Gun control

[Anthropoid]

You seem to know more about Yeager than I do. What official documentation and "failure to perform" are you referring to?

Also, what makes you think that "thorough military training" is either sufficient or necessary to perform effectively in the context of acting as mercenary bodyguards protecting the election commissioners for a former despotic country, performing its first ever elections in the midst of an insurgency, much less necessary for civilians to carry?

My bringing him up was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else, but I am aware that he has an impressive sounding resume, runs a tactical shooting school that is open to civilians and that he is controversial. Can you recommend a better candidate to serve as the program director for our prospective "train and arm the teachers" program?

There are gun clubs throughout the U.S. but shooting at a range is only the first step to being truly ready to operate in a tactical context, and Yeager's program is the only one I'm aware of for civilians.

That says something to me: we as a society are not manifesting the rights which the 2nd Amendment bestowed upon us particularly well. How the hell are we going to form an "effective militia" if only a few percentage of us who are not former military (actually who are not former specops or SWAT to be honest) are really in any position to act as militia!?

National civilian marksmanship program and similar programs aside, Yeager's 'school' is the only service I'm aware of that actually seems to be (a) in any position to actually help citizens live up to their 2nd Amendment rights and (b) seems to be trying to do so.

The AAR from Edinburgh Risk & Security Management (along with this video of the incident) shows that Yeager (which is the guy you can see running from the lead car on the furthest right all the way across the road and into the ditch on the far left side) broke SOP by engaging the parking brake of his car while they were stopped and shifting it into neutral gear. When they were fired upon, he panicked, and instead of disengaging the parking brake and shifting gears he tried to slam on the gas and go (obviously, he didn't go anywhere). Furthermore, rather than helping anybody in his car directly or by providing cover fire so they could get to safety, he hops out, takes a look, and then runs off to the ditch. The best thing that can be said for Yeager in that incident is that he didn't keep running, but he didn't come out of the ditch for a while, either.

Having read that AAR, it seems to me the crucial mistake in that operation was the decision to sit on the roadway for ten to 15 minutes while under observation. That is when they came under intense fire. Whatever Yeager or anyone else did in subsequent moments, their actions must be taken in the context that the mission commander had made an utterly stupid decision in sitting in the open on a roadway in three vehicles which were obvious targets for insurgents for plenty of time for any hostiles in the area to come and ambush them.

Your assertion that Yeager was some how responsible for the deaths is the absolute rich, given that: (a) Yeager wasn't the mission commander; (b) the mission commander made the decision for the motorcade to sit motionless in the open on the road for 10 to 15 minutes, at which point they were suddenly engaged by heavy automatic weapon fire; (c) ALL the casualties sustained occurred in this open volley of fire, NOT as you seem to think, as a result of Yeager's mistaken effort to drive off with the brake on; (d) Yeager and the other occupants of his vehicle exited it, and engaged the enemy as did others, so how you're interpreting his "ducking in the ditch" as having been less than professional behavior I cannot fathom; (e) the whole engagement lasted about a minute, and the fight was lost within the first 3 seconds!; (f) indeed, the engagement was already a catastrophe as soon as it initiated for the simple reason that (as the AAR points out in the summary) the decision to sit motionless on the road is what caused it to happen in the first place.

In sum, it is painfully obvious to me why people died: the mission commander Allen Johnson, and/or his 2nd Ian Harris didn't know what to do when they encountered the stoppage. Rather than backtracking or otherwise coordinating a careful crossing of the median, etc. (which obviously was possible given that Iraqi nationals did as much) they decided to move forward in front of the foot bridge and sit in the open while under observation for 10 to 15 minutes. No ******** wonder people died! There were insurgents or their collaborators in the area, they saw contractor vehicles SITTING on the road, and summoned a few gunmen to position themselves and unleash. not the least bit surprising that the opening volley caused casualties and how exactly Yeager was supposed to have prevented this by his actions, given he was not commander of the operation I cannot comprehend.

 

[Splintert]

The argument was that Yeager didn't do the best he could have given the situation, thereby showing that if someone who claims to have as much training or experience as he cannot react properly, then someone who has less training and less experience probably won't react properly either.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Says the semi-professional forum troll. 

Hurr hurr.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

Yeah, semi-professional? Mag is the most elaborate troll I've ever seen, give him more credit you philistine!

 

[Magorian Aximand]

 

[Orion]

The argument was that Yeager didn't do the best he could have given the situation, thereby showing that if someone who claims to have as much training or experience as he cannot react properly, then someone who has less training and less experience probably won't react properly either.

This.

Yeager made a token effort to provide covering fire after exiting his vehicle, then ran to the ditch where he couldn't provide any further assistance. It explicitly says so in the AAR. The AAR also repeatedly mentions operator error in regards to Yeager's inability to disengage a parking brake and shift gears. Whether or not the other vehicles were immobilized, or the mission commander ****ed up by putting them in that position in the first place, doesn't change the fact that Yeager dropped the ball on his own responsibilities (ensuring that his vehicle is ready to go at a moment's notice and being prepared to engage an enemy if necessary) and then ditched his buddies. These aren't the things he advocates in his training programs, but these are the things he has done, and these are the things other civilians are likely to do in a tight spot.

