronted with a deadly encounter or emergency. Like adrenaline will make us more talented and give us a steadier hand and better judgment. Of course the opposite is true.

All that said, not every armed encounter by police or citizen require the level of training alluded to in the pod cast. If that were the case, in most police shootings the cop would lose. Not every airborne emergency requires us to perform at Scott Crossfield levels of competence.

I'll take a noble goal any day over no goal or an evil goal. I am not going to discourage anyone.
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#40
When you say employ the weapon are you saying draw and shoot or just draw, if draw and shoot I would add many CCW holders draw and don't shoot, just that action stops the criminal action from continuing.
True, but given the number of licensees, I'd bet that's still very rare. Granted, I don't have the numbers in front of me.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#42
Give me a brake. If we all have a different instinct, it isn't instinct at all. Go ahead and rewrite the English language if you must. "seems to be" is the most defining phase used in this debate yet. You simply do not know because your knowledge of Grossman is based on unfriendly articles, and more important, you are not independently familiar the science behind his training. If not familiar with the science, you can't draw a conclusion about his take on it, even when based on out of context unfriendly accounts. Snotty comment about him charging for his training aside, no need to wait for his lectures. Better yet, read something about the science behind his training. I hear you can still get free books from a place called a library.
Folks reacting without much thought at all to a situation they are in, seems like instinct to me.

I guess I'm not the only one who has trouble at reading comprehension. As I have pointed out in this thread I am not familiar with Grossman just through unfriendly articles, which I researched only after I first responded to this article, but also from the research he bases his first book on and seemingly his entire philosophy and training, SLA Marshall's research into the behavior of soldiers in combat in WWII. That work has been largely discredited, was likely falsified to begin with and was so by the time Grossman wrote his book. Marshall's research and conclusions underpin Grossman's first book and his entire 'sheepdog' theory, and thus undermine Grossman and his own 'theories'. Further discrediting him is his use of misleading and false facts about violence against police in this country and in general.

Finally, there is this. "We are at war," Grossman likes to tell the people he trains. "And our cops are the frontline troops in that war. You are the Delta Force. You are the Green Berets. It's your job to put a piece of steel in your fist and kill those sons of bitches when they come to kill our kids."
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
#43
Finally, there is this. "We are at war," Grossman likes to tell the people he trains. "And our cops are the frontline troops in that war. You are the Delta Force. You are the Green Berets. It's your job to put a piece of steel in your fist and kill those sons of bitches when they come to kill our kids."
That's not the message we need to send police officers. There is a time and place for them to use violence, but 99% of the time, they should be guardians, not warriors.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#44
That's not the message we need to send police officers. There is a time and place for them to use violence, but 99% of the time, they should be guardians, not warriors.
Of course. But I know you don't mean pacifist, reactionary guardians. Cops have guns for a reason. Their jobs as guardians require them to affirmatively confront very dangerous people in dangerous situations. The 1% of the time you need to be a warrior (and it is much higher for some assignments that most cops rotate through), when your survival requires violence, aggression, and confidence, you don't just pull it out of nowhere. It doesn't work that way. If you don't want our law enforcement to essentially be the underdog in that 1% then you must train them for it. If you don't, you are playing the lottery with the lives of the folks that are, in fact, our guardians 99% of the time.

Again, you guys assume that the sort of pep talk attributed to Grossman (cherry picked, by the way , in a presentation that puts those comments in context) is turning cops into automatons hell bent on putting a fist into a citizen's mouth for no reason. If the quote above was all that was communicated by Grossman, I'd say it was inappropriate. But it isn't. In fact, the message we need to send to the police is what Grossman puts out in the entirety of his presentations. There is no evidence that kind of training is leading law enforcement to violate anyone's civil rights, but cops have said his training has contributed to their survival.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
#45
Of course. But I know you don't mean pacifist, reactionary guardians. Cops have guns for a reason. Their jobs as guardians require them to affirmatively confront very dangerous people in dangerous situations. The 1% of the time you need to be a warrior (and it is much higher for some assignments that most cops rotate through), when your survival requires violence, aggression, and confidence, you don't just pull it out of nowhere. It doesn't work that way. If you don't want our law enforcement to essentially be the underdog in that 1% then you must train them for it. If you don't, you are playing the lottery with the lives of the folks that are, in fact, our guardians 99% of the time.

Again, you guys assume that the sort of pep talk attributed to Grossman (cherry picked, by the way , in a presentation that puts those comments in context) is turning cops into automatons hell bent on putting a fist into a citizen's mouth for no reason. If the quote above was all that was communicated by Grossman, I'd say it was inappropriate. But it isn't. In fact, the message we need to send to the police is what Grossman puts out in the entirety of his presentations. There is no evidence that kind of training is leading law enforcement to violate anyone's civil rights, but cops have said his training has contributed to their survival.
Comparing military to police training, having done both, the military is much more attuned to the idea of "not coming home may be the price of doing business." While there was some conflict resolution-type stuff in police training, "objective reasonableness" (look it up) was treated almost as a shield for fucking up, and an excuse to escalate unnecessarily, in the name of "coming home."
 
Top