Help me tear apart this frightening video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo

I'm not particularly educated on CQB tactics, beyond some basics. However, I'm in complete agreement with NCPatrolAR (welcome to the forum, btw - nice to have somebody with your level of experience on board to contribute!) in that real world experience can lend some nice insight, but shouldn't be an absolute pre-requisite to teach. Competency, proficiency, and common sense should be enough.

---

Agreed, and paying more for the instruction from a highly experienced professional is to be expected. The price KellyTTE charged for his course was very affordable and worth the price paid IMO.

i dont really think the criticism of kellys course should be in this thread....but thats just me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

ETA: My question for Mick- I've done CQB training, I've done breach training, I've done PSD training (to include driving, formations, and close protection), but never actually done the actual job.... Let's say I go out and take a bunch of CQB courses, and decide that I'm competent enough on the subject, and can preform adequately. But since I've never actually done it professionally in a real-life environment (training only, mind you) I'll never be qualified to teach it? Just clarify that for me please. Because by that logic, I've never been in a firefight, yet I have spent countless hours training people on the M4/M16 platform for combat scenarios, trained our unit officers on the M9 combat pistol course, and taught PSD operations, but since I have no real world applications I'm not qualified, right?

---

If you think that, then you don't know a thing about team movements/CQB/urban operations. And that is exactly why you or someone who thinks like that shouldn't be teaching that material, regardless of who they took a course from. That 1 sentiment shows your lack of experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

If you think that, then you don't know a thing about team movements/CQB/urban operations. And that is exactly why you or someone who thinks like that shouldn't be teaching that material, regardless of who they took a course from. That 1 sentiment shows your lack of experience.

---

Please explain...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo

I'm not particularly educated on CQB tactics, beyond some basics. However, I'm in complete agreement with NCPatrolAR (welcome to the forum, btw - nice to have somebody with your level of experience on board to contribute!) in that real world experience can lend some nice insight, but shouldn't be an absolute pre-requisite to teach. Competency, proficiency, and common sense should be enough.

---

An 11B with only 2 years with a leg unit is not what one would consider experience compared to those who have been fighting these wars for 10+ years. Glad to see him continue his shooting education but experience is not his forte.

If you think "Competency, proficiency, and common sense should be enough," then you clearly don't know what we are talking about. For a static range that is a good start. For anything involving more dynamic movements, much more is needed, especially experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Please explain...

---

That has been explained in detail in this thread and has seemed become the entire point of this thread. Even Kelly pointed that out, although he doesn't follow it himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

An 11B with only 2 years with a leg unit is not what one would consider experience compared to those who have been fighting these wars for 10+ years. Glad to see him continue his shooting education but experience is not his forte.

If you think "Competency, proficiency, and common sense should be enough," then you clearly don't know what we are talking about. For a static range that is a good start. For anything involving more dynamic movements, much more is needed, especially experience.

---

So by that logic just doing training with the unit, no matter how extensive, then one is not competent and aptly able to perform unless they have actually experience? Hmm... that's kind of faulty logic there. Please, try again.

To that I mean, and in response to your latest post, you are saying without actual, real world experience (meaning real bad guys, real bullets, real actual combat/breaching) that one is not experienced or proficient enough to teach the subject. Am I correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth. If that is the case then we shouldn't allow anyone to go into combat unless they've had actual combat experience. But in order to have combat experience you have to go into combat, but if you won't be allowed into combat without experience then you'll never gain combat experience and thus will never go into combat. See, doesn't make sense does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

An 11B with only 2 years with a leg unit is not what one would consider experience compared to those who have been fighting these wars for 10+ years. Glad to see him continue his shooting education but experience is not his forte

---

is this referencing my experience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

So by that logic just doing training with the unit, no matter how extensive, then one is not competent and aptly able to perform unless they have actually experience? Hmm... that's kind of faulty logic there. Please, try again.

