The next level...

[SLG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42DWPuU-HDg

[Serpico1985]

Was that real or a joke? I'm confused.

ETA: oh Jesus, that was real.

[Cincinnatus]

5370
Not just bad muzzle discipline but DELIBERATE pointing with loaded freaking weapons???
Something tells me this is not Russian special forces confidence training.

[GardoneVT]

Bishop Bullwinkel's got this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB4Nby2Ai-g

[Cookie Monster]

That is some crazy shit.

[JM Campbell]

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT....How Copy?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[NickDrak]

It's a shame, because he is a big proponent of "Limited Pentration", Deliberate cqb/room entry tactics and this bullshit he's doing will be used by everyone who refuses to accept that "Dynamic" or hostage rescue room entry might not work 100% of the time in 100% of the situations you need to clear a room.

[Hambo]

What was the command for the little dance move they did?


It's a shame, because he is a big proponent of "Limited Pentration", Deliberate cqb/room entry tactics and this bullshit he's doing will be used by everyone who refuses to accept that "Dynamic" or hostage rescue room entry might not work 100% of the time in 100% of the situations you need to clear a room.

What?

[RJ]

No Inquartata. Fail.

[Tamara]

I am not tactical enough to even figure out just what the whole running down the line and slapping all the muzzles of the Rohirrim was supposed to accomplish...

http://49.media.tumblr.com/7264c3364f4c2c600249d67618d9d22b/tumblr_n2qve1k2mX1s5qyvoo1_250.gif

[ubervic]

Come on, y'all. That absurd Cherries video can't possibly be real. I mean, those fools can't possibly be running live ammo.............right??

[41magfan]

I'd sincerely like to be surprised by something every once in a while, but having lived long enough to see the modern paradigm of the commercial firearms training industry come to life, I'm not the least bit surprised by anything.

There's very little new to show and tell and it has been nothing but an exercise in gimmickry for about 25 years now. The average consumer is largely clueless as to what's important and relevant and I'm convinced that most people are perfectly OK with being duped.

[SLG]

Come on, y'all. That absurd Cherries video can't possibly be real. I mean, those fools can't possibly be running live ammo.............right??

I "think" the guns are empty, but I don't know. Just watched his cqb videos...

[gtmtnbiker98]

Snake Oil, and the "Timmies" are always willing.

[StraitR]

And we wonder why so many liberals look down their nose at gun owners with disdain.

[voodoo_man]

https://lezbrarian.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/internally-screaming.gif

[LSP552]

No words......other than P.T. Barnum.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I am not tactical enough to even figure out just what the whole running down the line and slapping all the muzzles of the Rohirrim was supposed to accomplish...


That's what I was thinking. I don't really care if someone wants to walk in front of a firing line; hey maybe they know every single person there and they have their reasons. I can't think of one, but hey, you guys live in a free country. What I don't get is "what does this accomplish other than pushing your gun off target, but preventing you from returning it there as quickly as possible for reasons of safety?"


And we wonder why so many liberals look down their nose at gun owners with disdain.

This I wouldn't worry about. 99% of anti-gun people will not distinguish between this and footage of a USPSA-focused class by Manny Bragg. The presence of guns, for SHOOTING, is as far as they'll get.

[Dave J]

Eventually Darwin's Law of Natural Selection will prevail. Hopefully soon.

[orionz06]

Looks like they've huffed too much air horn gas.

[Chance]

I'm starting to think we just need a WTF? sub-forum of the Romper Room. It'd make for good entertainment for knowledgeable folks, and we could point people who are new to training to it and say, "This is what you're not supposed to do."

[LittleLebowski]

"Israeli" eh?

No way.

[BehindBlueI's]

If nothing goes wrong 1,000 times and then something goes wrong on 1,001...then someone is fucking dead or crippled.

We accomplish this via sim guns. Three layers of checks to ensure no real guns, no real ammo get to the training scenario. Self check does not count as a layer. Self check, range instructor check as you leave the briefing area, range instructor check as you enter the training area, range instructor check prior to the exercise. That's 4 separate people verifying you don't have a real gun or real ammo with you. You never handle the sim gun prior to it being issued just prior to the exercise. It's loaded and verified by range staff.

So I'm not sure what you learn from dry firing at a "moving" target, but I'm pretty sure the safety issues outweigh the gains.

