ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
No it wasnt
Can You Be An Expert?
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
No it wasnt
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Yeah I heard your reality. Navy Seals and houses moms all need to do the same training and have the same needs for self defense. That's some reality you live in. Must be all the mentally unstable guys you fight everyday
renades at Waco
By Martin McLaughlin 27 August 1999
Officials of the FBI and Justice Department admitted Wednesday that tear gas grenades with potentially incendiary effect were used in the final assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas six years ago. The fire that erupted in the compound killed 80 members of the religious sect.
The admission marked an abrupt reversal after more than six years of adamant claims by officials from Attorney General Janet Reno on down that nothing done by the FBI and other federal agencies involved in the Waco siege could have caused the fire.
Yet again you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. I have made my point, the only person silly enough to believe that experience isn't needed for expertise is people who have no experience. Now try to reply with something solid instead of putting words in my mouth or coming off like a smug juvinile.
re Early of Waco Tear Gas
1993 Lab Report Shows FBI Knew of Military Tear Gas Projectiles
By JOHN SOLOMON
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (Sept. 10) - A lab document that the Justice Department failed to give Congress discloses that the FBI knew within eight months of the fiery end of the Branch Davidian siege that military tear gas projectiles were used, The Associated Press has learned.
A key final page from a 49-page FBI lab report was turned over to the House Government Reform Committee this week, along with an internal Justice Department memo acknowledging it ''was not produced to Congress'' during the 1995 investigations into the tragedy near Waco, Texas.
The first 48 pages of the lab report, dated Dec. 6, 1993, had been turned over to lawmakers years ago, absent the mention of the military-style tear gas that government officials for years had denied using.
The 49th page, obtained Friday by AP, discloses that FBI investigators who examined the scene at Waco found a ''fired US military 40 mm shell casing which originally contained a CS gas round,'' and two ''expended 40mm tear gas projectiles.''
The report is likely to become a key piece of evidence in the independent inquiry ordered by Attorney General Janet Reno and separate congressional investigations into whether government officials tried to cover up the use of potentially incendiary tear gas on the final day of the siege.
Justice Department and FBI officials denied for years that such tear gas grenades were used on April 19, 1993, the day the Davidian compound went up in flames. They abruptly reversed course earlier this month and acknowledged a ''very limited number'' of such devices were fired hours before the fatal fire.
The government continues to maintain that religious sect members set the fire, and federal agents did not contribute to it. They have said the tear gas canisters bounced off a roof of a concrete bunker and into a field. Sect leader David Koresh and some 80 followers perished during a later blaze in a wooden structure away from the bunker.
Justice spokesman Myron Marlin said Friday night that former Republican Sen. John Danforth, who is heading an independent inquiry into Waco, will have to examine why the crucial page of the report did not reach Congress earlier. Marlin noted, however, that the page was properly turned over to lawyers in criminal and civil cases involving Waco survivors.
''Whether it was an adminstrative error is something that the special counsel will have to look at,'' he said. ''But we know that the plaintiff and defendants counsel received it.''
The lab report does not specifically state whether the gas in the shells was incendiary or when they had been fired. But the potentially flammable M651 tear gas canisters that the FBI belatedly acknowledged using on the final day of the siege are 40mm military shells like those described in the lab report.
The FBI has always acknowledged firing one other type of 40 mm round that contained nonflammable tear gas.
A Sept. 2, 1999 Justice Department memo on the history of the lab document notes that the department's document database ''contains multiple copies of this document, most of which contain all 49 pages.'' It said only four copies of the report were missing the last page.
''It appears that the page on which mention is made of a shell casing for a military CS round and the expended tear gas projectiles was not produced to Congress,'' trial attorney James G. Touhey Jr. wrote.
During congressional probes, the FBI would typically forward its documents to the Justice Department, which would then produce the documents to lawmakers.
Danforth, a former Missouri attorney general, was named Thursday to oversee the independent inquiry. He promised to investigate whether government officials were responsible for the fatal fire and tried to cover it up. Also Friday, congressional aides sifted through documents subpoenaed from the Texas Rangers dealing with the fiery end of the 51-day siege.
The documents were subpoenaed last week by the House Government Reform Committee and included a previously unreleased Rangers report on ordnance used by the FBI in the final hours of the siege, a congressional aide said.
Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger, whose agency oversees the Rangers, said the report represents ''an extremely exhaustive look at some of the controversial evidence.''
''When you get right down to it, it is very narrow in focus,'' Vinger said. He declined to be more specific.
The Rangers, who have stored tons of evidence collected from the Davidians' charred compound, began re-examining their holdings in June after learning that military pyrotechnic tear gas canisters were fired in the siege's waning hours.
