Road Rage shooting

[shadeslanding]

Two points need to be clarified
1. I am not calling for a change in the law - I was talking about self policing- Example: if you are a PTC instructor and you have an obvious squirrel in your class what should you do? - I don't have the answers, just looking for some conversations about how we flush out the goof balls who get guns for the wrong reasons or who probably aren't mature or stable enough to understand the consequences of using them in situations not calling for that level of force.

2. Not all people with Mental Illness are Freaks - But I think I'm safe adding that durrogatory term to people who flip out and shoot someone when a "normal" person and 99.9% of the population would have handle the situation differently. Be sensitive if you want but the if you can't discern truly aberrant behavior in people who have a history of aberrant behavior then we need to talk. Part of the reason these people slip through is everyone is afraid to "label" them as potentially destructive individuals. Somewhere someone has to have the cajones to call the squirrel a squirrel even if its going to hurt someones feelings.

In answer to your questions: I've failed students or rather not "passed" them if they: Demonstrate poor firearm safety at the range or in the classroom, or demonstrate that they have a mental or other issue that jeopardizes the safety of others.

Example: Ex-cop (Ramsey Deputy) in class with his wife (happened around 2005 at a class at Gander Lakeville). She asks a couple of questions, good questions. He tells her to sit there and "shut the hell up. You're embarrassing me." And twice more he was abusive towards her and disrespectful of the instructors we had teaching that day. I stopped the class and asked to speak with him outside the classroom. I told him he may talk to his wife like that at home, but NOT in my class. The ex-cop took a step towards me and said "Do you know who I am? And who the hell are you to tell me how to talk to my wife?" My answer was "As of this minute you're a former student of mine who failed to complete the course." I went back into class and told his wife she was welcome to stay but her husband would be leaving. She opted to leave with him all the while apologizing for him to me and to the class.

So yes - when something as blatant as that was occurs, we (and I'll speak for other instructors I know who do) have told students to leave or not given them completion certificates. BUT IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PERFORM A CRIMINAL OR MENTAL HEALTH CHECK ON MY STUDENTS. That is the job of the Sheriff.

[shadeslanding]

1. I am not calling for a change in the law - I was talking about self policing- Example: if you are a PTC instructor and you have an obvious squirrel in your class what should you do? - I don't have the answers, just looking for some conversations about how we flush out the goof balls who get guns for the wrong reasons or who probably aren't mature or stable enough to understand the consequences of using them in situations not calling for that level of force.

Ummm... I guess it's up to the individual instructor how to deal with someone they think might be unstable, but part of the point I tried to make is that there isn't anything you can do to flush out all the goofballs. Having freedom implies the ability to abuse it. People these days tend to look at abuse of liberty as a problem that needs to be fixed, I prefer to view it as a side effect I'd rather live with than to surrender the freedom that allows it.

Excellently said.

[sgruenhagen44]

Two points need to be clarified
1. I am not calling for a change in the law - I was talking about self policing- Example: if you are a PTC instructor and you have an obvious squirrel in your class what should you do? - I don't have the answers, just looking for some conversations about how we flush out the goof balls who get guns for the wrong reasons or who probably aren't mature or stable enough to understand the consequences of using them in situations not calling for that level of force.

2. Not all people with Mental Illness are Freaks - But I think I'm safe adding that durrogatory term to people who flip out and shoot someone when a "normal" person and 99.9% of the population would have handle the situation differently. Be sensitive if you want but the if you can't discern truly aberrant behavior in people who have a history of aberrant behavior then we need to talk. Part of the reason these people slip through is everyone is afraid to "label" them as potentially destructive individuals. Somewhere someone has to have the cajones to call the squirrel a squirrel even if its going to hurt someones feelings.

In answer to your questions: I've failed students or rather not "passed" them if they: Demonstrate poor firearm safety at the range or in the classroom, or demonstrate that they have a mental or other issue that jeopardizes the safety of others.



Example: Ex-cop (Ramsey Deputy) in class with his wife (happened around 2005 at a class at Gander Lakeville). She asks a couple of questions, good questions. He tells her to sit there and "shut the hell up. You're embarrassing me." And twice more he was abusive towards her and disrespectful of the instructors we had teaching that day. I stopped the class and asked to speak with him outside the classroom. I told him he may talk to his wife like that at home, but NOT in my class. The ex-cop took a step towards me and said "Do you know who I am? And who the hell are you to tell me how to talk to my wife?" My answer was "As of this minute you're a former student of mine who failed to complete the course." I went back into class and told his wife she was welcome to stay but her husband would be leaving. She opted to leave with him all the while apologizing for him to me and to the class.