[GardoneVT]

I'm starting to think we just need a WTF? sub-forum of the Romper Room. It'd make for good entertainment for knowledgeable folks, and we could point people who are new to training to it and say, "This is what you're not supposed to do."

To think, these are the times the circus act is on video. One can only imagine how often this mess takes place off camera all over the country.

Further, what's gonna happen politically if/when a savvy anti-gunner finds these videos ? They won't need to wave a bloody shirt to sell another AWB. Just a public domain video of serial safety violations committed by middle age dudes in camo with the screen crawl "...even the NRA thinks this is senseless behavior with assault weapons. Vote for Common Sense Regulation. "

[Surf]

Limited has a time and place, often times in stealth movements, single man and certain hasty movements. Unfortunately many American made structures are built very different than those in Israel or many parts of the world where in Israel they mostly have solid walls that offer better ballistic protection as opposed to drywall. Fighting from a limited position in many American made type of structures can be a very very bad thing. For tac units in full kit, try limiting or Israeli leaning a room entry. These are not the only issues.

I very much agree that running walls to deep corners without seeing the center of the room first is a bad thing. Too many teams that are "corner fixated" miss everything in the room for too long of a time before 3 or 4 get guns into the fight. The whole corner, middle thing, is incorrect, whereas at the threshold just prior to crossing the threshold it should be middle, corner, middle. The reality is you are already catching as much of the deep corner as possible upon approach (open door), often eliminating up to 80% or more of it. Just prior to the threshold without entering the room or exposing yourself to the deep corners, the room opens up to the middle where we should catch the "big picture" of the entire room from the center (still not able to see, or being exposed to the deep corners), then if the middle is clear upon passing into the threshold work from the center to deep corner as the corner opens up to our view.

Concept should be "known threat first". If there is a threat in the center address it. Corner fixated entries miss too much of the "big picture" and I don't like "chasing the rabbit" concept. If there is a threat in the center of the room engage with movement without changing your entry direction. Worry about "known threat first" and then deal with the corners or other dead spaces after. In that concept I agree with taking threats as they come, but not always or predominantly in a "limited" or cutting the pie technique (structure, manpower dependent). Once lead starts flying, fighting from outside the room, or from "cover" may not be the best idea as many structures here, walls are not cover. Bad guys are getting pretty savvy and they can indiscriminately shoot through walls with no fear of positive target ID. The good guys follow different rules here in America. Fighting from outside the threshold of a door can be a very very bad thing. Very contrary to Israelis and what they may normally deal with. Even then I don't care for their concepts as a whole.

Unfortunately a relatively new, very large and well funded Active Shooter program has heavily bought into and sold some BS Israeli techniques and are teaching it nationwide. Most cops don't know what they don't know, or don't know enough and buy into it heart and soul as they have little other training to compare it to. I am an instructor in that method having attended the 40 hour instructor course, but I refuse to teach it as an entire "system" as they require agencies to do in order to maintain Federal funding. While there is some decent information and there are SOME sound techniques, teaching it verbatim as a package and how they do it is not a good thing IMO. Better than nothing perhaps, but not nearly as good as it could be.

[SLG]

Surf,

Assuming we're thinking of the same AS program, Paul Howe was actually the driving force behind much of it, not the Israelis afaik. Regardless, much of it is awful, and I have refused to teach it since it was forced on us.

[Chance]

Assuming we're thinking of the same AS program, Paul Howe was actually the driving force behind much of it, not the Israelis afaik.

Can you elaborate on Howe's program? I went to both his individual CQB courses. It's my only exposure to that type of training, so I'd be curious to hear some perspective.

[Kyle Reese]

What kind of horseshit is this?

[Clobbersaurus]

2:43 of the OP's video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KymFaQlc2hQ

[Dagga Boy]

I am going to take a minor detour. I used to do something "similar" with one specific class. The drill we did was reported back in debriefings as one of the most helpful things we did to actually show people how to track and focus real sights, on a real gun, working on a real moving and dynamic human. For people like LEO's who have lived on a sterile range with very non realistic targets, it gives them something to pull from the memory banks as to what sights should look like in a shooting. So....I believe the "concept" is valid.

With that said....our safety protocols to do this were ENTIRELY different, and the prep for it was a huge process. In the era we were doing it, we essentially made training guns from real ones. Today, things like SERT pistols and blade tech training barrels would be used. I have a lot of issues with how that is being done.

