How/When to correct an instructor

[ex_dsmr]

All I have to say is "WOW!"
Im going to go out on a limb and say that this guy does not have this CHL and has not taken his course. There is no way that one could possibly deduce that logic (mainly on points #2 and ESPECIALLY #3) and have passed the course.


What would be my response? "Show me in writing where it says exactly that". He has put out information and it should therefore be no great feat to produce law stating such. The burden of producing those facts is laid on him, not you. Those who refuse to do so show their true colors.

This guy could probably get hired on at a pawn shop or gun store with that kind of mininformation if this instructor gig goes south

[wally775]

G.A. Heath wrote:
For #1 he's kinda sorta right. State law still requires that you present your CHL upon demand for ID while carrying, however there is no longer a punishment for failing to do so. So essentially you can neglect to show your CHL when you produce your ID without any kind of legal punishment, however you will be dealing with an annoyed peace office who will still determine how he treats you during the encounter.

Regarding #2 he's obviously confused Federal Law with the Texas Motorist Protection Act.

Regarding #3 I think he needs more (read better) training.

OldSchool wrote

I agree.

As to how to correct him, I must say that I often come across this type of "editorializing" in all types of classes (actually, I do it too, and am only occasionally wrong ).
If I'm a student, I typically say in this kind of situation (when we're discussing information that is not actually part of that particular class), "Forgive me, but that's not the way I was taught in my CHL classes." I don't go any further. That statement clearly indicates to the group that there is further discussion/opinion to be had on that point, but lets the instructor get on with the class for which he/she is being paid. Plenty of time for argument later, after everyone has gotten their money's worth.

and

[Bart]

When people have a bad experience at Academy or Bachman Pawn, they're not shy about naming names. When people have a bad experience with instructors, they should do the same.

[Abraham]

Presumably, this instructor's misinformation i.e., obligation to act as an LEO when a crime is being committed, etc., will be weeded out when and if his students do take the time to obtain a CHL.

On the other hand, the same students hearing such misinformation may forgo the idea of ever obtaining a CHL if they think they have to act as surrogate LEO's if they hold a CHL...

This man needs to stop his wildly misinformed opinions.

[Seabear]

This guy could probably get hired on at a pawn shop or gun store with that kind of mininformation if this instructor gig goes south

That's funny right there.

I try my best as an instructor to never misspeak or misinform. However, I am sure it can happen. This however doesn't seem to be the case here. I have heard some strange things coming from instructors. I occasionally will say "Instructor hat off" and then make a comment when asked a "what would YOU do question". I have cut way back on those comments since anyone not paying close attention or walking in late on the conversation could take things out of context.

Like the time I was teaching a class and another instructor was teaching in the room next to me. I had to walk through his room to get something right at the time he was telling his small class to come to his house when the a problem arises because he had plenty of weapons. LOL I am sure he does.

To the OP, I think you were right to point out the situation, and I am sure you did it respectfully, I would just be careful with pointing things out in front of everyone else. I will say however that I would have a hard time not doing so openly. I have had to leave gun shops and Academy when I heard stupid information being dished out. If I can't correct quietly and respectfully I leave so I don't make an A** of myself. I have been known to pull out a book and show them. I keep extras all over. LOL

[alvins]

i might accually think of giving me chl back if i was required to stop a crime against someone else.

[Beiruty]

It is clear that CHL does not oblige CHLer to intervene to stop a crime. But, wait sec, isn't the purpose of the CHL is to allow to use deadly force when you are a victim of a crime (when justified)?
To be more specific:
1) A crime is in the process and a CHLer is:
A) a victim of said crime, then CHLer may use a deadly force to stop said crime.
A1) not acting by the CHLer is stupid and defeat the purpose of the CHL.
A2) acting by the CHLer is justified and everyone on the forum will hi-five for that.
B) not a victim of said crime, but a witness, deadly force is justified and it is up to CHLer to use deadly force in protection of third parties.
B1) not acting by the CHLer is not a crime.
B2) acting by the CHLer is justified.

Choosing B2 is of moral duty and only if the opportunity presented itself. I would say a matter of character. I do not expect some 80 yrs old CHLer to select B2, but most likely and young 30 some active IDPA/IPSA is inclined to do so if the opportunity presented itself. It is a matter of life.

[Dreamhopper]

My thought is to suggest that you should ask the instructor to refamiliarize himself with the rules as he has some important ones wrong.

What we don't need is to hand ammo to the anti-CHL crowd because some Rambo nut like that guy shoots someone in a Walmart parking lot for all the wrong reasons.

[Abraham]

Beiruty ,

Sorry, after reading and re-reading, I still don't fully understand your post.

