NFT: how does one rationalize this: Shooting instructor dies

A: A dead one.

the jokes about the instructor.

he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him.


As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.

In comment 11827989 kepler20 said:

Quote:

the jokes about the instructor. he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him. As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.

You're right, it's sort of morbid to joke about someone, who has just died. But honestly, who gives a flying fuck if he was a veteran when he did something so stupid and irresponsible? He obviously was a stupid veteran if he thought giving a 9 year old such latitude to shoot such a weapon was a smart decision.

And yes, the parents are at fault, but the instructor could have given his honest recommendation that she shouldn't be firing that weapon full automatic just for shits and giggles. That's what he got paid for, to be the expert at weapons instructions, which should include ample understanding of weapons safety.

Whatever his background and qualifications, he made a very poor choice in allowing that small, young girl to fire an automatic weapon that she was incapable of controlling. He's supposed to be the expert, not the parents. The parents are putting their trust in the instructor, believing that he wouldn't allow her to fire the weapon if it were unsafe. I hate to keep harping on the USMC range rules, but there's a reason why Marines always are asked at the very beginning of every week on the range, "What's the most important thing on the range? SAFETY.", followed by reciting the four rules of safe weapons handling.

In comment 11827975 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

Yeah I've seen equally shitty ones, blanketing FOBs for things with minute kill radii, imagined sniper fire buttressed by old chips and cracks. But my favorite was actually a Navy O-5 (doctor in our FOB aid station) hot on the trail of whatever their badge or ribbon is called. In the middle of a mortar barrage he runs outside with his 9MM and starts shooting at the mountain, probably 2 clicks away. After it's all over he tries to get his minions to write supporting documentation for it and they all say no.

It's called a Combat Action Ribbon (CAR). That shit is all sorts of fucked up too when it comes to who gets awarded it. I've seen an entire ship get it because they were "under attack" when they had one rocket fly over the ship by a mile. When you have you Marines ask why a bunch of sailors have a CAR (for that incident), while they don't have one even though they were under constant mortar attacks in Iraq, you just have to shake your head and tell them that it's not important. But that's the inconsistency of the military, I guess.

but it seems to me the parents should have maybe, just maybe thought....hmmm, perhaps an automatic weapon isn't the way to go here with little Suzy.

In comment 11828008 Wonderphil11 said:

Quote:

but it seems to me the parents should have maybe, just maybe thought....hmmm, perhaps an automatic weapon isn't the way to go here with little Suzy.

And once again, maybe the instructor should have used his "expertise" to recommend that little Suzy wasn't big enough to shoot such a weapon. That's what you expect from someone, who is put in such a position to recommend and to ensure the safety of others.

there's no way I'd let my 9 yr old fire an uzi. But I can see how a parent who doesn't know any better might entrust the instructor's experience and knowledge to not put their little girl or himself in harms way.

some units are very expansive in their definition of what constitutes a wound while others ridicule people for taking them for small but unmistakable wounds. The issue for that one though is that there are benefits that attach to a purple heart; some states offer free tuition at state schools for those with the decoration.

In comment 11827989 kepler20 said:

Quote:

the jokes about the instructor. he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him. As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.

The parents most likely deserve ridicule as well. I don't see how the instructor being a veteran makes him any less of a complete fucking idiot. He gave an automatic weapon with significant recoil to a 9 year old girl and then he got shot. What he did was extremely dangerous even if we assumed this 9 year old had used an uzi before and was some gun expert herself. If she physically couldn't handle the recoil or keep a grip on it, why was she handling a loaded weapon, or even a weapon with more than 1 shell in the clip?

It is absolutely up to the instructor to realize what a trainee can and cannot handle and mitigate any risk that may occur. This is a 9 year old girl, she can't make these decisions.

conversation changes gears, let's lob in a grenade of stupid and try to get it back "on track."

Quote:

he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him

Being a vet doesn't mean you deserve carte blanche to be an idiot.

And in case you didn't know, many of the people criticizing this vet are vets themselves.

both received and effectively returned fire. As MARADMIN states....

Quote:

(C) BEING AWARDED THE PURPLE HEART DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE A SERVICE MEMBER ELIGIBLE FOR THE CAR, NOR DOES MERELY SERVING IN A COMBAT AREA OR BEING EXPOSED TO ENEMY FIRE OR THREAT OF ENEMY FIRE. ......... (E) PERSONNEL WHO ARE EXPOSED TO INDIRECT FIRE ARE NOT NORMALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE CAR UNLESS THEY ACTIVELY ENGAGE THE ENEMY IN OFFENSIVE COUNTER-FIRE ACTIONS.