You don't seem to understand that if he had managed to operate his vehicle properly he might not have received sustained fire. He could have driven himself and others to a relatively safe place, like to the Coalition Forces further up the road, and thus gotten his injured mates to medical attention sooner and out of harm's way. At the very least he could have moved them to a less vulnerable position, but still within engagement distance so he could cover the other vehicles. There are plenty of options he could have had if he didn't engage his parking brake.

(d) Yeager and the other occupants of his vehicle exited it, and engaged the enemy as did others, so how you're interpreting his "ducking in the ditch" as having been less than professional behavior I cannot fathom;

Check again. Yeager exited his vehicle, failed to identify the source of fire, fired half a magazine from his weapon in that direction, and then left to hide in a ditch for the remainder of the engagement.

Trying to absolve Yeager of everything because he wasn't the one to make the decision to stay there is ignoring the fact that his conduct in that situation was less than satisfactory. It wasn't his fault that they were ambushed, but it is partially his fault that the ambush was as successful as it was. Trained personnel are supposed to be able to handle adverse situations, and his commander put him in an adverse situation that he failed to handle. This isn't a difficult concept.

Based on a clearly sarcastic remark you made in a previous post, I guess I have to clarify that no amount of training will make people perfect, but what qualifies as "sufficient training" is making behaviors reflexive or automatic. Yeager actually has a video about this which is rather accurate, where he states (more or less) that the objective of training isn't to make you stop and think, it's to make you do the right things without thinking when you don't have time to waste. He apparently didn't have sufficient training during that incident in Iraq, because he didn't do what he was trained to do. He ran off to think on it a bit, then he came back.

He didn't call me out on a mistake. He vaguely asserted that I had mad an appeal to authority--which is unsurprising given that the use of specialized terminology related to logic and philosophy seems to be one of his favored tactics to undermine the arguments of those he disagrees with.

Please. You said earlier that you have a doctorate, so are you not intelligent enough to understand that things have names, and when one wants to bring attention to a thing, you call it by its name? It's up to him to provide evidence for his assertion, but trying to dismiss such an assertion simply because it uses appropriate terminology is silly.

 

[Sir Saladin]

I'll bet Yeager doesn't own a guitar that can blow the balls off a charging rhino at sixty paces and refuses to play sweet ****. Ted Nugent does.

 

[Moose!]

He didn't call me out on a mistake. He vaguely asserted that I had mad an appeal to authority--which is unsurprising given that the use of specialized terminology related to logic and philosophy seems to be one of his favored tactics to undermine the arguments of those he disagrees with.

You may not believe that I have read anything in particular Mags, but how or why should that really matter to me?

You may call me names like "full of ****," "****bag," "asshat," "douchebag" but does that achieve anything apart from relieving some juvenile aggression? In fact, does it even really accomplish that? I suppose your buddies may be giving you some PM "high-fives" and that may feel pretty good?

Based on the information you have provided here and elsewhere, you are a young person who is not yet done with his secondary education. You don't even have a degree in biology, much less an evolutionary field. You've probably never taught a course in evolutionary biology in your life. Have you ever taught any courses either in secondary or post-secondary education?

Have you ever developed a syllabus? Given a talk at a professional conference? Collected primary data or developed a research program that adheres to human subjects guidelines? Do you have any clue how a "gene" works to influence a phenotype? Do you know the least bit about epigenesis, neurogenesis, parent-offspring attachment, life history theory, child development, comparative neurobiology, the adaptationist-mechanist debate, encephalization in human evolution, comparative primate neurobiology of communication, the evolution of language, human Paleolithic biocultural ecology, neuroscience of social cognition?

Do you know anything about cosmology, apart from what you've read in Dawkins? Have you ever even read a peer-reviewed scientific journal article in biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, evolutionary psychology, cultural anthropology, comparative religion, archaeology or any other field remotely salient to topics covered in The God Delusion?

Based on what you've written, I gather that you are rather ignorant in all these respects in general; but I do believe that you _did_ read the God Delusion quite closely. For whatever personal reasons, that book seems to have resonated with you, and it is something you hold dear and cherish and will defend quite adamantly I see. Well good for you I guess; everyone needs something to believe in and feel strongly about I suppose.

After all, where would the Catholic church be today if not for such powerful feelings of attachment and devotion to an ideology?

I would guess that you've never published anything, much less something in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? The sum total of what you have read about the evolutionary psychology of religion is, I'm guessing (do correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points) that book, and perhaps one or two of Dawkins other books?