One of my issues with over reliance on Sims is making drywall "bullet proof" and tactics being successful based on how well it works with SIMS guns, rather than real world.

Surf, thanks for the "middle,corner,middle". I had another way we used to explain threat selection, but that is pretty easy.

[BehindBlueI's]

One of my issues with over reliance on Sims is making drywall "bullet proof" and tactics being successful based on how well it works with SIMS guns, rather than real world.


At least for us, if the Sim hits light cover or auto glass in line with the target guy, the target guy is assumed hit by the round. Our inservice maybe two sessions ago began with the "suspect" in a moving vehicle ramming another vehicle in tightly controlled circumstances and if the scenario turned into a shoot, the only way to accomplish it was through the windshield. I'll tell you it was immensely valuable, as dealing with a moving vehicle, even one you know isn't going to divert and try to smoosh you, was significantly different than the usual stationary vehicle stuff.

[SLG]

Can you elaborate on Howe's program? I went to both his individual CQB courses. It's my only exposure to that type of training, so I'd be curious to hear some perspective.

I don't know which specific parts of the program were Paul's idea, or if they were even kept intact and not altered. I just know he was consulted pretty extensively. There are some aspects (many, really) that are not bad. There are one or two that are just plain unworkable, and I suspect those parts did not come from Paul.

I've never trained with Paul, but I have spoken to him extensively over the years and I respect him quite a bit. Everything we ever talked about meshed very well with what I already thought and did, so like I said, I doubt the bad parts of the program were his doing. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the post above.

[Dagga Boy]

At least for us, if the Sim hits light cover or auto glass in line with the target guy, the target guy is assumed hit by the round. Our inservice maybe two sessions ago began with the "suspect" in a moving vehicle ramming another vehicle in tightly controlled circumstances and if the scenario turned into a shoot, the only way to accomplish it was through the windshield. I'll tell you it was immensely valuable, as dealing with a moving vehicle, even one you know isn't going to divert and try to smoosh you, was significantly different than the usual stationary vehicle stuff.

This illustrates something that ties into the initial "training" shown, my post and yours. Sometimes there are big benefits to doing things that are out of the box, come with extra danger and risk doing them, but can offer great returns. The key is balance. What many fail to see is if you are working with a scale, the more danger & risk you load on one side, the more you need to load on the safety side to balance it. There are times when we make things SO safe in LE training that we create a dangerous situation in the field (hyper controlled single line shooting on un realistic targets on a cold range with no stress), other times folks go retard on walking in the minefield and depending on luck.

[MD7305]

Surf,

Assuming we're thinking of the same AS program, Paul Howe was actually the driving force behind much of it, not the Israelis afaik. Regardless, much of it is awful, and I have refused to teach it since it was forced on us.

So I'm thinking this is the program our academy uses as they gave us Paul Howe's book in the instructor portion. From personal experience I've seen this organizations lesson plan change over the last 6 years since I was introduced to it. I unfortunately fall into the category of officers who haven't been exposed to other methods. If you don't mind to PM me about the areas that you feel are deficient. I have some ideas but I'm curious if they concur with your thoughts. I have to instruct this so I just want to make sure I'm giving guys/gals good info.

[Chance]

So I'm thinking this is the program our academy uses as they gave us Paul Howe's book in the instructor portion.

The last time I was out at CSAT, Paul mentioned that he was consulting with a training program administered by a popular firearms accessory manufacturer. I don't recall his exact words, but the gist was, "They're wonderful people, but they have no business running their own academy." That's pretty much what SLG mentioned earlier. But I'm definitely in the same boat, as I have zero exposure to other methods, and no place to begin a thoughtful assessment of what I've learned.

[NickDrak]

Limited has a time and place, often times in stealth movements, single man and certain hasty movements. Unfortunately many American made structures are built very different than those in Israel or many parts of the world where in Israel they mostly have solid walls that offer better ballistic protection as opposed to drywall. Fighting from a limited position in many American made type of structures can be a very very bad thing. For tac units in full kit, try limiting or Israeli leaning a room entry. These are not the only issues.