So yes - when something as blatant as that was occurs, we (and I'll speak for other instructors I know who do) have told students to leave or not given them completion certificates. BUT IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PERFORM A CRIMINAL OR MENTAL HEALTH CHECK ON MY STUDENTS. That is the job of the Sheriff.

Maybe that's why he is no longer a cop...

[Dante]

Not all people with Mental Illness are Freaks - But I think I'm safe adding that durrogatory term to people who flip out and shoot someone when a "normal" person and 99.9% of the population would have handle the situation differently. Be sensitive if you want but the if you can't discern truly aberrant behavior in people who have a history of aberrant behavior then we need to talk. Part of the reason these people slip through is everyone is afraid to "label" them as potentially destructive individuals. Somewhere someone has to have the cajones to call the squirrel a squirrel even if its going to hurt someones feelings.

There are plenty of accurate labels that are not derogatory. You've even included a couple in your clarification.

[yukonjasper]

There are plenty of accurate labels that are not derogatory. You've even included a couple in your clarification.

So I guess you choose to be sensitive. Appologies if your offended. I did not intend to offend and I guess I am not sensitive to the subject. This is the interwebz and although I'm sure someone is working on it somewhere, you are not protected from being offended on the interwebz.

The core issue is Mental Illness and gun ownership. If a person is known to have issues, what is the right thing to do.

I saw a report last night that the recent workplace shooter's family knew he had issues, the police department suspected he had issues due to some specious 911 calls he made. The 71 YO had 4 prior Road Rage incidents - obviously on record somewhere since it didn't take long for the reporters to find the information. The Treptow case there were plenty of warning signs.

I believe the process is basically in place, my question is why does it appear not to be working. Is there information sharing that isn't happening?

[kerns bbo]

I realize that this thread has gone off topic but I am interested in the subject manner and will continue the divergence. I feel that instructors should take more responsibility to keep students from getting their permits to carry who should not be issued one. Yes, it is subjective, but frankly many people get a ptc for the wrong reasons. That or they are simply not ready to carry.

I will take my ptc course as an example.

One individual admitted that the only reason they wanted their ptc was so they could shoot a neighborhood dog that barked at them on walks. It was stated; "the dog runs up at us all the time and barks like crazy. I can't wait to have a gun on me so next time I can shoot it."

Another was totally inept when we got on the range. She did not even know how to chamber a round in her gun the first session. Our instructor showed her how to use the gun and passed her later on. It was clear that she was afraid of the gun and could not even handle it in a safe manner.

Frankly, it scares me to think that these to individuals have a permit to carry.

[TTS]

I realize that this thread has gone off topic but I am interested in the subject manner and will continue the divergence. I feel that instructors should take more responsibility to keep students from getting their permits to carry who should not be issued one. Yes, it is subjective, but frankly many people get a ptc for the wrong reasons. That or they are simply not ready to carry.

I will take my ptc course as an example.

One individual admitted that the only reason they wanted their ptc was so they could shoot a neighborhood dog that barked at them on walks. It was stated; "the dog runs up at us all the time and barks like crazy. I can't wait to have a gun on me so next time I can shoot it."

Another was totally inept when we got on the range. She did not even know how to chamber a round in her gun the first session. Our instructor showed her how to use the gun and passed her later on. It was clear that she was afraid of the gun and could not even handle it in a safe manner.

Frankly, it scares me to think that these to individuals have a permit to carry.

There are no more problems with permit holders breaking the law in states that don't require a permit and/or states that have lower standards than Minnesota. The whole point of the MN law was to allow anyone who owns a gun to be able to carry it for protection; without subjective standards set by a sheriff or instructor.

[sgruenhagen44]

I realize that this thread has gone off topic but I am interested in the subject manner and will continue the divergence. I feel that instructors should take more responsibility to keep students from getting their permits to carry who should not be issued one. Yes, it is subjective, but frankly many people get a ptc for the wrong reasons. That or they are simply not ready to carry.

I will take my ptc course as an example.

One individual admitted that the only reason they wanted their ptc was so they could shoot a neighborhood dog that barked at them on walks. It was stated; "the dog runs up at us all the time and barks like crazy. I can't wait to have a gun on me so next time I can shoot it."

Another was totally inept when we got on the range. She did not even know how to chamber a round in her gun the first session. Our instructor showed her how to use the gun and passed her later on. It was clear that she was afraid of the gun and could not even handle it in a safe manner.

Frankly, it scares me to think that these to individuals have a permit to carry.