I can understand how the message in Dawkins book is quite appealing for folks who are experiencing a transformation in their belief system, or are in need of something to counter a negative experience with religion, or are otherwise in need of something to shore up destablized internal working models. Based on how sensitive and overreactive you've shown yourself to be about the subject, I now honestly wish that I had not pointed out that atheism is the latest fad for the weak minded and gullible. Perhaps a bit insensitive of me to feed back a bit of Dawkin's own medicine to one of his propoents, and I apologize if that was upsetting to you. I take it back in fact; atheism is brilliant and the final word in the philosophy of religion.

It really is okay if you believe as you do, and I don't mean to try to convince you otherwise. But you should recognize that, if you are going to step up to bat for the Evangelical Atheist team, you are going to run into people like me on the Internet. People whose qualifications may well far exceed your own, people who may have read the book that you devoutly believe in, but in contrast to yourself, were not impressed at all. Moreover, people who may well have read widely in the relevant and associated fields and fully understand and appreciate the context and broader value (or lack thereof) of the book in question.

I fully expect another tantrum of name-calling, disbelieving, ****bag-insults arrayed into a delicate wall-of-text about logical fallacies, straw men, and other concepts that you evidently feel you have mastered. While it was interesting at first, I now see that it is probably not helping anyone, especially now that I see that you are not on a science track and am frankly rather relieved.

You have your group of supporters here on OT and you have whatever life you have on the other end of the screen. I wish you well and hope your beliefs and zeal serve you well in whatever path you choose.

If I don't respond again, feel free to count that as "winning" the "debate;" I voluntarily and with a great flourishing respectful tip of the hat, bow to your eloquence and powers of argumentation and concede you the victor.

Maybe you've changed from the arrogant condescending twit that you acted like when you wrote this post. Judging from your recent activity, I doubt it.

 

[Anthropoid]

The argument was that Yeager didn't do the best he could have given the situation, thereby showing that if someone who claims to have as much training or experience as he cannot react properly, then someone who has less training and less experience probably won't react properly either.

Nonsense. In a different situation, everyone in that specific firefight might well have behaved very differently. Training helps, sure, but it is hardly the magic solution to effective tactical engagement that you seem to think. More training will _tend_ to increase one's chances of ideal response. But when Audi Murphy demonstrated his heroism, he was no more trained than any of the hundreds of other soldiers who, when faced with the same situation, choked and failed.

I also don't get this "Yeager didn't do the best" bit, at least not from reading that AAR. Is there some rumor mill or Youtube conspiracy trail about this guy that you guys are not letting on about?

I did encounter this one video by fat ass wannabe gun club douche in Missouri who was badmouthing Yeager for being "bad for the shooting world," and I also see you referring to armchair generals calling him a coward. To be honest, having only read that AAR I just don't get that at all.

Yeager made a token effort to provide covering fire after exiting his vehicle, then ran to the ditch where he couldn't provide any further assistance.

Where did you encounter the word "ditch" in that AAR? I didn't read it. Did you just embellish that part, or is this a detail that you have gathered from some other source besides that AAR?

It explicitly says so in the AAR. The AAR also repeatedly mentions operator error in regards to Yeager's inability to disengage a parking brake and shift gears. Whether or not the other vehicles were immobilized, or the mission commander ****ed up by putting them in that position in the first place, doesn't change the fact that Yeager dropped the ball on his own responsibilities (ensuring that his vehicle is ready to go at a moment's notice and being prepared to engage an enemy if necessary) and then ditched his buddies. These aren't the things he advocates in his training programs, but these are the things he has done, and these are the things other civilians are likely to do in a tight spot.

]You don't seem to understand that if he had managed to operate his vehicle properly he might not have received sustained fire.

What? Are you getting this from reading that AAR? Because that most certainly is not what I get from reading that AAR.

There were three vehicles sitting on a road. The enemy opened fire and hit all three of them, and IMMEDIATELY caused casualties. Yeager then tried to move the vehicle (as did the other drivers) and was unable to do so because he had it in neutral with the parking break on. None of the other drivers were able to move their vehicle either, and it made no difference. The AAR makes no mention of this error leading to casualties, nor is it mentioned in the summary as being a 'lesson' to prevent future casualties. It may have delayed Yeager's response, and it does reflect less than perfect performance but given it had zero impact on whether or not casualties were sustained--simply based on the information in that AAR--I don't see how you or anyone else would reach the overwhelming conclusion that this one guy, the driver of vehicle 1, was somehow the great bumblehead of the catastrophe who single handedly was responsible for deaths.

I'm leaning toward one of a few possible explanations for this: (a) you are operating with other information besides what is in the AAR in mind, and/or did not actually read it very closely; (b) you for whatever reason have some curious bias towards this Yeager guy; (c) you are just plain being argumentative for the sake of it.

He could have driven himself and others to a relatively safe place, like to the Coalition Forces further up the road, and thus gotten his injured mates to medical attention sooner and out of harm's way. At the very least he could have moved them to a less vulnerable position, but still within engagement distance so he could cover the other vehicles. There are plenty of options he could have had if he didn't engage his parking brake.