I very much agree that running walls to deep corners without seeing the center of the room first is a bad thing. Too many teams that are "corner fixated" miss everything in the room for too long of a time before 3 or 4 get guns into the fight. The whole corner, middle thing, is incorrect, whereas at the threshold just prior to crossing the threshold it should be middle, corner, middle. The reality is you are already catching as much of the deep corner as possible upon approach (open door), often eliminating up to 80% or more of it. Just prior to the threshold without entering the room or exposing yourself to the deep corners, the room opens up to the middle where we should catch the "big picture" of the entire room from the center (still not able to see, or being exposed to the deep corners), then if the middle is clear upon passing into the threshold work from the center to deep corner as the corner opens up to our view.

Concept should be "known threat first". If there is a threat in the center address it. Corner fixated entries miss too much of the "big picture" and I don't like "chasing the rabbit" concept. If there is a threat in the center of the room engage with movement without changing your entry direction. Worry about "known threat first" and then deal with the corners or other dead spaces after. In that concept I agree with taking threats as they come, but not always or predominantly in a "limited" or cutting the pie technique (structure, manpower dependent). Once lead starts flying, fighting from outside the room, or from "cover" may not be the best idea as many structures here, walls are not cover. Bad guys are getting pretty savvy and they can indiscriminately shoot through walls with no fear of positive target ID. The good guys follow different rules here in America. Fighting from outside the threshold of a door can be a very very bad thing. Very contrary to Israelis and what they may normally deal with. Even then I don't care for their concepts as a whole.

Unfortunately a relatively new, very large and well funded Active Shooter program has heavily bought into and sold some BS Israeli techniques and are teaching it nationwide. Most cops don't know what they don't know, or don't know enough and buy into it heart and soul as they have little other training to compare it to. I am an instructor in that method having attended the 40 hour instructor course, but I refuse to teach it as an entire "system" as they require agencies to do in order to maintain Federal funding. While there is some decent information and there are SOME sound techniques, teaching it verbatim as a package and how they do it is not a good thing IMO. Better than nothing perhaps, but not nearly as good as it could be.

Not looking to debate Limited vs Dynamic on this open forum. I do strongly believe Limited has solid application for patrol guys in the context of active shooter response.

[MD7305]

The last time I was out at CSAT, Paul mentioned that he was consulting with a training program administered by a popular firearms accessory manufacturer. I don't recall his exact words, but the gist was, "They're wonderful people, but they have no business running their own academy." That's pretty much what SLG mentioned earlier. But I'm definitely in the same boat, as I have zero exposure to other methods, and no place to begin a thoughtful assessment of what I've learned.

I was referrring to ALERRT, that's the program we use. I might have read too much into it when folks mentioned grant-sponsored training as I'm sure there are several.

I really liked ALERRT's program but I'll admit it's the only Active Shooter Training I've been exposed too. That's mainly what perked my interests in the conversation. I'll quietly go back and hide under my rock now :o

[Surf]

Surf, thanks for the "middle,corner,middle". I had another way we used to explain threat selection, but that is pretty easy.Not a problem.

A long time ago when the corner fixation was huge I remember guys getting hammered so hard for not hitting their corners, that serious training scars were developed. Training scars were so bad that guys would miss or ignore threats standing right in the middle of the room just so they could check a "what if" in the corner. We had a lot of de-programming to do in order to get guys "head and eyes up" while entering the threshold and taking a "snapshot" of the entire room, or getting the "big picture" of what they could see within their range of vision, just prior to crossing into the threshold. Some places are still heavily entrenched in the deep corners first and running the rabbit. As you know we usually see in FoF training, that it's usually rabbit stew along with many of his buddies getting eaten for dinner.


I don't know which specific parts of the program were Paul's idea, or if they were even kept intact and not altered. I just know he was consulted pretty extensively. There are some aspects (many, really) that are not bad. There are one or two that are just plain unworkable, and I suspect those parts did not come from Paul.

I've never trained with Paul, but I have spoken to him extensively over the years and I respect him quite a bit. Everything we ever talked about meshed very well with what I already thought and did, so like I said, I doubt the bad parts of the program were his doing. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the post above.Agreed that there was quite a bit of sound and good stuff. However the negatives as we see them can be easily catastrophic and proven, at least though our own vetting, to be so under force on force. We saw over 2000 people in the last year go through the program over 12 months. Send some of these officers back through for a "cold" scenario several months later and the retention of the tactics are flat out lacking which greatly enhances the negatives of some of their techniques. These negatives can be easily mitigated or lessened with some tweaking of technique. However as it was rammed down to us and enforced by our agency, there was no allowance for deviation from the techniques taught in the program. Vary from the lesson plan and funding for training equipment, safety gear, SIMS guns etc, go out the window. I am not sure of your reasons for not wanting to teach it, but for myself, I cannot in good faith adhere to a program verbatim, if I wholeheartedly believe there are much more efficient, but more so better ways of skinning the cat while lessening the risk.


