Andy Beefcastle
Member
I actually know what you are getting at and what you're talking about specifically, and you're right.
Guerrilla Approach Carbine Marksmanship
- Thread starter victran
- Start date
Since this thread is somehow not locked, I'll throw it out there.
Should we maybe have a rational discussion about who could/should be training who/what? I think that in between some of the heated discussion here that some valid points came up. This new discussion might help clarify some things for the future. Maybe even accompany that discussion with a sort of glossary so that guys from different walks have some frame of reference with each other's lanes and where they might intersect (.mil VI doesn't really apply to most traffic stops, but with felony stops there might be some common ground.)
Should we maybe have a rational discussion about who could/should be training who/what? I think that in between some of the heated discussion here that some valid points came up. This new discussion might help clarify some things for the future. Maybe even accompany that discussion with a sort of glossary so that guys from different walks have some frame of reference with each other's lanes and where they might intersect (.mil VI doesn't really apply to most traffic stops, but with felony stops there might be some common ground.)
Andy Beefcastle
Member
What it comes down to is vetting instructors and determining whether they are qualified to teach not only the overall subject matter, but specific points within that subject matter. We have to separate the "instant credibility" that comes with having a specific title (i.e. being a veteran or cop) from actual legitimate credibility due to experience, training and empirical studies/education.
There is something to be learned from learning how to fight around a vehicle, but if someone were make claims that it would be directly applicable to LE patrol duties, there is an added level of qualification needed to make that a credible and efficable skill or skill set. The fact of the matter is that a SOF trained veteran may have significant training and experience with offensive vehicle interdiction related to shooting at, out of and vehicles, and they may know how to mechanically disable a vehicle and forcefully extract an occupant. They would also likely know how to do this better than a LEO. In contrast, a LEO has far more expertise with "soft" contacts and interdiction, general traffic stops, vehicle-based investigation and inspection, and functioning independently in and around vehicles. A SOF/.mil guy trying to tell a cop how to do a traffic stop or how to survive the most common types of officer ambushes is somewhat misleading without having some other base of information beyond SOF training. This works vise-versa for a cop trying to teach say, four SOF guys how to de-bus a vehicle and engage multiple waves of attackers. Quite simply, there's a stark contrast in TTPs.
We also need to realize from all sides of the fences that our specific background may not be the end-all of knowledge on all subject. Being both a former .mil and current .le guy, I know this all too well. I am sick of .mil people being given a pass as being gun experts and tactical and shooting experts. I am also sick of this same pass being given to cops who don't have the qualifications and training to back it up. In this instance with vehicles, there are certain aspects that have carry-over. Certain aspects, however, do not. The trick is determining and accepting which areas do not have universal applicability.
Simply put, you have to look at what is being offered as the subject matter taught, and what realm the instructors have experience in. When someone steps out of their lane, they need to explain their actions or words. If they can't, they legitimately deserve to be called out on it.
There is something to be learned from learning how to fight around a vehicle, but if someone were make claims that it would be directly applicable to LE patrol duties, there is an added level of qualification needed to make that a credible and efficable skill or skill set. The fact of the matter is that a SOF trained veteran may have significant training and experience with offensive vehicle interdiction related to shooting at, out of and vehicles, and they may know how to mechanically disable a vehicle and forcefully extract an occupant. They would also likely know how to do this better than a LEO. In contrast, a LEO has far more expertise with "soft" contacts and interdiction, general traffic stops, vehicle-based investigation and inspection, and functioning independently in and around vehicles. A SOF/.mil guy trying to tell a cop how to do a traffic stop or how to survive the most common types of officer ambushes is somewhat misleading without having some other base of information beyond SOF training. This works vise-versa for a cop trying to teach say, four SOF guys how to de-bus a vehicle and engage multiple waves of attackers. Quite simply, there's a stark contrast in TTPs.
We also need to realize from all sides of the fences that our specific background may not be the end-all of knowledge on all subject. Being both a former .mil and current .le guy, I know this all too well. I am sick of .mil people being given a pass as being gun experts and tactical and shooting experts. I am also sick of this same pass being given to cops who don't have the qualifications and training to back it up. In this instance with vehicles, there are certain aspects that have carry-over. Certain aspects, however, do not. The trick is determining and accepting which areas do not have universal applicability.
Simply put, you have to look at what is being offered as the subject matter taught, and what realm the instructors have experience in. When someone steps out of their lane, they need to explain their actions or words. If they can't, they legitimately deserve to be called out on it.
275RLTW
Regular Member
Matt let his friendship guide his decisions. Never once was a partrol stop mentioned in GAs video.
If extreme vetting is pushed, then one who self reportedly "found" VCQB should have to prove that they have actually been in a gunfight around vehicles before teaching it. But I guess that doesn't apply when you're friends with them.
If extreme vetting is pushed, then one who self reportedly "found" VCQB should have to prove that they have actually been in a gunfight around vehicles before teaching it. But I guess that doesn't apply when you're friends with them.
You know nothing about me or who my friends are, you probably should stop assuming.
You clearly don't get it - it seems those with LE backgrounds do.