Nothing that extreme in my class. But I hear ya. When I took my class I borrowed a friends xd. This lawyer guy next to me who was renewing his permit and was a big loud mouth cuz he knew it all! Well anyway, he had his own xd. He couldn't even show the instructor how to lock the slide back.

[xracer390]

I dont think any instructor should have to have the responsibility of picking out the nut cases in the crowd. Granted once and awhile one will expose himself voluntarily and they should be looked at a little closer. A few hours in a classroom just isnt enough. The shops I have worked for have hired many people who work through a probation period of 100s of hours and even being the perfect employee for that period sometimes they just dont have what it takes to stay employed with us, sometimes they show themselves as the nut jobs.

[kerns bbo]

multiple post... please delete...

[kerns bbo]

I realize that this thread has gone off topic but I am interested in the subject manner and will continue the divergence. I feel that instructors should take more responsibility to keep students from getting their permits to carry who should not be issued one. Yes, it is subjective, but frankly many people get a ptc for the wrong reasons. That or they are simply not ready to carry.

I will take my ptc course as an example.

One individual admitted that the only reason they wanted their ptc was so they could shoot a neighborhood dog that barked at them on walks. It was stated; "the dog runs up at us all the time and barks like crazy. I can't wait to have a gun on me so next time I can shoot it."

Another was totally inept when we got on the range. She did not even know how to chamber a round in her gun the first session. Our instructor showed her how to use the gun and passed her later on. It was clear that she was afraid of the gun and could not even handle it in a safe manner.

Frankly, it scares me to think that these to individuals have a permit to carry.

There are no more problems with permit holders breaking the law in states that don't require a permit and/or states that have lower standards than Minnesota. The whole point of the MN law was to allow anyone who owns a gun to be able to carry it for protection; without subjective standards set by a sheriff or instructor.

I agree that this is how the MN law is set up. I also understand that is it difficult to define who is nuts and who is not. At some point however, an instructor has to draw the line.

We all know someone in our lives who meets the legal criteria to have a ptc, but we wouldn't trust them with a gun. It is simply hard to place them in a category defined by current laws.

I agree we can't put a subjective standard in law but I feel the instructors should take it upon themselves. If someone fails multiple classes because they are "nuts" hopefully they will give up.

[TTS]

The problem is, the person making that decision isn't qualified to make it.... I am not a psychologist, social worker or doctor.

There are certainly people who I have told to find training elsewhere, however I don't think instructors should be held liable for the students actions after the fact.

[Dante]

So I guess you choose to be sensitive. Appologies if your offended. I did not intend to offend and I guess I am not sensitive to the subject. This is the interwebz and although I'm sure someone is working on it somewhere, you are not protected from being offended on the interwebz.

The core issue is Mental Illness and gun ownership. If a person is known to have issues, what is the right thing to do.

I saw a report last night that the recent workplace shooter's family knew he had issues, the police department suspected he had issues due to some specious 911 calls he made. The 71 YO had 4 prior Road Rage incidents - obviously on record somewhere since it didn't take long for the reporters to find the information. The Treptow case there were plenty of warning signs.

I believe the process is basically in place, my question is why does it appear not to be working. Is there information sharing that isn't happening?

No worries, I wasn't offended, I just think serious issues should be treated seriously.

Here is an article from the Sherriff explaining why the 71 y.o was not denied a permit but basically it comes down to whether or not the person ended up convicted of a charge serious enough to warrant a denial.

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/172482271.html

From the article:

"The reason he was issued a permit is because there was no indication in the required background check that indicated [Kadlec] was a danger to himself or others or was not allowed, by statute, to be issued a permit," Monson said in response to a Star Tribune inquiry.

Monson explained that in each of the earlier cases since 2008, " [Kadlec] was angry at someone for their driving conduct but never used any weapons, never assaulted anyone, never made threats and was never arrested."

The sheriff added that those cases ended in a warning and with those involved encouraged to calm down

[peckerhead]

I'll be interested to see the results of the investigation. I'm not going to be so quick to condemn the permit holder. There were eyewitnesses who described the bikers riding next to his car on Hwy 65 and kicking it. It sounds like they were begging for some trouble...and clearly found it.

[Dante]

I've kicked plenty of cars that came in to my lane. I don't think I was looking for trouble in doing so.

Now that is probably not how it happened here, it sounds like all parties were already actively involved in a road rage situation that started when the driver in the car would not allow the motorcycles to pass.

Given the facts released to date, unless the motorcyclist had a weapon, I don't see why he needed to be shot to resolve the situation.