If exposure to IDF attacks were sufficient, virtually everyone who was in Iraq would have rated one. Even aboard good ol' Camp Cupcake, Al-Asad, with our swimming pool and Burger King and Pizza Hut, we received a fair amount of IDF rockets and mortars.

In comment 11828041 Wuphat said:

Quote:

Quote: he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him Being a vet doesn't mean you deserve carte blanche to be an idiot. And in case you didn't know, many of the people criticizing this vet are vets themselves.

the fact that vets are criticizing him is completely immaterial.

He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime.

In comment 11827989 kepler20 said:

Quote:

the jokes about the instructor. he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him. As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.

Hey kepler,

Next time I ask what you are looking for, just be honest and state your agenda upfront. It'll save everyone a boatload of time and effort. K? Thanks.

In comment 11828029 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

some units are very expansive in their definition of what constitutes a wound while others ridicule people for taking them for small but unmistakable wounds. The issue for that one though is that there are benefits that attach to a purple heart; some states offer free tuition at state schools for those with the decoration.

I hear you. But thankfully, I have not had any experience with Marines and sailors getting the Purple Heart for anything less than gunshot/IED related wounds. Although my battalion was contemplating giving Purple Hearts to us for concussions and internal bleedings (half of our 300 men task force suffered some level of such injury) when we were hit with multiple SVBIEDs during a complex attack on our FOB in 2005. Thankfully, the company commander and the 1stSgt said no thanks.

In comment 11828051 kepler20 said:

Quote:

the fact that vets are criticizing him is completely immaterial. He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime.

Then why mention that he was a veteran and deserves more respect than given? Isn't that a bit contradictory to your post here?

And his actions could have killed the girl (similar to the story of the 8 year old who was killed in Massachusetts that was linked above) and her parents. So yeah, while it's sad that he died and his family will miss their father/husband, the fact remains that he was an irresponsible idiot.

Riding around in a truck, there was an IDF attack. Our hero claimed he was jumping down from the truck under fire to give everyone a warning that we were under fire, broke his ankle, and thus considered himself "wounded"

his command had told him he could have the PH if he wanted it but they ridiculed the idea. He met the criteria but didn't want it. And in five years when that guy finds his range of benefits narrower than it might otherwise be, was that bravado really worth it?

As for TBIs, under certain circumstances I think giving a PH is reasonable. A diagnosed concussion because of a bomb blast is a wound. Now PTSD is different, because it's so subjective and at the whim of self-reporting.

At least on the ground side. We candyass air wingers will take anything we can get :)

Quote:

the fact that vets are criticizing him is completely immaterial. He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime.

But the fact that he is a vet garners him no more respect than any other idiot who was careless with an automatic weapon and a child.

Was it an accident? Yes.

Did he have complete control of the variables that led to the accident? Yes.

In comment 11828052 Jon from PA said:

Quote:

In comment 11827989 kepler20 said: Quote: the jokes about the instructor. he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him. As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents. Hey kepler, Next time I ask what you are looking for, just be honest and state your agenda upfront. It'll save everyone a boatload of time and effort. K? Thanks.

im not looking for anything

I posted this story knowing it would be everywhere the next day. I felt that it was appropriate for this area of the forum and thought i'd gain some insight by hearing others.

i think i have.

In comment 11828073 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

At least on the ground side. We candyass air wingers will take anything we can get :)

effing A right!

In comment 11828062 RC02XX said:

Quote:

In comment 11828051 kepler20 said: Quote: the fact that vets are criticizing him is completely immaterial. He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime. Then why mention that he was a veteran and deserves more respect than given? Isn't that a bit contradictory to your post here? And his actions could have killed the girl (similar to the story of the 8 year old who was killed in Massachusetts that was linked above) and her parents. So yeah, while it's sad that he died and his family will miss their father/husband, the fact remains that he was an irresponsible idiot.

because its part of the story; its relevant to his qualifications as to whether or not he should have even been in a position to instruct someone at a gun range.

whats not relevant is that his detractors are vets. it's completely immaterial.