To that I mean, and in response to your latest post, you are saying without actual, real world experience (meaning real bad guys, real bullets, real actual combat/breaching) that one is not experienced or proficient enough to teach the subject. Am I correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth. If that is the case then we shouldn't allow anyone to go into combat unless they've had actual combat experience. But in order to have combat experience you have to go into combat, but if you won't be allowed into combat without experience then you'll never gain combat experience and thus will never go into combat. See, doesn't make sense does it?

---

Again, you missed the point. Go back and read the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

Again, you missed the point. Go back and read the thread.

---

I believe I got the point... and I quote:
"If you think "Competency, proficiency, and common sense should be enough," then you clearly don't know what we are talking about. For a static range that is a good start. For anything involving more dynamic movements, much more is needed, especially experience."
No matter how many times one goes through a shoot house it will never be enough without actual experience. At least that's what I take away from your meaning, and remember kids, perception is reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I believe I got the point... and I quote:
"If you think "Competency, proficiency, and common sense should be enough," then you clearly don't know what we are talking about. For a static range that is a good start. For anything involving more dynamic movements, much more is needed, especially experience."
No matter how many times one goes through a shoot house it will never be enough without actual experience. At least that's what I take away from your meaning, and remember kids, perception is reality.

---

It takes more than a few days, or years even, to learn those principles. Anyone who thinks they have "mastered" or are experts in that are often proven wrong when a fatal mistake is made. There are very few "experts" in that arena and none of them consider themselves such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

It takes more than a few days, or years even, to learn those principles. Anyone who thinks they have "mastered" or are experts in that are often proven wrong when a fatal mistake is made. There are very few "experts" in that arena and none of them consider themselves such.

---

I didn't say that one would be come an expert in a few days or even years- I have only done a few instances of it in a training scenario and I wouldn't consider myself proficient enough to train the subject, but who's to say one day I might become proficient enough to train, even though I've never kicked a door down with real bad guys on the other side?

Based off the silence, I'll take it that " 2 years in a leg unit" comment was directed at someone else in the thread

[Pop] This thread is getting good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

ETA: My question for Mick- I've done CQB training, I've done breach training, I've done PSD training (to include driving, formations, and close protection), but never actually done the actual job.... Let's say I go out and take a bunch of CQB courses, and decide that I'm competent enough on the subject, and can preform adequately. But since I've never actually done it professionally in a real-life environment (training only, mind you) I'll never be qualified to teach it? Just clarify that for me please. Because by that logic, I've never been in a firefight, yet I have spent countless hours training people on the M4/M16 platform for combat scenarios, trained our unit officers on the M9 combat pistol course, and taught PSD operations, but since I have no real world applications I'm not qualified, right?

---

How many weekend, civilian classes would I have to take before you'd take me seriously as a military intel guy? No deployments. No MOS school. Just paid out of pocket training. How many would it take?

To answer your question; From my perspective, you'd be veering dangerously close to poser territory as soon as you started trying to charge people a fee to learn from you as some sort of Subject Matter Expert on combat operations/CQB/PSD/etc. if you haven't actually *DONE* that for a living.

I posted this in post #138 of this thread

Quote:

---

To properly instruct someone in an advanced skill like CQB, you need to be a subject matter expert (with the depth of experience that implies) and be able to deconstruct everything to its most basic components.

Generally that means that the instructor has received formal instruction in CQB operations at a MIL or LEO unit, trained for and conducted CQB operations and finally instructed students in CQB within the framework of a unit that has established and successful SOPs.

---

There is a difference between someone who is teaching in a Mil/LEO setting because that's one of their assigned tasks and a man who is marketing himself as such an SME that people should pay to train with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR

Based off the silence, I'll take it that " 2 years in a leg unit" comment was directed at someone else in the thread

---

Opps. I missed it. No, it was at you. Yes I know you were in more than 2 years but a basic leg 11B is nothing to get all excited about these days. I know you're an law enforcement officer too (so was dickbag from Gunsmoke). With your busy training schedule, how do you find the time to do all these high risk warrants? We know Kelly invited you over to bail him out of his hole. Anyone that endorses someone not qualified to teach and run a live fire, is not someone or an organization I will support not to mention the loss of credibility.