Not looking to debate Limited vs Dynamic on this open forum. I do strongly believe Limited has solid application for patrol guys in the context of active shooter response.Nick, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciate your commentary over the years on forums, so I took some time to share my thoughts in a bit more detail. I agree on the discussion of tactics thing, so hopefully much of what we have already talked about in this thread is very generic and I believe what follows is also.

I agree with what you are saying. There is a time and place for much of what we do. I often use a tweaked variation of a threshold eval with an entry and that is often when working lone or two man stuff. No hard rules, but when there are more angles and less people we work a bit differently and must do a risk vs reward determination in the technique used. Now this goes right into the argument that is commonly raised in that SWAT teams train and work in these tactics often and the tactics discussed in this program were geared towards patrol officers who have limited training time. I get that 100% as we have dealt with that for longer than I have been around the teams.

The crux of the issue is that some of the formations and threshold evaluations or the limited being taught are severely lacking in many situations especially when you add #3, #4 or #5 person to the puzzle. Things complicate more with officers who may have a few months between formal training and when they need to do it cold. It is no different than when we have highly trained guys. More cogs in the wheel can complicate the choreography. So even with trained units the complexity rises. The choreography with 3, 4 or 5 man in this "model" contains some movements that should be rehearsed often and quite frankly don't work well in confined spaces, even normal household sized hallways. Some I just flat out think some moron came up with the idea. There are simplified ways of accomplishing the same goal, be it limited or dynamic with higher levels of retention with smaller or larger contact teams.

I am not for, or against any singular thing and I fully understand that tactics can be an evolutionary process. We played with many of these tactics or techniques over a decade ago. I mean heavily trained them over several months, probably about a year and a half of evolution. Our goal is to always take the role of the bad guy and attempt to exploit or defeat any technique, generally first with ourselves, then with guys with less training, then eventually with untrained roll players. We shelved most of the core of it but we did have great takeaways good and bad. It almost reminds me of what this thread is about or the recent thread with a character named "Brownie" and some point shooting or quick kill methodology, that we mostly look back at as being a part of an evolutionary process that is generally accepted as being not as sound as current methodology. In many instances in that week long course, this is exactly what I thought.

I have taught no less than 2 other models to Officers since the late 90's early 2000's, so I get the issue of simple to train, given limited time and budget, while maintaining efficacy and retention by those being trained. I am also 100% open to new methodology or ideas, while understanding that new does not always equal better, which even despite any negative things I had heard prior, I went into the program with an open mind and book, even adhering to the methodology throughout the week. I also see it all the time, where people crave training and that is great, but what often happens is a my sensei or my art form is the best. It is frame of reference. Because of these things I can clearly see why there is negative chatter about this program and also why some embrace it. Hell I embraced revolvers and the weaver at one point in my life. Did it get the job done? Sure, but have we found better ways of doing it? Of course. Will I be doing the exact same things 10 years from now? I hope not.

There are many things that are often times, not new, but a revival of something from the past. Of course it could be new to someone, or certain generations in our field, but it may not truly be new, just something not seen before by those individuals. So new to them. Again there was some good sound stuff that we already accept as credible, however the bad portions were very bad, like monkey fucking a football bad. The sad thing is, is that it could be tweaked fairly easily, however mention any change within our agency or even within that particular program and they almost literally need to go through congressional approval. That is what keeps LE in general and as a whole, stuck 20 years behind the 8 ball from fighting bureaucracy. Hard to fight it, when your program is entrenched in it. Yeap, welcome to LE. Sorry that last comment was rhetorical.

[Dagga Boy]

Much of this depends on discipline. I have seen a program where "1 goes left, 2 goes right-period". I had exactly one guy who I shot with every single night for years and was usually working the beat next to me that I would trust to do that, and that I would pass a threat on his side with confidence. In fact,I think him and I may have set a record for how fast we were clearing every room of a decent size hotel converted to condo's one night when we the only two available for a job that should have had twenty.