Sure, yeah. Had he not confused the vehicle's failure to move forward as having been damage to the car and realized it was his error, moving the vehicle might have rendered some form of tactical benefit. But it wouldn't have prevented his mates from having been wounded in the first place; what I gather from the AAR is that all the casualties occurred in the opening salvo.

(d) Yeager and the other occupants of his vehicle exited it, and engaged the enemy as did others, so how you're interpreting his "ducking in the ditch" as having been less than professional behavior I cannot fathom;

Check again. Yeager exited his vehicle, failed to identify the source of fire, fired half a magazine from his weapon in that direction, and then left to hide in a ditch for the remainder of the engagement.

WHAT!?   

Again this use of the word "ditch" and also the inclusion of this word "hide." Again, are you getting this from that AAR, or is this just interwebz scuttlebutt?

Trying to absolve Yeager of everything because he wasn't the one to make the decision to stay there is ignoring the fact that his conduct in that situation was less than satisfactory.

I'm not trying to absolve anyone of anything. I couldn't give a flying **** about James Yeager, or anyone else who was on that mission. I'm just reading an AAR and telling you what I gather from it.

The main ****up was sitting on the road. The ******** summary of the AAR says so. Yeager didn't exactly live up to Rambo, and unlike the mission leader he didn't unload a whole magazine into the back side of the enemy van (which the report points out, might not have been the only group of enemies which had engaged them) with apparently zero effect (you did notice that the van was apparently armored, the report recommended inclusion of at least one weapons system of 7.62 caliber and that the van just drove away within about a minute of the engagement started, right?)

It wasn't his fault that they were ambushed, but it is partially his fault that the ambush was as successful as it was. Trained personnel are supposed to be able to handle adverse situations, and his commander put him in an adverse situation that he failed to handle. This isn't a difficult concept.

Well, apparently it IS a rather difficult concept, because simply based on that AAR I get a TOTALLY different synthesis. Yeager's performance strikes me as having been inconsequential, as does everyone's to be honest. Nothing any of them did was of any significance except for one thing: the commander made the error of sitting for 10 minutes under observation. If you can honestly say that you read that AAR, that you are not reaching your conclusions based on some other source of information, and you do not see these facts, then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you are privy to other information that informs your view of Yeager lets hear it. I don't give a **** if he is a feckless coward or not! 

Please. You said earlier that you have a doctorate, so are you not intelligent enough to understand that things have names, and when one wants to bring attention to a thing, you call it by its name? It's up to him to provide evidence for his assertion, but trying to dismiss such an assertion simply because it uses appropriate terminology is silly.

Ah so, if I don't want to be accused of making an 'appeal to authority' I should make a point of never responding to queries about my background and training  Wouldn't want to make the flame warriors of the Taleworld's Anachronist Guild feel inadequate and self-conscious 

And you got all this from the AAR to which you posted the link? I read it in full, and I didn't get that at all. Seems pointless to point out what to me was obvious, but it does seem that you have a bit more 'insight' into this Yeager cat than you have let on?

He is a nobody to me, just a curious internet phenomenon that I thought to post a link to in a whimsical fashion. I know little more about him than I've been able to glean from a few Youtubes, and that AAR. But simply based on reading that AAR, I certainly did not pick up on his deficiencies in the engagement that you seem very sure about.

I did pick up that the casualties were all sustained in the opening volley a point that you do not seem to have comprehended. I also note that the first line of the Summary states that, sitting static on the road was the main mistake of the 'engagement,' which in this case sounds like it was little more than an ambush. Shooting back doesn't seem to have done much good anyway, the bad guys hoped' in their van and drove away almost immediately after opening fire, and the van appears to have been armored on top of that. The mission commander evidently emptied a magazine into the backside of the enemy van and the bullets seemed to bounce off.

But sure if you want to blame Yeager for the deaths, go ahead. He certainly seems to have his fair share of 'enemies' in the cyberscape.

 

[RalliX]

Now let me voice my opinion here for a moment.

The AAR from Edinburgh Risk & Security Management (along with this video of the incident) shows that Yeager (which is the guy you can see running from the lead car on the furthest right all the way across the road and into the ditch on the far left side) broke SOP by engaging the parking brake of his car while they were stopped and shifting it into neutral gear. When they were fired upon, he panicked, and instead of disengaging the parking brake and shifting gears he tried to slam on the gas and go (obviously, he didn't go anywhere). Furthermore, rather than helping anybody in his car directly or by providing cover fire so they could get to safety, he hops out, takes a look, and then runs off to the ditch. The best thing that can be said for Yeager in that incident is that he didn't keep running, but he didn't come out of the ditch for a while, either.

I think you're giving Yeager a bit too little credit. I have read the report before, and I also watched the video, and paid particular attention to the moment when he exited the vehicle. Now, I'm no mouthpiece for the man, he manages to piss many people off quite often, and has very narrow views, whether he is right or wrong.