Any sectors and/or industries will have little to no experience as an expert.
Some of them still do good job teaching. Some of them do shitty.
Some of the "Expert" who has tons of experience does shitty job even with years of experience.

PGA tour player may have tons of experience, but might be shitty as PGA instructor.
I've seen a guy who has massive amount of experience in telecommunication as a(n) officer/executive, but cannot teach the damn thing at a grad level.
I've seen an intellectual property and patent attorney who has great amount of experience there, but has no experience in labor law do an excellent job teaching.

How about teachers? Tons of experience in Electrical engineering is teaching an AP Physics C classes in high school. He has absolute no experience in some physics labs. However, he was a great instructor for highschool. He is a "professional" teacher.

I don't think some of these instructor are teaching some crazy ass extraction nor how to jump off of 90,000ft space ship to sea level.
NOW, if an average joe instructor claims that he took out 5 nuclear submarines with a single shot from his carbine, he needs his head checked out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Any sectors and/or industries will have little to no experience as an expert.
Some of them still do good job teaching. Some of them do shitty.
Some of the "Expert" who has tons of experience does shitty job even with years of experience.

PGA tour player may have tons of experience, but might be shitty as PGA instructor.
I've seen a guy who has massive amount of experience in telecommunication as a(n) officer/executive, but cannot teach the damn thing at a grad level.
I've seen an intellectual property and patent attorney who has great amount of experience there, but has no experience in labor law do an excellent job teaching.

How about teachers? Tons of experience in Electrical engineering is teaching an AP Physics C classes in high school. He has absolute no experience in some physics labs. However, he was a great instructor for highschool. He is a "professional" teacher.

I don't think some of these instructor are teaching some crazy ass extraction nor how to jump off of 90,000ft space ship to sea level.
NOW, if an average joe instructor claims that he took out 5 nuclear submarines with a single shot from his carbine, he needs his head checked out.

---

Good post!

It seems like part of the importance of first hand experience is that some of those experiences just can't be taught in a class room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick-Boy

How many weekend, civilian classes would I have to take before you'd take me seriously as a military intel guy? No deployments. No MOS school. Just paid out of pocket training. How many would it take?

To answer your question; From my perspective, you'd be veering dangerously close to poser territory as soon as you started trying to charge people a fee to learn from you as some sort of Subject Matter Expert on combat operations/CQB/PSD/etc. if you haven't actually *DONE* that for a living.

I posted this in post #138 of this thread



There is a difference between someone who is teaching in a Mil/LEO setting because that's one of their assigned tasks and a man who is marketing himself as such an SME that people should pay to train with them.

---

Oh you're comparing apples to oranges? If you had just said Intel guy then I'd probably ask if you used the same systems, TTPs, and operational areas as I, then it wouldn't matter. I would compare that to "Would you trust a USMC intelligence officer as much as your fellow Army? Different training and all?" Yes, yes I would. Or how about CIA? Yep! Terrible example, because I can get firearms training almost anywhere and depending on the instructor, you can get good training anywhere. Military specific training can only be offered by military- or government. However, things like CQB (which are not just done by military but also can be performed by LE, PMCs, etc.) can be trained outside the military and you need not be a combat vet to be a subject matter expert. I would consider one of the instructors who taught me how to shoot the M16 (not a combat vet, surprisingly enough) a subject matter expert- he had qualified expert every single time for 17 years straight, worked with the rifle in all manner of training scenarios, and yet not a single deployment between 1989 and 2006- not to mention could take the thing apart and put it back together perfectly with very little hassle, tell you everything you wanted to know from maximum effective range, to muzzle velocity with GI ball 5.56 ammo. I on the other hand do not tell people I'm an SME unless I actually am (and to be honest, I really don't consider myself an SME in ANYTHING).

There is also a burden of responsibility on the person taking the instruction, to utilize it as framework upon which to build his own "real world" practical experience. You can learn advanced skills from simply reading a book, without any form of instructor. Are you an expert then? No. Do you have the basic understanding necessary to increase your experience? Yes.