JHaddock07
Amateur
@Riafdnal I've read through the entire thread to include the A.A.R., as someone who's not yet in an LE position, can you explain to me what the disconnect is here between you and @275RLTW ? I grasp the concept of a traffic stop and the need for one (especially an instructor teaching LE) to have procedural understanding of how one is conducted, and the equipment available / on the body of the officer at the onset of that traffic stop. But (in my limited understanding of the conversation since this is apparently spilling over from a facebook discussion), it seems that the course is based around the perspective of everything after a traffic stop has gone to shit, with the assumption that an officer is being engaged in armed conflict, or from the perspective of rolling into a "hot" call from a backup / follow on support perspective. Under those parameters, I don't see the issue here with his course offering. I don't have a dog in the fight either way, but I'm trying to learn for my personal benefit, especially under the guise of pursuing a career in LE be it local or federal. If you would prefer to take it to PM I'm happy with that as well.
I believe I have explained that already.
275RLTW
Regular Member
Since everyone is confused about that point, perhaps you can elaborate or clarify. If "only LE get it" then you need to make it clear for us with mil backgrounds.
This all started with me saying he shit posts. It isn't about relevance in his niche.
If someone teaches domestic law enforcement traffic stops - how can you or Guerilla Approach criticize without you guys having any background in it? That's shit posting.
Cops are typically alone on traffic stops without weapons at the ready where ever the violation takes place versus military vehicle interdiction that has far more good guys with rifles at the ready with support and everything preplanned.
How often does military vehicle interdiction result in 1 on 1 dancing around a vehicle in the middle of nowhere with no backup?
If someone teaches domestic law enforcement traffic stops - how can you or Guerilla Approach criticize without you guys having any background in it? That's shit posting.
Cops are typically alone on traffic stops without weapons at the ready where ever the violation takes place versus military vehicle interdiction that has far more good guys with rifles at the ready with support and everything preplanned.
How often does military vehicle interdiction result in 1 on 1 dancing around a vehicle in the middle of nowhere with no backup?
Darth Tater
Regular Member
I have followed this thread closely. I have no dog in the fight re: Barruga v. Petty. I don't know either one and for separate and individual reasons have zero desire to train with either. I'm not a rich guy and my agency pays for exactly zero outside training. I am incredibly selective with my training dollars and have very high expectations from an instructor to whom I write a check. Both of them fail to meet that standard for me, for different reasons.
That said, and with intellectual honesty in mind, I see valid applications in Barruga's material towards exactly what I do in LE. High risk surveillance and dynamic vehicle takedowns (very similar to SOF VI TTPs I've seen minus helos), low-viz counter-terrorism details, robbery suppression/in-progress takedowns, etc. None of that has anything to do with a traditional traffic stop.
I'm not seeing the connection between the quote and your post.
till44
Newbie
Maybe you missed my previous post, but I do have an LE background and don't see the point you're trying to make either.
GA teaches nothing on how to conduct a traffic stop. The focus is on how to respond when it all goes sideways and bullets start flying. I don't understand how his experience in shooting around vehicles doesn't translate to LE, especially when applied to specific incidents.
Dark Tater lists several good examples, I know it's rare in many locations to be in pairs and with rifles at the ready, but it happens. I know I've done it on several occasions, in progress riots, robbery suppression, running to felony stop as cover, man with a gun calls, etc.
@till44
This all started with me saying he shit posts. It isn't about relevance in his niche.
If someone teaches domestic law enforcement traffic stops as their training niche - how can Guerilla Approach criticize it without having any background in domestic law enforcement traffic stops?
That's the whole thing.
This all started with me saying he shit posts. It isn't about relevance in his niche.
If someone teaches domestic law enforcement traffic stops as their training niche - how can Guerilla Approach criticize it without having any background in domestic law enforcement traffic stops?
That's the whole thing.
BklynBacon
Amateur
When someone makes their video, and spends majority of the video critiquing someone else's tactics, that's the point that's being made that there's an issue. Just so what you do. I said it a few posts earlier. Just teach what you teach! We will figure it out. Do you see greats like Paul Howe even mentioning other instructors? No. Why? Because he knows his shit and knows that others will see he has some relevance. It's that simple.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Didn't all of this start with Barruga taking exception to an unnamed instructor (which we all presume was Petty) that was advising cops to seek cover behind the pillars?
Do you have to be a cop to have an opinion on how to use cover? Nope, so how is that shit posting as you so elegantly call it?
I don't know if its fair to say that we've established that Barruga doesn't teach traffic stops, but posters here have said he doesn't. What is certainly true is that you've not established that he is teaching traffic stops. Yet you keep bringing up traffic stops and working solo as if that has anything to do with what Barruga is teaching.
If you are a highway patrolman running radar with the nearest backup 50 miles away -- then you may not be Barruga's target audience. But that doesn't mean he's wrong about what he's teaching, or that other LEOs won't find relevance in what an ex-MIL is teaching.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out what he's wrong about. Most of the complaints seem to be that 1) He's never been a cop and 2) cops don't roll that way (which is false, because many units do.)
Reading comprehension must be at an all time low.
275RLTW
Regular Member
Nope, just the lack of specific examples.