The "Killologist" Training America's Cops

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,866
    113
    Merrillville
    I know many police don't need to draw, and many don't need to fire, but I do wish some of these principles were taught more.
    then again, maybe they are, I wouldn't know.
    But I wish an officer to have some of this knowledge, maybe it would help.

    Then again, maybe it wouldn't.


    Feel free to correct me. I an take it. :)
     

    Streck-Fu

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jul 2, 2010
    903
    28
    Noblesville
    He has many positive things to teach but his unfounded focus on video games as a catalyst to violent crime puts me off.

    Greg, his wife told me, had spent eight years in the Army before joining the CHP and served in the Balkans in the mid-'90s. "He was deployed to really ****ty circumstances, and he killed quite a few people," she said.' "But this was totally different. In the military you're trained to do whatever you have to do to protect the United States. Here we are not trained to do that. We're trained to protect and serve. We don't train to just kill people." In the aftermath of the shooting, Greg leaned heavily on Grossman's On Combat. "It really helped him understand his mental state and how to deal with the anxiety he was going through," Andra said. "Had he not read the book, he would have thought something was truly wrong with him."
    "God bless you," Grossman said, putting a hand on her shoulder.
    Andra gave him a hug. "Thank you for everything you do."

    And I'm out.....

    Ok, I'll be fair and keep reading.....

    With increased dangers at home and the Posse Comitatus Act preventing the military from operating on U.S. soil, he says, cops need to act more like soldiers. "We are at war," Grossman likes to tell the people he trains. "And our cops are the frontline troops in that war. You are the Delta Force.

    OH HELL NO......Some cops, sure. Only those in very special units. But not all. That is what leads to cops thinking they are all hammers and every citizen is a nail until proven otherwise. An individual beat cop having a warrior mentality to protect their communities does not require them to go Delta FOrce Team 6 24/7. This is absolutely the cause of overly aggressive policing.

    This reads as though Grossman is now playing up idea of police militarization in order to remain relevant after the OEF OIF wind down. Gotta keep booking those talking engagements for cops and keep convincing them they need him.


    Yet Grossman sees those ambushes as a chilling sign of things to come. "When you hear about the first American cop being beheaded," he told the CHP, "say, 'Grossman said that was coming.' "

    And there it is....


    For the armed citizen, I recommend the Active Self Protection Youtube channel... LINK
     
    Last edited:

    hog slayer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 10, 2015
    1,087
    38
    Camp Lejeune, NC
    vicarious learning, or observational learning, is a well-founded theory. We use it regularly as we observe skills and tasks within YouTube in an effort to learn. There are many studies conducted that prove this. Albert Bandura believed that children learn to imitate aggressive behavior they learned and observed in the home, the schoolyard, and on television. He was able to prove that children will imitate aggressive behavior that they see on television, even cartoon characters. In a related study children were imitating an adult model who struck a toy called the Bobo doll. Exposure to violence on TV and other sources and media has been thoroughly proven to contribute to aggressive and violent behavior in Children and adolescents. In addition, exposure to media in violence as a child is linked to Greater aggressiveness in adulthood. These studies are common and popular in psychology.

    Nonsolis Radios Sediouis Fulmina Mitto
     

    Streck-Fu

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jul 2, 2010
    903
    28
    Noblesville
    He was able to prove that children will imitate aggressive behavior that they see on television, even cartoon characters.

    I have have a very large study group of friends that grew up together watching those violent cartoons and even playing violent video games later that never tried to replicate that violence. Did those conducting the study get some kids to do it, probably. But then. we made ramps for our bikes and big wheels and jumped off the roof of the house with a skate board.....but never tried to hit anyone with a hammer or swallow a firecracker. We were smarter than that.

    If anything, the trend of over protective parents, teachers, etc that have been compelled to insulate at least one generation of children from any sort of potentially {mildly} hazardous play has removed any understanding of consequence of actions. They don't know what it's like to fall off a bike or fall from a tree branch or fly off a play ground spinner. And yet, there is zero real connection between fantasy violence and real violence. If there were, there would be a lot more violence in the real world.

    It is not that cartoons, movies, and video games desensitize kids to violence, it is that they do not understand consequence of action.

    These studies are common and popular in psychology.

    I don't think that helps make the point. :D Remember when those psychologist claimed that Dungeons and Dragons made kids suicidal? Rock music made kids do drugs....yada yada....ad nauseum..... More recently, studies that include factors external to the laboratory, find that there is no causal relationship between media and violence. The claims have been made since TV became a household standard, yet, real violence has declined since.

    Nonsolis Radios Sediouis Fulmina Mitto

    I bring not the rays of the sun but the thunderbolts of Jupiter.