If somebody were teaching these classes and promising that the pupils would be experts on the other side, I'd take umbrage. But they're not - all they're teaching is the skillset.

Expertise comes from a mix of personal experience and a continuous learning process. I don't take someone teaching the classes on basic concepts/skills, as some claim that they're the be all/end all of everything related to the subject. Just that they're proficient in the skillset and theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

Opps. I missed it. No, it was at you.

---

Well arent you just a cute little ball of sunshine.

Quote:

---

Yes I know you were in more than 2 years but a basic leg 11B is nothing to get all excited about these days.

---

Who is claiming that there is something to be excited about over my time in the service? Training as a whole sucked while I was in and I didnt start to gain real levels of ability in topics other than patrolling through the woods until I hit the private/LE sector.

Quote:

---

With your busy training schedule, how do you find the time to do all these high risk warrants

---

Well, serving warrants is a part of my career, so it would make sense that I have time to do them since I've been employed by the same agency for the past 11 years. So do the math..... employed for 11 years, assigned to a street crimes unit for 7 years, agency has 1800 officers, and we serve an area with a population around 970k...... all of that equals plenty of time during the work week to knock down warrant services in addition to our other tasks. And we even manage to squeeze training days in there. [panic]

When it comes to my training schedule; I take classes when the opportunity presents itself. Since most classes are held on the week end, I usually dont have to take vacation time unless its a week-long course. Also, factor in that I've trained with listed instructors since 2004. Its not like I hit a class by all of them last weekend; but you already knew that.

Quote:

---

We know Kelly invited you over to bail him out of his hole.

---

You just continue to hit that fail button dont you? [fail]

I'm here because of the video involving Anthony and Colorado Shooting Sports. I first saw the video on Facebook and after Anthony blocked my comments from his page, I started looking for various places where the video was being talked about. I even started my own discussions about it on M4Carbine.net and several other places. If I was here to bail Kelly out wouldnt it make sense that all of my posts would be towards that task? Instead, my first post was answering someone's question about what was wrong with the video/what could be done differently. Unlike you, I was actually trying to be helpful in the discussion. When you decided to talk about Kelly's classes I decided to chime in since I have actually attended one and have a base of knowledge to form an educated opinion on the class (aka I'm not a "that was my first class and it was awesome" person).

Quote:

---

Anyone that endorses someone not qualified to teach and run a live fire, is not someone or an organization I will support not to mention the loss of credibility.

---

And the endorsement of someone that sees fit to do nothing but insult others should be heeded why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Oh you're comparing apples to oranges? If you had just said Intel guy then I'd probably ask if you used the same systems, TTPs, and operational areas as I, then it wouldn't matter. I would compare that to "Would you trust a USMC intelligence officer as much as your fellow Army? Different training and all?" Yes, yes I would. Or how about CIA? Yep! Terrible example, because I can get firearms training almost anywhere and depending on the instructor, you can get good training anywhere. Military specific training can only be offered by military- or government. However, things like CQB (which are not just done by military but also can be performed by LE, PMCs, etc.) can be trained outside the military and you need not be a combat vet to be a subject matter expert. I would consider one of the instructors who taught me how to shoot the M16 (not a combat vet, surprisingly enough) a subject matter expert- he had qualified expert every single time for 17 years straight, worked with the rifle in all manner of training scenarios, and yet not a single deployment between 1989 and 2006- not to mention could take the thing apart and put it back together perfectly with very little hassle, tell you everything you wanted to know from maximum effective range, to muzzle velocity with GI ball 5.56 ammo. I on the other hand do not tell people I'm an SME unless I actually am (and to be honest, I really don't consider myself an SME in ANYTHING).