AP-NY-09-10-99 2000EDT
1993 Lab Report Shows FBI Knew of Military Tear Gas Projectiles
By JOHN SOLOMON
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (Sept. 10) - A lab document that the Justice Department failed to give Congress discloses that the FBI knew within eight months of the fiery end of the Branch Davidian siege that military tear gas projectiles were used, The Associated Press has learned.
A key final page from a 49-page FBI lab report was turned over to the House Government Reform Committee this week, along with an internal Justice Department memo acknowledging it ''was not produced to Congress'' during the 1995 investigations into the tragedy near Waco, Texas.
The first 48 pages of the lab report, dated Dec. 6, 1993, had been turned over to lawmakers years ago, absent the mention of the military-style tear gas that government officials for years had denied using.
The 49th page, obtained Friday by AP, discloses that FBI investigators who examined the scene at Waco found a ''fired US military 40 mm shell casing which originally contained a CS gas round,'' and two ''expended 40mm tear gas projectiles.''
The report is likely to become a key piece of evidence in the independent inquiry ordered by Attorney General Janet Reno and separate congressional investigations into whether government officials tried to cover up the use of potentially incendiary tear gas on the final day of the siege.
Justice Department and FBI officials denied for years that such tear gas grenades were used on April 19, 1993, the day the Davidian compound went up in flames. They abruptly reversed course earlier this month and acknowledged a ''very limited number'' of such devices were fired hours before the fatal fire.
The government continues to maintain that religious sect members set the fire, and federal agents did not contribute to it. They have said the tear gas canisters bounced off a roof of a concrete bunker and into a field. Sect leader David Koresh and some 80 followers perished during a later blaze in a wooden structure away from the bunker.
Justice spokesman Myron Marlin said Friday night that former Republican Sen. John Danforth, who is heading an independent inquiry into Waco, will have to examine why the crucial page of the report did not reach Congress earlier. Marlin noted, however, that the page was properly turned over to lawyers in criminal and civil cases involving Waco survivors.
''Whether it was an adminstrative error is something that the special counsel will have to look at,'' he said. ''But we know that the plaintiff and defendants counsel received it.''
The lab report does not specifically state whether the gas in the shells was incendiary or when they had been fired. But the potentially flammable M651 tear gas canisters that the FBI belatedly acknowledged using on the final day of the siege are 40mm military shells like those described in the lab report.
The FBI has always acknowledged firing one other type of 40 mm round that contained nonflammable tear gas.
A Sept. 2, 1999 Justice Department memo on the history of the lab document notes that the department's document database ''contains multiple copies of this document, most of which contain all 49 pages.'' It said only four copies of the report were missing the last page.
''It appears that the page on which mention is made of a shell casing for a military CS round and the expended tear gas projectiles was not produced to Congress,'' trial attorney James G. Touhey Jr. wrote.
During congressional probes, the FBI would typically forward its documents to the Justice Department, which would then produce the documents to lawmakers.
Danforth, a former Missouri attorney general, was named Thursday to oversee the independent inquiry. He promised to investigate whether government officials were responsible for the fatal fire and tried to cover it up. Also Friday, congressional aides sifted through documents subpoenaed from the Texas Rangers dealing with the fiery end of the 51-day siege.
The documents were subpoenaed last week by the House Government Reform Committee and included a previously unreleased Rangers report on ordnance used by the FBI in the final hours of the siege, a congressional aide said.
Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger, whose agency oversees the Rangers, said the report represents ''an extremely exhaustive look at some of the controversial evidence.''
''When you get right down to it, it is very narrow in focus,'' Vinger said. He declined to be more specific.
The Rangers, who have stored tons of evidence collected from the Davidians' charred compound, began re-examining their holdings in June after learning that military pyrotechnic tear gas canisters were fired in the siege's waning hours.
AP-NY-09-10-99 2000EDT
Not @ all linked huh??
Funny when you referenced an incident that occurred with a supposed expert with no experience you brought up one of the biggest failures of the FBI's history. Do you know any " experts" that didn't have any experience @ Ruby Ridge too?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Ha. OK buddy stop speaking of things you know nothing about. I know people that were actually there
Although several of the surviving Branch Davidians insist that they did not start the fire, a panel of arson investigators concluded that the Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. Unless they were deliberatley set, the probability of the three fires starting almost simultaneously was highly unlikely, according to fire experts. Furthermore, the videotapes show the use of accelerants that strongly increased the spread of the fire. Although one Branch Davidian stated that a FBI tank had tipped over a lantern, videotapes show that the tank had struck the building a minute and a half before the fire began. Also some of the surviving Davidians' clothing showed evidence of lighter fluid and other accelerants. In addition, FBI listening devices seemed to establish that the Davidians were overheard making statements such as, "Spread the fuel," some six hours before the fires began. (Joint Hearing of the Crime Subcommittee July 1995.)