Let me draw a analogy for you:

a white person starts a sentence with " I have a lot of black friends"

Quote:

Let me draw a analogy for you: a white person starts a sentence with " I have a lot of black friends"

A bunch of vets start a sentence with, "I am a vet..."

black friends and vet friends. In fact, I have black friends who are vets. What do I win?

Burgers and Bullets?

I'm going to ask the range safety officer if I can hip fire a bazooka while he stands behind me...

...

Darwin Awards?

If him being a veteran is so relevant to his qualification, then this incident is even worse than we initially thought since it looks even worse for this instructor to make such an irresponsible decision putting everyone in danger.

The reality is that him being a veteran means nothing.

In comment 11828121 Semipro Lineman said:

Quote:

I'm going to ask the range safety officer if I can hip fire a bazooka while he stands behind me...

Good idea.

I was wondering if a guy were to say... Buy a flamethrower and say buy a kangaroo would said kangaroo be able to go through a flamethrower safety course? I would hope a range safety officer would go for that.

Quote:

In comment 11827989 kepler20 said: I posted this story knowing it would be everywhere the next day. I felt that it was appropriate for this area of the forum and thought i'd gain some insight by hearing others. i think i have.

Could you share what it is that you learned? :)

can someone direct me to the jokes please?

You're comment about a Navy ship bothered me. I have never heard of a ship getting a CAR for getting fired upon when a missile missed by miles. matter of fact, there isn't too many ships that have been fired upon probably in the last 20 years. that I know of.

Now, I got my CAR by being on a ship that was fired on with a US made Harpoon missile that missed by a hundred feet by a Iranian PTG. That may bet be a mortar shell or a M201 but for a ship, it ain't too much a maneuvering that it can do. it's not like it should be a distance for when a ship is under attack..

The criteria is definitely gonna be different for a ship compared to a soldier on the field..

In comment 11828419 GMANinDC said:

Quote:

You're comment about a Navy ship bothered me. I have never heard of a ship getting a CAR for getting fired upon when a missile missed by miles. matter of fact, there isn't too many ships that have been fired upon probably in the last 20 years. that I know of. Now, I got my CAR by being on a ship that was fired on with a US made Harpoon missile that missed by a hundred feet by a Iranian PTG. That may bet be a mortar shell or a M201 but for a ship, it ain't too much a maneuvering that it can do. it's not like it should be a distance for when a ship is under attack.. The criteria is definitely gonna be different for a ship compared to a soldier on the field..

I wasn't on the ship (USS Kearsarge) when it happened in 2005, but I was on it during 2007 on the 22nd MEU(SOC). That's when the incident happened where my Marines asked me the question, and I asked one of the LT's on board about it.

The original story stated that the ship came under attack while conducting exercise in Jordan but does not state what kind of an attack. Navy Time

Quote:

NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- The amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon in December for action while in Aquaba, Jordan, in August. The Combat Action Ribbon is awarded to a ship's crew when the safety of the ship and crew is endangered by enemy attack - such as a ship engaged by shore fire - and the ship's crew performance is considered satisfactory. Kearsarge's robust force protection measures thwarted a terrorist attack while pierside in Aquaba with USS Ashland (LSD 48) Aug. 19 in support of Exercise Infinite Moonlight, a two-week training exercise between the Jordanian military, Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group and the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Due to Kearsarge's robust force protection measures, a direct attack was prevented. No U.S. Sailors or Marines were injured and no U.S. equipment was damaged. Regrettably, a Jordanian sentry was killed and a second Jordanian sentry wounded at the jointly manned pier gate adjacent to the ship.

Looking deeper, there was a story in San Francisco Gate newspaper detailing the attack, which states that two Katyusha rockets were fired at the ship but missed (flew over the bow). USS Kearsarge Attack

Quote:

2005-08-20 04:00:00 PDT Aqaba, Jordan -- A rocket attack Friday morning missed two U.S. Navy vessels docked at this Red Sea port city, killing one Jordanian soldier and hitting the nearby Israeli town of Eilat. The assault raised fears that militants tied to Iraq's insurgency were operating in Jordan. Three Katyusha rockets were fired from an industrial zone on the outskirts of town early Friday morning, the authorities said, apparently targeting American warships that docked here last week, the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge and the landing ship Ashland. The first rocket sailed over the bow of the Ashland and hit a warehouse near the Kearsarge, killing a Jordanian soldier, said Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain. The warehouse is also used by the U.S. military to store goods bound for Iraq, according to Jordanian authorities. The vessels left port shortly after the attack, the first against American military ships since the bombing of the destroyer Cole five years ago in Yemen.