I will note a few main things.
Firstly, that as far as I can tell in the video, and correspondingly in the report, the same man who exits the driver(left) side of the vehicle is Yeager, who proceeds to return fire for about half a magazine, and then pulls off to the left side in the video. So no, he did not just run away as soon as shots were fired.
He returned fire, admittedly ineffectively, and runs to the left side of the road.

Secondly, if he had managed to get his vehicle out of the fire, his vehicle's medic may not have taken a hit. I would consider any speedy attempt to exit the killing zone of 1-3 PKMs with AP ammo, not a bad idea.

Thirdly, there may have been other factors to consider in taking the position which he took. Note that he stayed there for long after the firefight had abated.
I think this would have benefits if the convoy had been attacked from other sides, front or rear, as Yeager would have been in a position to cover his team.

However, it could be considered cowardly to take the course of action which he did.
In the end, I think the fact is that he messed up in combat. He could have done better. He could have not left the parking brake on, he could have spotted the vehicle and returned fire accurately(I will note that he did not have the vehicle's location given to him, and that he was under fire), and he could have stayed longer at his frontal position, though the fight's result would not likely have changed because of it.

So finally, I think he's just a man. He thinks he's tough, but he did not show considerable bravery in that time and place.
He is human. He thinks he can be better than that, and talks like it. Many people are hypocrites.
Lastly, just because he did not prove himself in that situation, does not necessarily mean that he is incapable of teaching useful skills or information.

 

[Anthropoid]

He didn't call me out on a mistake. He vaguely asserted that I had mad an appeal to authority--which is unsurprising given that the use of specialized terminology related to logic and philosophy seems to be one of his favored tactics to undermine the arguments of those he disagrees with.

You may not believe that I have read anything in particular Mags, but how or why should that really matter to me?

You may call me names like "full of ****," "****bag," "asshat," "douchebag" but does that achieve anything apart from relieving some juvenile aggression? In fact, does it even really accomplish that? I suppose your buddies may be giving you some PM "high-fives" and that may feel pretty good?

Based on the information you have provided here and elsewhere, you are a young person who is not yet done with his secondary education. You don't even have a degree in biology, much less an evolutionary field. You've probably never taught a course in evolutionary biology in your life. Have you ever taught any courses either in secondary or post-secondary education?

Have you ever developed a syllabus? Given a talk at a professional conference? Collected primary data or developed a research program that adheres to human subjects guidelines? Do you have any clue how a "gene" works to influence a phenotype? Do you know the least bit about epigenesis, neurogenesis, parent-offspring attachment, life history theory, child development, comparative neurobiology, the adaptationist-mechanist debate, encephalization in human evolution, comparative primate neurobiology of communication, the evolution of language, human Paleolithic biocultural ecology, neuroscience of social cognition?

Do you know anything about cosmology, apart from what you've read in Dawkins? Have you ever even read a peer-reviewed scientific journal article in biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, evolutionary psychology, cultural anthropology, comparative religion, archaeology or any other field remotely salient to topics covered in The God Delusion?

Based on what you've written, I gather that you are rather ignorant in all these respects in general; but I do believe that you _did_ read the God Delusion quite closely. For whatever personal reasons, that book seems to have resonated with you, and it is something you hold dear and cherish and will defend quite adamantly I see. Well good for you I guess; everyone needs something to believe in and feel strongly about I suppose.

After all, where would the Catholic church be today if not for such powerful feelings of attachment and devotion to an ideology?

I would guess that you've never published anything, much less something in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? The sum total of what you have read about the evolutionary psychology of religion is, I'm guessing (do correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points) that book, and perhaps one or two of Dawkins other books?

I can understand how the message in Dawkins book is quite appealing for folks who are experiencing a transformation in their belief system, or are in need of something to counter a negative experience with religion, or are otherwise in need of something to shore up destablized internal working models. Based on how sensitive and overreactive you've shown yourself to be about the subject, I now honestly wish that I had not pointed out that atheism is the latest fad for the weak minded and gullible. Perhaps a bit insensitive of me to feed back a bit of Dawkin's own medicine to one of his propoents, and I apologize if that was upsetting to you. I take it back in fact; atheism is brilliant and the final word in the philosophy of religion.

It really is okay if you believe as you do, and I don't mean to try to convince you otherwise. But you should recognize that, if you are going to step up to bat for the Evangelical Atheist team, you are going to run into people like me on the Internet. People whose qualifications may well far exceed your own, people who may have read the book that you devoutly believe in, but in contrast to yourself, were not impressed at all. Moreover, people who may well have read widely in the relevant and associated fields and fully understand and appreciate the context and broader value (or lack thereof) of the book in question.

I fully expect another tantrum of name-calling, disbelieving, ****bag-insults arrayed into a delicate wall-of-text about logical fallacies, straw men, and other concepts that you evidently feel you have mastered. While it was interesting at first, I now see that it is probably not helping anyone, especially now that I see that you are not on a science track and am frankly rather relieved.