Although several of the surviving Branch Davidians insist that they did not start the fire, a panel of arson investigators concluded that the Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. Unless they were deliberatley set, the probability of the three fires starting almost simultaneously was highly unlikely, according to fire experts. Furthermore, the videotapes show the use of accelerants that strongly increased the spread of the fire. Although one Branch Davidian stated that a FBI tank had tipped over a lantern, videotapes show that the tank had struck the building a minute and a half before the fire began. Also some of the surviving Davidians' clothing showed evidence of lighter fluid and other accelerants. In addition, FBI listening devices seemed to establish that the Davidians were overheard making statements such as, "Spread the fuel," some six hours before the fires began. (Joint Hearing of the Crime Subcommittee July 1995.)
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
I've also fired the same 40mm gas rounds into houses on a few occasions and guess what no fire. I have started a fire with a flash bang but not gas rounds. Some gas rounds can cause fires it depends on the type but its rare
I'm trying to figure out what several posts about the events at Waco have to do with whether or not you can be an expert... Maybe we can pull this back on track?
What? You have experience and that means you know what your talking about? Lol. Seems to me your making my arguement for me. I think you and everyone else know that if you don't have any experience all you got is theory and b.s. Heck that's pretty much what you just said in your last couple posts. Steve was right you just like to argue for arguements sake. I'm done.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Ummm guess who taught me to use that equipment? That expert that you claim isn't one. So I was taught and instructed by a civilian Expert with no law enforcement experience.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Again it comes down to the word expert. There is no expert licensing bureau. So someone I consider an Expert you may not. Someone you consider an expert I may not. It all opinion. If Steve believes only people that are experts are guys that have done it so be it that's his opinion to me that is not the case. Dmar thinks you need lots of real world experience that's his opinion and using his standards I don't think there are any experts in self defense. His opinion I think he's wrong. That's my opinion
Steve
Mostly Harmless
LOL. Posts like this make it clear you don't understand my opinion, ballen. but, dmar, I'd appreciate it if you let me speak for myself.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Your opinion is just that an opinion. You can't tell me who is and is not an expert. Its my opinion on who I consider an expert.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
You misunderstood again. It's not that I think my opinion is more than an opinion. It's that you don't understand what my opinion is. I will usually take all the responsibility for that, because, after all, it falls to me to explain myself clearly. But, damn. Ballen, at some point, if you don't understand my position, it's on you.
Simply put, when you try to restate my opinion, it's very clear you don't get it. And, frankly, I don't think you want to.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
Your opinion is just different then mine. The point is however there is no "expert" license or degree. There is no place you can go and register as an expert. So if I consider someone to be an expert it doesn't matter if you agree or not they are still an expert to me. So if I consider someone a self defense expert that has no real life use of what they teach your opinion doesn't matter. In other words the title "expert" is nothing more then someone's opinion of you. Like I'm an expert in street lvl drug sales but I've had defense lawyers challenge my expert standing in court and I've had them bring in other experts that disagree with my opinion. The judge or jury then decides who's expert opinion carried more weight
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Regarding licenses or degrees, this really depends. There are all sorts of sanctioning bodies in various fields. Whether it's a diploma, board certification, an endorsement, or some other documentation, there are a myriad of ways to demonstrate one's bone fides as an expert.
The reason I find this topic so interesting within the martial arts community is that, to most, and particularly to the lay person outside of the MA community, a black belt is exactly this kind of endorsement as an expert. Regardless of how one describes the black belt, or even what you believe a black belt to mean (or not mean), it is an indication to many that you are an "expert" in that style, particularly when you start selling your wares to the public. "I'm Steve, and I'm going to teach you self defense." "Really? What are your credentials." "I'm a black belt in TKD and Shotokan Karate." "Oh, wow. You're a real expert."
The point I've been trying to make is that in most cases, I would argue that a black belt is NOT an indication of expertise in self defense, regardless of the style. And, in some cases, it's not even an indication that one is an expert in the specific style.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,246
I agree with that just being a black belt doesn't mean anything in the grand sscheme of self defense expert. I don't even consider a black belt as being an expert in that style. You can get there for example Morio Higaonna in my opinion is an expert in Goju Ryu. But even then other Goju guys may say no way. I'd also consider him a self defense expert and I have no idea if he's ever used his Goju in real life. I know I've been dropped to my knees in pain by him and I know his methods work so I don't need much more proof.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Read this and see if you can find any parallels:
http://tomnichols.net/blog/2013/12/11/the-death-of-expertise/
http://tomnichols.net/blog/2013/12/11/the-death-of-expertise/
That certainly articulates things better than I ever could. Some of it reminds me of what Dr. Ron Chapel so often attempts to convey on the other forum. Everyone has an opinion but they are not equally valid. What is the ultimate testiment to credibility? Experience.