    I was a Gunner's Mate in the Navy so know that phrase.
     
    Last edited:

    CavMedic

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 20, 2012
    358
    18
    Plainfield
    I have never been a fan of him. A lot of theory crafting and psycho doc bable. He takes long established ideas and turns the words to make it seem as though he has had this huge breakthrough in the field. To me he is just another guy that was able to cash in on the "tactical mindset" thing. This is all from a man that tells us what killing is like though has never done it. Yep, PASS.
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    Thomas Jackson was simply an academic until he took the field.
     

    Streck-Fu

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jul 2, 2010
    903
    28
    Noblesville
    Thomas Jackson was simply an academic until he took the field.

    I eagerly await Mr. Grossman taking the field.

    On Killing was written before 9/11 and much of it has been disproven by those experiences and he is not much more invited by the military to speak about his theories. Law Enfocement is now his bread and butter.
     
    Last edited:

    hog slayer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 10, 2015
    1,087
    38
    Camp Lejeune, NC
    Let's be frank. As a gunners mate, you probably didn't see much combat either, even though you were likely a very thorough and competent weapons specialist. If that's true, as is likely, how can you judge Col Grossman either way?

    I want to be clear that i, in no way, intend to diminish ones service based on lack of actual combat experience.
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    I eagerly await Mr. Grossman taking the field.

    On Killing was written before 9/11 and much of it has been disproven by those experiences and he is not much more invited by the military to speak about his theories. Law Enfocement is now his bread and butter.
    I don't think he will be taking the field at this point in his life. I hope for the sake of the nation that such a calamity that would require him taking the field do not occur.

    I agree with your earlier post about his thinking on violent video games being at turn off, and at least incomplete.

    With regard to On Killing which part or parts are proven incomplete or just wrong? I am not sure if I would even contest the point just curious. Not being invited back my the military could be due to more than one reason. Not knowing what you are talking about could be one of the reasons.
     

    Streck-Fu

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jul 2, 2010
    903
    28
    Noblesville
    Unlike Mr. Grossman, I do not misrepresent my service. Maybe it is his publicist's fault.
    But the claim of Airborne Ranger implies service within the Ranger Regiment which Mr. Grossman did not.
    Probably not meaningful to civilians....
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    Unlike Mr. Grossman, I do not misrepresent my service. Maybe it is his publicist's fault.
    But the claim of Airborne Ranger implies service within the Ranger Regiment which Mr. Grossman did not.
    Probably not meaningful to civilians....
    No it is meaningful to every man who earned something and had others make such a claim. On the same page there for certain.
     

    Streck-Fu

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jul 2, 2010
    903
    28
    Noblesville
    With regard to On Killing which part or parts are proven incomplete or just wrong? I am not sure if I would even contest the point just curious. Not being invited back my the military could be due to more than one reason. Not knowing what you are talking about could be one of the reasons.


    Grossman, in On Killing, regurgitates and expands on ideas first expressed by SLA Marshall's Men Against Fire. Marshall's main point was that most men in combat were hesitant to engage and most would not actually fire their weapons. If I remember correctly, he claimed that about 25% on the men would engage and others would not. This is mostly attributed to men's fear of being killed or injured. For a while that idea was popular and actually drove Army TTPs for years. Until more people did research and found out that the claims were rather baseless. Yet, the 25% engagement number still gets thrown around as fact.

    Fast forward to Dave Grossman publishing On Killing. He relies heavily on references to Marshall and then exaggerates the claims to make a more dramatic case. Marshall's idea that men were afraid to engage becomes men have a natural instinct to not kill and that in WWII, most men shot over the heads of the enemy rather than take aim. He asserts that military and police changing the targets from round bullsyses to human silhouettes has desensitized service members and police to the killing of humans and made them more willing to kill.

    The problem is, none of it is supported by period accounts of combat. Before On Killing, I had read books like With The Old Breed, Helmet For My Pillow, any of Stephen Ambrose's books like Citizen Soldiers, or D-Day, and Band of Brothers as well as many from Vietnam and know personally people that have experienced combat from Desert Storm to now. While there are occasional conscientious objectors, there are no widespread descriptions or accounts of men averse to shooting men who are trying to kill them. Even if the authors would not admit such a thing about themselves, they do not even mention it of others around them.
    Descriptions of battles in With The Old Breed and Helmet For My Pillow are especially graphic in their descriptions and they highlight the brutality of their conditions but there is no doubt in their purpose.