---

Talk about comparing apples to oranges...that is the exact point. Basic fundamentals and team tactics require different levels of expertise. The more dynamic the training, the more expertise and experience necessary to have a safe training environment and successfully teach the material. No one is saying that combat experience is needed to teach rifle fundamentals. Years of experience, either overseas or CONUS in real unscripted situitations is necessary to be a safe and effective teacher of CQB. It's not that hard of a concept to understand. Nurses don't teach neurosurgery, Anthony (and Kelly) have no business teaching CQB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR

I'm here because of the video involving Anthony and Colorado Shooting Sports. I first saw the video on Facebook and after Anthony blocked my comments from his page, I started looking for various places where the video was being talked about. I even started my own discussions about it on M4Carbine.net and several other places. If I was here to bail Kelly out wouldnt it make sense that all of my posts would be towards that task? Instead, my first post was answering someone's question about what was wrong with the video/what could be done differently. Unlike you, I was actually trying to be helpful in the discussion. When you decided to talk about Kelly's classes I decided to chime in since I have actually attended one and have a base of knowledge to form an educated opinion on the class (aka I'm not a "that was my first class and it was awesome" person).



And the endorsement of someone that sees fit to do nothing but insult others should be heeded why?

---

OK, you state that you're not here to defend Kelly. Then I was wrong. You did however defend him teaching material outside his scope (post #172) and as a LE officer should see the risk of negligence associated with that. Do you have non qualified officers teaching OC, radar, tactics, driving, etc...? As far as me insulting others...I call BS where I see it. I'm not tactful to those who are constantly full of shit. If you want someone to make you feel good...go to a shrink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

You did however defend him teaching material outside his scope (post #172) and as a LE officer should see the risk of negligence associated with that.

---

As I said, there was nothing taught in the two days that was unsafe, outside the norm, etc from other single person, entry level courses I've seen. If there was anything negligent that was occurring I would have put a stop to it.

Quote:

---

Do you have non qualified officers teaching OC, radar, tactics, driving, etc...?

---

Those of us that teach those topics do so after having completed instructor training courses for each topic in question. So in theory, a person could teach a cqb class if he had an instructor certificate for cqb that the agency recognized

Quote:

---

As far as me insulting others...I call BS where I see it.

---

You must be confusing what you see in the mirror with what you see on the forum.

Quote:

---

If you want someone to make you feel good...go to a shrink.

---

I'm not looking for someone to make me feel good; but I do expect some degree of professionalism from someone that runs their own training company. And if someone needs to see a shrink its most likely you with the way you behave

This is a shitty thread with shitty members shitting on some stand up guys. No thanks for me.
NCPatrolAR, welcome aboard brother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowspeed_highdrag

This is a shitty thread with shitty members shitting on some stand up guys. No thanks for me.
NCPatrolAR, welcome aboard brother.

---

Agreed. Things got really nasty and abrasive for no good reason. I'm done with this thread. Sorry this was the welcome the new member got. We're not all like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo

Agreed. Things got really nasty and abrasive for no good reason. I'm done with this thread. Sorry this was the welcome the new member got. We're not all like that.

---

For those of us that are M4C members, we can vouch that NCPatrolAR woul be a fine addition to the forum and a wealth of knowledge. Just saying...

I'm surprised this thread is still going. It got way off the original topic, a topic that I thought we would all agree on.

lot of purse swinging[handbags] and dead horse beating [beatdeadhorse] going on around here .....
oh yeah






TESTICLES ...... that is all . [Coffee]



[werdo]

you guys should meet and roe sham bo to see who is the the baddest or you could have a dance off ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWQxCoYgXI

Don't know how to imbed this but....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcIj...e_gdata_player

http://youtu.be/WcVI64IbkIs

Awww, did I hurt someone's feelings? Does owning a training company automatically require me to bow down? F*CK NO. I've owned a company, it sucks. There are lots of people who own "training" companies who don't know shit (the original topic of this thread if I'm not mistaken). You think I'm an ass for how I treat people who are knowingly risking the safety of their students to make a few bucks...then get out of this thread. I know who NC is on M4C and he has a good rapport based upon his use of common sense and professionalism, yet to be seen here and will be responded to in similar fashion if it does show up. You say you aren't defending someone yet you do, and then say they are "in theory" qualified to teach something out of their scope. Let me know when "in theory" holds up in court when someone is seriously hurt or killed due to negligence on a range. Until then, there are too many people on here chiming in who have no f*cking clue what is being discussed nor the and are supporting severe discredit to the entire shooting community. If you feel comfortable with their inexperience in that subject, then by all means take the class and roll the dice. I, and many others who do this for a living, refuse to support this sort of jackassery. The Applied CQB Concepts (ACC) course is designed to introduce capable shooters to beginner, intermediate and advanced CQB concepts..."in only 3 days?!? Really? Anyone who can teach "advanced CQB concepts" in only 3 days must be a god among mortals...or a complete fraud.

Did I accidentally log into arfcom??? WTF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hghclsswhitetrsh

Did I accidentally log into arfcom??? WTF.

---

Been a moth to a flame here. [Train] Not sure WTF this hasn't been shut down.

You guys have feelings? Hmmm.
Look,this is really simple. Do you have to have done something to do it? No, of course not, we all start somewhere. Do you have to have done something in order to teach it? Yes, otherwise you are just spouting some shit you heard.
Bad information can have deadly consequences. Ask the guys here that do CQB for a living, bad info and practices will get you killed.
For the rest of us let's try to remember that sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.
I think that was the point of the original video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan512

Bad information can have deadly consequences. Ask the guys here that do CQB for a living, bad info and practices will get you killed.

---

They are being told this by "the guys who do this for a living." Money seems to trump common sense among some of the instructors on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coloccw

Awww, did I hurt someone's feelings?

---

[facepalm]

Quote:

---

Does owning a training company automatically require me to bow down? F*CK NO.

---

[dig] Being professional in your actions with others doesnt mean you have to "bow down" to anyone.

Quote:

---

You think I'm an ass for how I treat people who are knowingly risking the safety of their students to make a few bucks

---

Let's see; you decide to make an ass out of yourself in some lame attempt to discredit my expereince and you cite safety concerns with a class that you've never taken part in, seen video of, etc.

Quote:

---

...then get out of this thread.

---

Sorry sunshine. I'm content to stay here and watch you continue to make an ass of yourself. And you're doing an outstanding job at it.

Quote:

---

I know who NC is on M4C and he has a good rapport based upon his use of common sense and professionalism, yet to be seen here and will be responded to in similar fashion if it does show up.

---

You have 0 room to be talking to anyone about professionalism.

Quote:

---

You say you aren't defending someone yet you do

---

Negative Ghostrider. Your initial claim was that I was here solely to bail Kelly out which was incorrect. I never said that I wouldnt defend him, or anyone else, against some baseless claim.

Quote:

---

and then say they are "in theory" qualified to teach something out of their scope. Let me know when "in theory" holds up in court when someone is seriously hurt or killed due to negligence on a range.

---

[fail]

Once again, I responded to your question about what it takes to teach people in a LE setting. Want to teach OC use; get a recognized OC instructor certificate. Want to teach driving, get a recognized driver instructor certificate. Want to teach firearms; wait for it......... get a recognized firearms trainer certificate. Negliegence on the range/in the house can occur regardless of the level of expereince that the instructor has. Negligence is limited by sticking to strict, well-vetted and established safety SOPs that are a part of the lesson plan that the course is being taught from.

Quote:

---

I, and many others who do this for a living, refuse to support this sort of jackassery.

---

Afraid its going to impact your business?

Quote:

---

The Applied CQB Concepts (ACC) course is designed to introduce capable shooters to beginner, intermediate and advanced CQB concepts..."in only 3 days?!? Really? Anyone who can teach "advanced CQB concepts" in only 3 days must be a god among mortals...or a complete fraud.

---

Or someone who is simply using marketing to get people in the door. We all know that no one wants to do a "basic" class, so the more business-inclined person will put an intermediate or advanced descriptor in there even when the material being covered is still basic. Business 101, but again you already knew that.