We were heavily entrenched in corners and walls due to local influence. What we found was with our actual level of training, you could not depend on guys to not engage the first thing they saw. What we did know was that most folks in fact would engage the first actual threat. This made it imperative for the two's and threes to read that and properly fill. I had our guys "un-stack the line enough to allow for the 2nd and third, fourth, etc. to be able to read the deviation. So we let folks sort of read, especially the number one, but that came with some new discipline. The problem with these entries is often that first human threat you see may not be the problem and is often not. The real bad guys that are armed and setting themselves up in a defensive position are often in those corners, or buried in some kind of concealment or position of advantage, and that first threat is the loud mouthed girlfriend, diversion, or family member sucking the team in.
All of this is tough, and it gets tougher for folks who actually do a lot of entries, but often with a couple people they rarely train with (patrol cops), balanced with your dope/fugitive folks, and then your SWAT people. All will need tweaks.

[NickDrak]

Great stuff Surf. Always good to hear your take on things. Be safe, brother.



Nick, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciate your commentary over the years on forums, so I took some time to share my thoughts in a bit more detail. I agree on the discussion of tactics thing, so hopefully much of what we have already talked about in this thread is very generic and I believe what follows is also.

I agree with what you are saying. There is a time and place for much of what we do. I often use a tweaked variation of a threshold eval with an entry and that is often when working lone or two man stuff. No hard rules, but when there are more angles and less people we work a bit differently and must do a risk vs reward determination in the technique used. Now this goes right into the argument that is commonly raised in that SWAT teams train and work in these tactics often and the tactics discussed in this program were geared towards patrol officers who have limited training time. I get that 100% as we have dealt with that for longer than I have been around the teams.

The crux of the issue is that some of the formations and threshold evaluations or the limited being taught are severely lacking in many situations especially when you add #3, #4 or #5 person to the puzzle. Things complicate more with officers who may have a few months between formal training and when they need to do it cold. It is no different than when we have highly trained guys. More cogs in the wheel can complicate the choreography. So even with trained units the complexity rises. The choreography with 3, 4 or 5 man in this "model" contains some movements that should be rehearsed often and quite frankly don't work well in confined spaces, even normal household sized hallways. Some I just flat out think some moron came up with the idea. There are simplified ways of accomplishing the same goal, be it limited or dynamic with higher levels of retention with smaller or larger contact teams.

I am not for, or against any singular thing and I fully understand that tactics can be an evolutionary process. We played with many of these tactics or techniques over a decade ago. I mean heavily trained them over several months, probably about a year and a half of evolution. Our goal is to always take the role of the bad guy and attempt to exploit or defeat any technique, generally first with ourselves, then with guys with less training, then eventually with untrained roll players. We shelved most of the core of it but we did have great takeaways good and bad. It almost reminds me of what this thread is about or the recent thread with a character named "Brownie" and some point shooting or quick kill methodology, that we mostly look back at as being a part of an evolutionary process that is generally accepted as being not as sound as current methodology. In many instances in that week long course, this is exactly what I thought.

I have taught no less than 2 other models to Officers since the late 90's early 2000's, so I get the issue of simple to train, given limited time and budget, while maintaining efficacy and retention by those being trained. I am also 100% open to new methodology or ideas, while understanding that new does not always equal better, which even despite any negative things I had heard prior, I went into the program with an open mind and book, even adhering to the methodology throughout the week. I also see it all the time, where people crave training and that is great, but what often happens is a my sensei or my art form is the best. It is frame of reference. Because of these things I can clearly see why there is negative chatter about this program and also why some embrace it. Hell I embraced revolvers and the weaver at one point in my life. Did it get the job done? Sure, but have we found better ways of doing it? Of course. Will I be doing the exact same things 10 years from now? I hope not.

There are many things that are often times, not new, but a revival of something from the past. Of course it could be new to someone, or certain generations in our field, but it may not truly be new, just something not seen before by those individuals. So new to them. Again there was some good sound stuff that we already accept as credible, however the bad portions were very bad, like monkey fucking a football bad. The sad thing is, is that it could be tweaked fairly easily, however mention any change within our agency or even within that particular program and they almost literally need to go through congressional approval. That is what keeps LE in general and as a whole, stuck 20 years behind the 8 ball from fighting bureaucracy. Hard to fight it, when your program is entrenched in it. Yeap, welcome to LE. Sorry that last comment was rhetorical.

[HopetonBrown]

"Israeli" eh?

No way.
I saw the last name Cohen, something about Israeli, then it started to make sense in a nonsensical way.