    But then Grossman bizarrely crosses into describing the act of killing as a sexual act and gets into describing bayonets as a phallus. He went off the Freudian deep end and this where I believe he is expanding what was a research paper into a full book. He goes on and on about this sexual reaction to killing which strikes me as completely counter the the earlier claim that men are naturally averse to killing. Both can't be true. How can men be naturally averse to killing only to experience a sexual thrill when they do. Of course all people have a hormonal/chemical reaction as part of the fight/flight response but it is very different from a sexual urge. This is counter to everything I learned.

    And then there is the claim that video games are creating murderers which I addressed earlier. Taken together, it is my opinion, that Grossman is far more wrong than right.

    I fully admit that I only got about 3/4 of the way through On Killing. I found much of his writing to be quotes from other authors bookended by his claims with very little detailed research. I remember a claim he made about 5.56 and 9mm being designed to wound more than kill. I don't remember his basis for that but it is wrong

    All the above really put me off and I really don't understand the near cult following. But to be fair, I know police officers, Marines, and even SF soldiers that can be in the same unit and some are big Grossman fans and others abhor him. But, even his critics can say that at least he is providing a conversation on the subject and is probably helping some by given them a reference if they do struggle with the issue after experiencing combat or give those that may face it an idea of what to expect.

    Add his endorsement of John Guidick's book Terror at Beslan and the well knows false claims in how that book came to be is another strike. He being military officer and person sought by police departments for training on managing crisis and combat, I would expect higher standard of ethics.
     
    Last edited:

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    Great explanation about where you are coming from. I appreciate the meaningful response. I need to reread the book before I can comment much at all in a rational and meaningful way. As I read this response and wonder if World War II and the Civil War are not a different horse in some respects due to scope. Could it be the mix of men involved in those wars be different due to the sheer numbers in uniform and therefore more likely that more men might be reluctant to fight? Since Vietnam the fighters have been volunteers.

    I have read With the Old Breed. Sledge was a mortar man and many times the greater distance from the enemy can change the equation. Sort of like the bomber who kills many more people than the infantry soldier. Also we do not get to know very many of the men in company K. Perhaps the non-fighters were omitted. I always had the feeling reading that book that it was sanitized for consumption by the civilian world. I don't know that though.

    My initial response to the military not liking Grossman and his work is that it makes it more believable than not. In the manner that he might be on to something and it reflects poorly on them.

    A number of years ago when applying for a position with the Indiana State Police. One question that came up time and time again throughout the process was if I could kill if the situation demanded it. (How the hell do I KNOW until it happens) I think it was during the polygraph testing I asked the guy why that question came up so often. He said something to the effect that they have plenty of occasions where in the moment of truth men just could not do it. He never offered a percentage that I can recall, but it has to be more than an isolated event considering how many times it came up in the process.

    Thanks for the reply Streck-Fu. You have me thinking I should do some more reading.
     

    Streck-Fu

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jul 2, 2010
    903
    28
    Noblesville
    Thanks for the reply Streck-Fu. You have me thinking I should do some more reading.

    Thank you.

    On subjects like this, I want to explain why I disagree with Grossman as he is so often cited.



    I purposely avoided the Civil War portion for the sake of post length....:)...but admit that I don't like his claims on that subject either. Much of it is based on the large number of loaded rifles found at Gettysburg.
    The claim that most men refused to fire because yhey refused to kill is not supported by any other evidence. There are far too many casualties for it to be claimed most men were killed by artillery. And bayonets were actually used to stab so the notion that men would refuse to shoot but fine with bayoneting doesn't pass the logic test.
    We also have period documents including letters from tje soldiers that described a terrible war but not enough accounts of men refusing to kill to assert the 80% would not fire their weapon.

    Too much of his book was him trying to support an idea and ignoring whole data sets that are contrary.
     
    Last edited:

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    Thank you.

    On subjects like this, I want to explain why I disagree with Grossman as he is so often cited.



    I purposely avoided the Civil War portion for the sake of post length....:)...but admit that I don't like his claims on that subject either. Much of it is based on the large number of loaded rifles found at Gettysburg.
    The claim that most men refused to fire because yhey refused to kill is not supported by any other evidence. There are far too many casualties for it to be claimed most men were killed by artillery. And bayonets were actually used to stab so the notion that men would refuse to shoot but fine with bayoneting doesn't pass the logic test.
    We also have period documents including letters from tje soldiers that described a terrible war but not enough accounts of men refusing to kill to assert the 80% would not fire their weapon.

    Too much of his book was him trying to support an idea and ignoring whole data sets that are contrary.

    Scholarship in any field has the built in flaw that the new and revolutionary idea is what is rewarded. Sometimes the answer is simple and not revolutionary.
     
    Top Bottom