Mike Lamb of Stoic Ventures. Outed as not being a Recon Marine.

[Cory]

Todd Green didn't need to claim to be something he wasn't. Dude was a lawyer, right? I think we all recognize his teaching ability and skill.
Gabe White doesn't need to claim to be something he isn't. Dude is a pistol instructor who just works his ass off at shooting great. We all accept him as a great shooter.
Ben Steoger doesn't claim to be something he isn't. Dude is a national champ competition shooter. Doesn't claim to be anything else. We can all agree he knows what he is doing.
Pat Rogers didn't need to claim to be something he wasn't. Guy was a Marine and a cop. Didn't need to pile on extra BS. Pretty sure anyone who trained with him would agree he knew his stuff.

I've never trained with any of the above, just to be clear. My point is embellishment of service isn't needed as a firearms instructor. It doesn't change what someone can do, or what they can teach. It also is just plain stupid. Own what you've done, and be proud of what you have accomplished. I was a National Guard MP, got out as an E5 after my first contract, spent some time in the sand. Nothing real badass. I don't need to upsell because I'm cool with who I am and what I've done. Guys that try to add on are insecure. It says a lot about their integrity.

-Cory

[RevolverRob]

My take is this:

A lot of guys just want to sniff the jockstrap and engage in a little LARPing for the weekend. The stronger the scent on your jockstrap, the better an instructor you are considered to be.

The average person doesn't know what they need, they pay for what they want. Why do you think so few instructors have objective standards?

Ding.

Most of the folks I've worked with have been 1) enlisted Jarheads or Grunts. Then 2) LEOs. Then (maybe) 3) SWAT officers. They teach good stuff, work hard to refine it, work to incorporate real world feedback, improve their curricula and improve their teaching styles and methods. Some of these guys were never even in the military, just straight up stateside LEO.

I've never quite understood the fascination with jock sniffing. I know and sometimes drink beer and eat BBQ with some real-deal high speed dudes. They are pretty cool guys and have some good information for consideration. We teach each other stuff. But for the most part they just don't do stuff like I do...I've never had to engage in countersniping or a prolonged gun fight with an armed enemy. Hell...I've never had to kick a door on a crack house for that matter. But those guys don't usually do stuff like me either...As far as I know, none of them have spent lots of time in a suit schmoozing billionaires to give you money. Skills can be learned from all over, from people with very different backgrounds and parallel fields theory suggest it's all about problem solving.

Anyways, that's just my long-winded way of pointing out that "elite" credentials doesn't necessarily make for a good teacher or even relevant curricula. BUT it also doesn't mean there is a lack of relevance either. People need to judge for themselves and unfortunately one way is to assess someone's background. Dishonesty in this realm makes it even more difficult to do this.

[Suvorov]

Unquestionably and with no hesitation: absolutely. You're a pilot, right? Would you come to me to learn about handling in-flight emergencies, knowing that I had never soloed?

I think I have a ton of "good ideas" when it comes to handling a deadly force situation. The truth is that the training I have gone through has indicated I don't know what the fuck I'm doing.

So I don't teach defensive handgun skills. Imagine someone that only has experience with snorkeling running a drown-proof SCUBA diver class. That's what Mike was doing.

He needs to be ostracized to the full extent of the Internet's wrath, and banished from the realm of legitimate firearms instructors.

So while I have already stated that the ethics of lying would be enough to put him on the no list regardless of if he remained in business or not, I think your analogies are a little extreme. I don't think Mike was teaching anything out of his league, correct me if I'm wrong - he was teaching things he was fully competent in, just under false pretense. To use your pilot training analogy, suppose I sought out aerobatic/upset training from a guy who claimed to have flown with the Thunderbirds, but instead of flying with the T-Birds he was simply an F-16 instructor pilot. He is still fully qualified to teach me what I need to know and *may* be every bit the instructor or pilot that the Thunderbirds is. Washington is full of such people, they do it to get votes, gun instructors do it to get students or to present themselves as a "hero" in a industry filled with "hero's." While everyone here is mentioning Todd Green and others, lets face it - the average dood wanting to learn to be a badass with a gun or simply is new to the lifestyle and rather naive never heard of TLG (hell - most haven't even heard of Paul Howe) and will gravitate towards the the "cool guys" on the magazine covers and that too is going to lead many folks to lie. The problem is endemic to our culture and doubt any amount of evisceration is going to change that.

I'm not making apologies for the man nor wishing to dampen any torches as we grab our pitchforks, just wondering out loud how we can promote those with good instructing skills to the masses instead of promoting the idea that everyone with a CCL needs to be a snake eater.