You have your group of supporters here on OT and you have whatever life you have on the other end of the screen. I wish you well and hope your beliefs and zeal serve you well in whatever path you choose.

If I don't respond again, feel free to count that as "winning" the "debate;" I voluntarily and with a great flourishing respectful tip of the hat, bow to your eloquence and powers of argumentation and concede you the victor.

Maybe you've changed from the arrogant condescending twit that you acted like when you wrote this post. Judging from your recent activity, I doubt it.

And what is it about that post that was either arrogant, condescending, dumb, or constituted an appeal to authority?

 

[Anthropoid]

Firstly, that as far as I can tell in the video, and correspondingly in the report, the same man who exits the driver(left) side of the vehicle is Yeager, who proceeds to return fire for about half a magazine, and then pulls off to the left side in the video. So no, he did not just run away as soon as shots were fired.
He returned fire, admittedly ineffectively, and runs to the left side of the road.

And seemingly no less effectively than anyone else in the unit. The enemy unleashed on them for a few seconds, then drove off. Their return fire seems to have done little more than to prompt the enemy to drive off, i.e., it was not effective in the sense of 'winning' the engagement, and none of the responses of anyone in the motorcade did anything to mitigate or prevent the casualties suffered.

Secondly, if he had managed to get his vehicle out of the fire, his vehicle's medic may not have taken a hit. I would consider any speedy attempt to exit the killing zone of 1-3 PKMs with AP ammo, not a bad idea.

Obviously not a bad idea, but none of the vehicles were able to pull out of the kill zone. I'm curious what it is that leads you to speculate that "if he had managed to get his vehicle out of fire, his vehicles medic may not have taken a hit?" I honestly did not gather that from the AAR. What I gathered from the AAR was that all casualties were inflicted more-or-less in the opening salvo, which is as you would expect if a group of insurgents had stealthily positioned themselves with line of site on the motionless group of cars, and opened fire, then ducked for cover, moved, ran to their van while continuing to fire somewhat ineffectually, jumped in their van and drove off as the hapless victims of their ambush peltered their armored van with ineffectual fire.

Thirdly, there may have been other factors to consider in taking the position which he took. Note that he stayed there for long after the firefight had abated.
I think this would have benefits if the convoy had been attacked from other sides, front or rear, as Yeager would have been in a position to cover his team.

I recollect (and correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the other team members joined Yeager at the second position where he moved to. 

However, it could be considered cowardly to take the course of action which he did.
In the end, I think the fact is that he messed up in combat. He could have done better. He could have not left the parking brake on, he could have spotted the vehicle and returned fire accurately(I will note that he did not have the vehicle's location given to him, and that he was under fire), and he could have stayed longer at his frontal position, though the fight's result would not likely have changed because of it.

So finally, I think he's just a man. He thinks he's tough, but he did not show considerable bravery in that time and place.
He is human. He thinks he can be better than that, and talks like it. Many people are hypocrites.
Lastly, just because he did not prove himself in that situation, does not necessarily mean that he is incapable of teaching useful skills or information.

Fair enough. Given I only posted his video as a veritable joke I can accept that. However, I'm curious, what exactly was it about Yeager's behavior that you would say indicates "cowardice?"

I only just discovered this guy a week or so ago, and I'm rather stunned to hear about this seemingly ongoing internet 'flame-war' about this cat.

 

[Anthropoid]

Been doing a bit more digging on this Yeager character . . . Holy ****, he's a ******** moron!

Although the shpiel by his lawyer in video 3 is quite good.

OMG I KNEW people like this when I was growing up! 

Wonder if Yeager got his permit back?

 

[Orion]

He's a bit extreme, yes. He's also one of those doomsday prepper guys.

Anyway, "ditch" is the word I've been using, "median" is the word used in the AAR. Either way, it's a strip along a road that you don't drive on or in, and that's where he went.

None of the other drivers were able to move their vehicle either, and it made no difference.

It might have made a difference to Steph Surette, the only person in Yeager's car that was wounded. As for Yeager's failure to operate his vehicle, it is specifically mentioned:

The team attempted to drive out of the kill zone but this action was precluded due to

operator error for vehicle one

As well as one of his other mistakes being specifically mentioned in the LESSONS IDENTIFIED section:

• If enemy forces initiate fire it is imperative that the team under fire first establish

fire superiority prior to breaking contact. It is imperative that team members who

have eyes on the enemy call out fire direction, distance and description so as to

alert other team members to the enemy location. You can not maneuver until you

have established an aggressive base of fire.

In response to:

James Yeager in accordance with the team

SOP attempted to break contact in the opening stages of the contact yet fire superiority

and or suppression had at that time not been established.

As for me using the word "hide," I do so because of the way this is phrased:

James Yeager was in

a location at the median where he could not engage enemy forces as he did no have a line

of fire from his location.