Then there was a Military Times article written by staff writer, Andrew Scutro regarding the incident as well. The Marines (from the 26th MEU) stated that they wouldn't submit themselves for the CAR following the incident. I can't find the actual article but have found it posted on a message board. Navy Gets CAR; Corps Says No

Quote:

There are several subcategories, including those for riverine combat, peacekeeping and clandestine missions, but a firefight of some kind is generally required. In Aqaba, the docked Kearsarge and Ashland did not return fire. Both ships left the pier soon after the rocket attack. However, the subcategory appropriate to the Aqaba incident may be “when the safety of a ship and the crew were endangered by enemy attack, such as a ship hit by a mine, or ship engaged by shore, surface, air or sub-surface elements.” The Kearsarge and Ashland were in the area for Infinite Moonlight, an exercise with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the Jordanian military. Some Marines were ashore at the time of the launch. Ironically, since the 26th MEU deployed last year in “theater reserve” status, it meant that most of the MEU — including Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, went overseas without seeing action in Iraq. Yet all the sailors on two of the ships that took them to the Middle East rated the CAR. According to an Aug. 25 Marine Corps news story, the two ships, after getting underway, took up “less vulnerable positions” offshore while the Marines stayed on land and continued with their exercise. Some 600 to 800 Marines were on the ships at the time of the attack, said MEU spokesman Capt. William Klumpp. They will not receive the award. “In essence, the Navy submitted for it,” Klumpp said. “The Marine Corps has not submitted for it. The recommendation from this command is that it not be awarded to the Marines.” Klumpp said the service planned to stick to the spirit of the CAR. “In this case, we are applying the full stringency of this award criteria,” Klumpp said. “There are a lot of Marines that have been in some serious combat action.”

So I guess the LT was telling me the truth.

so the "flew over by a mile" information that I got was wrong. No matter though, the ship was in port and received a rocket fire that missed the ship, thankfully.

I slept through more than 100 rounds of mortars and rockets hitting my FOB (some actually hitting the buildings my Marines and I were in) during my two deployments to Iraq. So for me, a rocket or a mortar fire isn't really a big deal (hence my incredulity at the story), but I can understand and accept how the Navy and the Corps have different criteria and see differently when it comes to the CAR.

For my Marines and I, we earned ours during our first major engagement in Iraq when our FOB was attacked by three suicide vehicle borne IEDs (one was an actual firetruck) accompanied by a complex attack. The firefight lasted for hours and while only three Marines were medevaced out of the FOB, almost half of us suffered concussions and internal bleeding. We even found a propaganda video online a few weeks later showing the explosions (the mushroom cloud is the fire truck).

A fire truck?

Quote:

Two new accounts of the al Qaeda assault on Camp Gannon in Husaybah appear in USA Today and the Washington Post. By both accounts, Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Butler is due to receive some medals for his heroism in the fight. He repeatedly exposing himself to fire, and destroyed two of the suicide vehicles - a dump truck and a fire truck - while under fire from about thirty dismounted terrorists. Corporal Anthony Fink and First Sgt. Don Brazeal also acted bravely when destroying an enemy position, possibly killing up to 11 terrorists. Marines responded to the attack by deploying their "Rapid Reaction" force and calling in air assets; "The unit summoned F-18 fighter jets and Cobra helicopter gunships; the Cobras fired machine guns and Hellfire missiles at what an after-action report described as vehicles transporting weapons." Al Qaeda cannot maintain the initiative against such flexibility and firepower, and were forced to break contact, suffering heavy casualties while failing to achieve their objective. It is no wonder the communiqu�s issued by al Qaeda provided little details on the assault, as there is very little to tout. According to the Washington Post, "19 insurgents were killed and 15 were wounded during 24 hours of fighting." The size of the assault force is estimated between 40 to 100 fighters (the high number likely representing the support teams), putting the casualty figures at anywhere from 34 to 85%. These are stunningly high numbers. Al Qaeda devoted significant resources to this assault, and the massing of force at the company level requires time, training, effort and material. The fire truck used in the assault was known to have been missing for months; this vehicle was husbanded for a significant attack. These resources were sacrificed as Camp Gannon has strategic significance to the insurgency.

Camp Gannon attack video - ( New Window )

" They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War."