[DMF13]

Is there a difference between not correcting every write up on the internet, and claiming false creds yourself?

If you are aware of the lie, and do nothing to correct it, then there is no difference IMO.

I have a friend who is assigned to a Special Forces Group. He has deployed regularly with "A-teams" and is a no kidding "trigger puller." However, he has not been through the Q-Course, and is not in an 18x MOS. If anyone makes the mistake of describing him as a "Green Beret" he will quickly and clearly correct them.

In the past I had trained a little with some guys in a very specialized LE group, and done a little work somewhat similar to what they do, but much, much, smaller in scope. Later a few people mistakenly labeled me as being assigned to that group, and when I found out I also quickly and clearly corrected that misconception, as I had most certainly not been part of that crew, and it would be wrong to let that misconception continue and grow.

One cannot be responsible for the misconceptions/lies about themselves, if they are truly ignorant about those lies/misconceptions, but once they are aware of them, they are obligated to set the record straight.

[Ed L]

A minor issue - if you in an ambiguous shooting and go to trial, the statements of your instructors might come up. If they are disreputable, that might be bad. Also, good instructors might testify that you acted correctly. If an instructor has such a flaw, they wouldn't be that useful in your defense.

Just something to think about. I know training as come up in some cases.

If things got to that level you probably would not call that instructor to the witness stand.

I seriously don't think the fact that one of your instructors inflated his credentials and you did not know it at the time is going to hurt you in court, unless they claimed to have been an authentic Jedi Knight and you believed them. Then it would make you look like a gullible person given to easily believing false claims.

[Ed L]

I think the class is moot as he says he's going to shut down the company, in his statement.

Mike was the co-instructor (with Costa) at the Magpul Carbine class I took way back when... seemed like a good dude and had good input during the class.

Shame, but at the same time it's is own doing so it's tough to be overly upset about it. Glad he owned up, but it's a bit late...

I think I was in the same class in 2009. He seemed like a good dude and a good teacher. I did an article on that class for SWAT magazine.

As mentioned, from his explanation it seems like some people mistakenly believed that he was a recon Marine and he never corrected them and once enough people believed that it was too late to correct them without making himself look like a fraud.

I write firearms articles on firearms and training classes which appear in SWAT magazine. I am extra careful that I never misrepresent myself or do anything that *might* be misconstrued in the firearms or training community.

In a recent article that I submitted to SWAT magazine I had written that some old ammo that was used to test a firearm might have been left over from ops in Zangaro, since I would consider that an obvious joke. I had it in the article, but omitted that comment from the final draft because I was afraid it might be misconstrued.

Zangaro is an inside joke among some people in the firearms community. It refers to a fictional African country from Frederick Forsyth's novel The Dogs of War that was made into a movie. I was afraid someone might read it and grossly misconstrue it, and conclude that I was fabricating things, when it was clearly meant to be a joke.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One never knows what comes up. If you didn't know, that's probably defensible. I was commenting on folks saying why not still take his courses after the fact is known. Instructors have been brought up in court and if you take a course, some of mine said they would testify if need be. So it would nice to have one that was reputable.

Make sure your lawyer doesn't have his or her degree from the University of Zangaro. That might hurt you in court even if it is a good shoot.

[rob_s]

They teach good stuff

how do you know?

[rob_s]

Such is the folly of the average firearms student nowadays. The vast majority naively believe you need a background in an elite military unit or something comparable, otherwise you don't know jack and aren't worth consideration. Or show yourself having a sub-second draw and shoot on Instagram/YouTube and you're a verified badass who can teach anything.

IMO you need three things to be able to teach effectively:
1) Real world experience in the subject matter
2) the ability to effectively teach
3) the genuine desire to see your students improve

While #1 alone isn't enough, you can't just have 2 & 3 (and a bunch of classes) and think that you're good to go. Otherwise you wind up with radio hosts teaching gunfighting classes.

[blues]

If I recall correctly, our agency and SRT team received occasional firearms and equipment instruction from sources that were not former this, that or the other but were experts in their particular field. I don't recall receiving tactical instruction from anyone outside that sphere, offhand.

Frankly, while I think it's great to go through an agency SWAT school run by instructors who have been there, done that, (as I was fortunate enough to do during my career)...when it comes to firearms proficiency (as opposed to simply tactics) I could care less if someone with the skills of a Jerry Miculek ever fired a shot in anger.

It all depends on the purpose and goal of the training. Strangely enough, many of the best batting coaches in major league baseball weren't particularly good hitters themselves during their careers.