Looking for another opinion: Sheriff v activists re: Grossman

[BehindBlueI's]

jetfire et al.

Does Grossman explicitly and conspicuously disclose his lack of experience in those lanes in his books and/or lectures?

I suppose this is an example of asking a question you know the answer to, but for those playing at home: He does in the books, anyway, and spins it as a positive that he's able to research it more neutrally since he doesn't have the baggage of having actually done it.

I disagree with him on many things, but he's at least honest about that.

[TC215]

The only good thing about Grossman is the fact that his "oo-rah" attitude convinces officers to carry off-duty for a couple months before they get lazy again and quit.

[vcdgrips]

BB

FWIW

I have neither read Grossman nor attended a lecture. As such, I did not know one way or the other re his level of disclosure.

I was seeking info. Not making judgements or playing "gotcha" with Grossman in any way.

DB

[Suvorov]

He was one of my ROTC instructors and was heads and shoulders above most of the other cadre. Not a lot of combat going around in the mid 1990s. In "On Killing" he fully discloses his lack of combat experience - his exact term is "virgin talking about sex." Yeah, today we have plenty of access to face shooters to get the skinny of what the Elephant really looks like but when he wrote his first book things were different and his book was written with interviews of quite a few combat vets. Maybe an argument could be made that he hasn't updated his material to account for the recent GWOT, I don't know as I haven't read any of his recent things, but back in the 1990s he really was thought provoking and no doubt had a lot of impact on survival mindset classes that we would take with us into the GWOT. Even today I see much of his influence on the survival mindset training I have received at FLETC and from the DHS.

SLA Marshall's finding were off and no doubt introduce errors in much of Grossman's work - but that doesn't mean it is all wrong. There is no 100% solution here.

Love him or hate him - he has a right to speak.

Just my virgin opinion.

[willie]

If the term Killology is Grobman's, then he could not have selected a worse one. You can research up the objecting committee to get some idea of who goes there and what the agenda is.

[Chance]

Grossman was recently featured in an episode of 'Last Week Tonight' with John Oliver. I'm not qualified to discuss Grossman's positions, but others have attended his seminars in person. I can say it's trivial to make him look like a trigger-happy lunatic with some choice editing of his presentation and this is not the best time to have him visit.

[jnc36rcpd]

It's been several years since I read any of Grossman's books or attended a presentation by him. As you can tell, there are some legitimate questions about the quality of his presentation. He had some decent insights into human performance in combat. I tended to see him more as a motivational speaker.

I agree "killology" is a pretty terrible name and I've suspected for years that someday the term "warrior" would be turned against us.That said, I don't recall anything he said or wrote that is legitimate grounds for social justice warrior (there's that term again) outrage. They just want to throw their political weight around again.

[paherne]

I've read all of Grossman's books and attended one of his seminars. He's an interesting and engaging speaker. In researching his psychology theories, he appears to be the aggregator of many other folks' research without actually doing the research himself. The truth is, most psych folks can't internalize hurting or killing people so it's a weird area of study. He was useful in that he provided a method for all of the grass-eaters in LE to feel good about themselves and give them a way to wrap their heads around the fact that they might have to actually engage in a gunfight with little Johnny, instead of waiting for SWAT. In the late 90's, we had people that flat-out said they were not going to charge into a building and confront an active shooter. It was nice that they self-identified, but we already mostly knew who they were, anyways. Grossman was also good in that he convinced a fair number of LE leaders that it was ok to train cops to hunt down and confront killers. This is important to know that LE leadership is almost universally grass eaters. The path to promotion does not include making arrests and confronting criminals. Grossman's books and seminars sparked conversations that proved useful, even if I disagree with the science and detest the "sheepdog" analogy.

[Erick Gelhaus]

I attended his seminar in the late 90s and read both books. The issues with his work, presentations have been laid out - lack of experience, not contemporary, foundation.

In the late 90s, he provided a basis for discussions that needed to happen up & down the organization's chain of command. Sergeants & Lts needed to tell cops they'd be fired if they refused to make the entry, admin needed to be told they'd have to have cops actively seeking out & engaging the BadGuys to save innocents.

Can't recommend his stuff now. Especially because I think there are better-qualified cops & veterans to give those presentations.

[LockedBreech]

Isn’t honest incompetence the same as dishonest incompetence in effect?

This is a really good line that I'll be stealing.