No line of sight? Disengaging without identifying the direction of incoming fire (mentioned previously in the AAR)? Not providing a base of fire? It doesn't matter if it wouldn't have changed anything because the enemy's van was armored, he didn't know that, what matters is that he didn't do what he was supposed to do in that situation and left his mates in a tight spot and didn't support them until the coast was clear.

All of that is information gleaned from the AAR and the video.

Nobody moved to Yeager's position. After the enemy disengaged, Yeager moved out of his position to regroup at vehicle 3 and then scared the **** out of a civilian (understandable).

It seems to me like you're looking at this as if he couldn't have done anything to change the outcome of the situation, so what he did or did not do doesn't matter and can be overlooked. The outcome isn't something he knew at the time. He had to act based on his training and the information available to him, and what he decided to do was wrong. Would it have changed anything? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody can say for certain. That's beside the point, though.

 

[Anthropoid]

Okay, fair enough.

Looks like Costa is a cool guy. I'm kinda sorts surprised there is like a whole sub-culture of these guys, and the first one I stumbled on (Yeager) seems to be the village idiot.


Ayoob, and Haley seem very competent too. Thanks for all those names

 

[Anthropoid]

Obviously a gunshot wound is no laughing matter. However, the more I read and watch, the more I'm struck at how much the lethality, much less 'stopping power' of any specific gun shot wound seems to be largely a matter of luck. I must have browsed over reports and analyses of at least 20 or 25 'gun fight' incidents in which either cops or bad guys took at least 5 if not 10 or 15 shots before they finally konked out.


From a psychophysiological perspective, both the 'art' of shooting in a tactical context, and the experience of suffering gun shot wounds is rather fascinating. Any of you guys ever actually been in a gun fight or been shot?

 

[Splintert]

I've never been shot, nor shot anyone, but I suspect part of the reason for variance is the speed of fatality. You're not going to drop 'dead' like a video game if you get shot in the appendages, you're going to bleed out over time. Similarly, a shot to almost any organ isn't going to instantly kill you. In a gunfight, there's probably enough adrenaline going that you can 'survive' considerably more than normal, at least until the end of the fight.

 

[Anthropoid]

I've never been shot, nor shot anyone, but I suspect part of the reason for variance is the speed of fatality. You're not going to drop 'dead' like a video game if you get shot in the appendages, you're going to bleed out over time. Similarly, a shot to almost any organ isn't going to instantly kill you. In a gunfight, there's probably enough adrenaline going that you can 'survive' considerably more than normal, at least until the end of the fight.

Yeah, exactly. I read this interesting FBI analysis about "Firearm caliber and 'stopping power'" etc. a while back. I don't know if i can find the .pdf but it was on line.

It seems to have been a synthesis of research and analyses done by one particular expert in the FBI in the early 1990s. The context being, that, in the aftermath of that 1986 Miami shootout, there was discussion about how the standard issue calibers (all clustering in the ~9mm diameter area) as well as revolvers were inadequate.

The subsequent FBI investigation placed partial blame for the agents' deaths on the lack of stopping power exhibited by their service handguns. The FBI soon began the search for a more powerful caliber and cartridge. Noting the difficulties of reloading a revolver while under fire, the FBI specified that agents should be armed with semiautomatic handguns. The Smith & Wesson 1076, chambered for the 10mm Auto round, was chosen as a direct result of the Miami shootout. The sharp recoil of the 10mm Auto later proved too much for most agents to control effectively, and a special reduced velocity loading of the 10mm Auto round was developed, commonly referred to as the "10mm Lite" or "10mm FBI".

Soon thereafter, Smith and Wesson realized the long case of the 10mm Auto was not necessary to produce the decreased ballistics of the FBI load. Smith and Wesson developed a shorter cased cartridge based on the 10mm that would ultimately replace the 10mm as the primary FBI service cartridge, the .40 S&W. The .40 S&W became more popular than its parent due to the ability to chamber the shorter cartridge in standard frame automatic pistols designed initially for the 9 mm Parabellum. Other than a .142" reduction in overall case length, resulting in less gunpowder capacity in the .40 S&W; the 10mm and .40 S&W are identical in projectile diameter, both using a 0.400" caliber bullet.

In addition to the changes made at the FBI, this incident contributed to the increasing trend of law enforcement agencies switching from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols across the nation. [1]

Other issues were brought up in the aftermath of the shooting. Despite being on the lookout for two violent felons who were known to use firearms during their crimes, only two of the FBI vehicles contained shotguns (in addition to Mireles, McNeill had a shotgun in his car, but was unable to reach it before the shootout began), and none of the agents were armed with rifles. Only two of the agents were wearing ballistic vests, and the armor they were wearing was standard light body armor, which is designed to protect against handgun rounds, not the .223 Remington rounds fired by Platt's Mini-14 rifle. While heavier armor providing protection against rifle rounds would normally have been hot and uncomfortable to wear on patrol in Miami's April climate, the agents spending the day sitting in air conditioned vehicles on the lookout for a single target were facing more ideal conditions for its use.