It is revisionist history to argue that the Second Amendment was designed to help facilitate armed rebellion. Its purpose was actually quite the opposite.

if you look at the other mention of "militia" in the constitution
it is referenced in congress ability to call up the "militia" in a time of insurrection.
so if you want to use your gun against a strong federal government then congress could call the militia that is armed because of second amendment
to PUT YOU DOWN.

see the whiskey rebellion for the proper use of militias and second amendment

understand that the 2nd Amendment was in a way not merely outlining a right but also an affirmative duty, the duty to drill in these militias (a duty that had been neglected as the danger of Indian attacks withered on the East Coast). But again the militias were in part a check on federal power and an assertion of the ability of states to protect themselves, for reasons that included a fear of standing armies, so that a quasi-individualized right of self-defense isn't incompatible with this, especially as the militias were normalized and partly federalized into the Army National Guards.

In comment 11828556 giantfanboy said:

Quote:

" It is revisionist history to argue that the Second Amendment was designed to help facilitate armed rebellion. Its purpose was actually quite the opposite.

If I said anything about rebellion, please point it out to me. The intention was for the States to be able to defend themselves.

but you in your previous statement you implied that the right to bear arms
was the states to arm their miliitas to prevent the federal government from getting to powerful

this is frequent idea these days by gun advocates and an incorrect reading of constitution .

since the federal government can call up state militias at anytime and they are immediately under control of the commander in chief.
there would never been a scenario in which a militia would help make the federal government less powerful . unless the militia was involved in insurrection which is treason .

which required individuals to be armed and trained.

And as the early history of the Republic proved the militia could not be easily federalized. We see it through the framework of the National Guard which is regularized and is an adjunct of federal much more than state power.

In comment 11828716 giantfanboy said:

Quote:

but you in your previous statement you implied that the right to bear arms was the states to arm their miliitas to prevent the federal government from getting to powerful this is frequent idea these days by gun advocates and an incorrect reading of constitution . since the federal government can call up state militias at anytime and they are immediately under control of the commander in chief. there would never been a scenario in which a militia would help make the federal government less powerful . unless the militia was involved in insurrection which is treason .

The issue is not entirely black and white. The President had the clear right to call up the militias in case of foreign invasion. But many of the Governors, particularly the Anti-Federalists, claimed the right to control their own militias for domestic problems. (See link) And in many of the States the militias felt greater allegiance to the State than the Feds. What some regarded as treason, others regarded as liberty back in those days. The Constitution contained lots of compromises that didn't satisfy everyone.

here's the link
Link - ( New Window )

times/revolutionary war era, though I find it fascinating and watch/read quite a bit of shows and literature about it.

One thing I have learned (and I'm obviously not alone here) is the second amendment is one of the most ambiguously written of all the amendments.

Sometimes people give our founding fathers too much credit, but in this case I think it't due, they left this amendment open to interpretation IMO, so I think it's sometimes presumptuous for people to speak in absolutes with no room for discussion about what was meant 230 years ago in an ambiguously written paragraph.

we think of the militia as a volunteer force but at that point in most of the country it really wasn't. You had an affirmative duty to have and maintain arms and to be ready to serve if necessary. The militias were not necessarily even a state function, though they were under control of governors. They were local/county too.

Can you extrapolate from that history the notion that the 2nd Amendment should not apply to individuals for the purpose of individual (rather than collective) self-defense and sport? The Constitution has been interpreted in ways that strain the text to a much greater degree than that would. But I don't think the original intent is that ambiguous.

is speculative. You think you know but you don't.

This sentence alone probably has hundreds of interpretations and many depend on your agenda which is the problem.

Quote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So simple, yet potentially so complex if you want it to be based on word, phrase, punctuation, etc.

My problem is I feel like the authors wanted it "adjustable" for currency.

who have tried to turn originalism on its head and use it to support traditionally "liberal" platform planks. There have been very few persuasive articles addressing text and context that have been able to advance such a claim about the 2nd Amendment, at least to undermine the notion of a baseline right to have weapons.

There is a lot about the Constitution that is more ambiguous than that, eg the status of corporations.

people

Corporations were royally chartered and that charter was difficult to come by. The idea of the corporation as the fruit of a day's worth of paperwork and a stamp is relatively novel, and while it might be beneficial for the modern economy that does not mean that in its current form it was contemplated by the Founders.