Would you please clarify?

[Beiruty]

Beiruty ,

Sorry, after reading and re-reading, I still don't fully understand your post.

Would you please clarify?

If a CHLer decided to engage and stop a crime, say a robbery in progress at your favorite eater, the CHLer is justified in using a deadly force. Since it is justified, the legality of the actions of the CHLer is not the point.
The issue at the hand, should the CHLer engage or be a good witness?
To engage or not engage is a decision the CHLer has to take and this depends on many factors such as:
A) The shooter and his shooting capabilities. Is he a good shooter? is he in good physical condition to seek cover engage one or more threats? An old person or a novice shooter may decide, I can't do it. I will be good witness or I am bailing out.
B) How many threats? Again, many would say, I cannot take out 3 threats in 5 secs. Howver, if you watch a IDPA match, a shooter can place at least 2 holes in 3 targets in less that 5 sec.
C) Does the CHLer has the opportunity to draw and not being killed while doing so? A gun pointed at your head means it is too late to reach for your gun.
D) Are there good guys in the the line of fire? Most would say I am not sharp shooter and I am not drawing on some one who is taking a hostage. Understandable.

Also, many would say I am bailing out. I have nothing to do with this, here I am out of the emergency exit.

[G.A. Heath]

I don't recommend anyone get involved in any situation that may require a weapon if they don't have to. Lets say your in the bank and hear "This is a robbery..." followed by a several gunshots. You turn towards the noise and see a man with a gun, and another man on the floor bleeding to death. At this point you have to decide engage or not.

Path A: You draw and shoot the armed individual, wounding or even killing him.
Path B: You attempt to escape, if possible.
Path C: play the cowering witness until you are directly threatened.

Now what you did not see, or know, until after you decide on what to do is that the man with the gun is a CHL holder (or off duty LEO) who just shot the bad guy before you even knew what was happening. Situational awareness is not always 100%, so you can (and at times will) miss something. I could post other scenarios to illustrate the point, but I think the point is made.

[PappaGun]

I personally would have considered this situation one serious enough to draw my weapon on him and warn him to stop.

I hope you're not suggesting firing a warning shot!

Why, I think that's exactly what should be done.

But first show your CHL badge, then fire your first blank.

[RPB]

I don't recommend anyone get involved in any situation that may require a weapon if they don't have to. Lets say your in the bank and hear "This is a robbery..." followed by a several gunshots. You turn towards the noise and see a man with a gun, and another man on the floor bleeding to death. At this point you have to decide engage or not.

Path A: You draw and shoot the armed individual, wounding or even killing him.
Path B: You attempt to escape, if possible.
Path C: play the cowering witness until you are directly threatened.

Now what you did not see, or know, until after you decide on what to do is that the man with the gun is a CHL holder (or off duty LEO) who just shot the bad guy before you even knew what was happening. Situational awareness is not always 100%, so you can (and at times will) miss something. I could post other scenarios to illustrate the point, but I think the point is made.

Personally, I'd
A) look for and head for the back door (I know where it is in my bank)
B) if option A isn't available I'd look for and head for cover, preferably thick marble.
C) if option A nor B weren't available, I'd look for and head for concealment

YMMV, but I'd prefer he come to me, maybe he'll run out of ammo before he serves my table.
If you are closer to him than I am, I hope you are armed. If you are downstream from me, be glad I am.

45 years ago, I'dda just walked up and disarmed him ... my spinnin' roundhouse kickin' days are all behind me now.

I'm sure the police will cover the front entrance; most people forget the back door; but I'd rather wait outside, behind cover there, and still be ready for him/THEM in case he decides to serve my table there. (His driver may be at the back door, instead of the front door, where the police will be)

[G.A. Heath]

Personally, I'd
A) look for and head for the back door (I know where it is in my bank)
B) if option A isn't available I'd look for and head for cover, preferably thick marble.
C) if option A nor B weren't available, I'd look for and head for concealment

YMMV, but I'd prefer he come to me, maybe he'll run out of ammo before he serves my table.
If you are closer to him than I am, I hope you are armed. If you are downstream from me, be glad I am.

45 years ago, I'dda just walked up and disarmed him ... my spinnin' roundhouse kickin' days are all behind me now.

I'm sure the police will cover the front entrance; most people forget the back door; but I'd rather wait outside, behind cover there, and still be ready for him/THEM in case he decides to serve my table there.

The point is, if your trying to be batman and take the guy out instead of doing the sensible thing (as RPB would do) you could actually end up shooting a good guy instead of the bad guy.

[RPB]

"Distance is your friend" that applies to 1) bad guys with guns and 2) ex-wives.