The other six agents involved in the stakeout in five vehicles, who did not reach the shootout in time to participate, did have additional weaponry including Remington shotguns, Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns, and M16 rifles.[7]

Interestingly, this fateful shootout seems to have 'singlehandedly' given "birth" to a new model of handgun, the .40 S&W, just as a side commment, what got me looking in to this was one of Yeager's videos entitled "Why 40s Suck."

I've shot some 9mm and .22 pistols, a few shotguns and one or two rifles, but I don't think I ever fired a high-pressure revolver like a .357 .44 or .40. It is interesting that these things do seem to be less easy to fire, and if Yeager is to be believed, wear out faster.

I'll see if I can find that FBI report, but the main points were:

1. Stopping power is a myth.
2. Unless a bullet wound hits either: the brain, the spinal cord, the heart, or the liver (which I was suprised to read) it is not inherently incapacitating, even if it is a "non-survivable" wound that will eventually lead to death.
3. 9mm is just fine
4. Just shoot for the middle of mass twice, then once at the head and hope for the best.

ADDIT: Ah yeah, I think this is it Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

The other thing I found quite fascinating about that Miami video:

One of the agents got shot in the right hand, causing it to to be pushed back and up. He said he looked at his hand and noted severe damage, but strangely no pain, so he put the gun back down and using the wounded hand, fired two more shots. Because the injured hand was clumsy and "blood and bone fragments" were getting into the chamber of his revolver, he was unable to reload his revolver.

On the other hand, a mater of seconds later, another agent ran up right behind him (I think it was Hanlon) and got shot by the exact same Mini-14 at almost the exact same range and angle. This shot seems to have caused severe damage to his left arm and it felt like "he had been hit by a sledge hammer" and it caused him to fall backwards and he did not regain use of that arm during the fight, even though he was the one who fired the final killing shots at the end.

Its just remarkable how 'accurate' a sort of "hit point" system (e.g., like that in Jagged Alliance 2) seems to be for modelling gunfights and gunshot wounds.

 

[Austupaio]

1. Stopping power is a myth.
3. 9mm is just fine

That's not the case, or the FBI wouldn't have switched over to 10mm and then .45. I think your report is a little outdated.

Edit; Ah, I was thinking this was the report where they did switch to 10mm rather than the one where they actually took into account none of the agents liked using 10mm. Well, yes, while it's considered not really worth the cons of using bigger boolets for certain organizations, that still doesn't make stopping power a myth.

Personally, I'm not sure what's up with people and recoil, I heard nothing but fanciful tales about how the Mosin Nagant would bruise my shoulder, and it was like being kicked by a horse, and even how it dislocates people's shoulders! I was extremely disappointed to find that the recoil was perfectly managable and comfortable, even after a long shooting period. I've found the same from higher ROF 7.62x39 guns as well as 10mm or .45 compacts.

Recoil just isn't that big a deal, is everyone just a giant baby or what?

 

[Anthropoid]

1. Stopping power is a myth.
3. 9mm is just fine

That's not the case, or the FBI wouldn't have switched over to 10mm and then .45. I think your report is a little outdated.

Edit; Ah, I was thinking this was the report where they did switch to 10mm rather than the one where they actually took into account none of the agents liked using 10mm. Well, yes, while it's considered not really worth the cons of using bigger boolets for certain organizations, that still doesn't make stopping power a myth.

Personally, I'm not sure what's up with people and recoil, I heard nothing but fanciful tales about how the Mosin Nagant would bruise my shoulder, and it was like being kicked by a horse, and even how it dislocates people's shoulders! I was extremely disappointed to find that the recoil was perfectly managable and comfortable, even after a long shooting period. I've found the same from higher ROF 7.62x39 guns as well as 10mm or .45 compacts.

Recoil just isn't that big a deal, is everyone just a giant baby or what?

I may actually be remembering wrong. That article might actually be arguing against "knock down power" but I do seem to recall it was arguing against the theoretical forces that are supposed to be involved in "stopping power" of the larger higher velocity bullets (hydrostatic shock, cavitation, etc.).

Anyway, there is clearly a difference in how "hard" different calibers hit. This video makes that pretty clear to me (though what that means in terms of "stopping power" I think is much more complex). I like this guy . . . you guys aren't gonna tell me he is some controversial fruitcake are you?

He has one video where he does full auto with an M4 or M16 on an old washing machine 

Personally, I'm not sure what's up with people and recoil, I heard nothing but fanciful tales about how the Mosin Nagant would bruise my shoulder, and it was like being kicked by a horse, and even how it dislocates people's shoulders! I was extremely disappointed to find that the recoil was perfectly managable and comfortable, even after a long shooting period. I've found the same from higher ROF 7.62x39 guns as well as 10mm or .45 compacts.

Recoil just isn't that big a deal, is everyone just a giant baby or what?

Lotsa "babies"


Anybody know what the hell is up with that bolt action where multiple guys are getting their asses kicked by the recoil?