Originally Posted by
Ed L.
I took two classes with Ayoob--LFI 1 & 2, in the late 1980s. The classes were great and at that time he was cutting edge. He was very engaging and entertaining. Like him or hate him he really was a pioneer in bringing an emphasis to legalities and the legal aftermath to the firearms training world. But there are many teachers who have far surpassed him in terms of teaching shooting skills and imparting street experience.
It is late at night, so I will briefly explain why some people have issues with him.
For the last few years for the lecture portion of his courses dealing with lethal force, Ayoob plays long videos of his lectures. He does a question and answer session after the videos. He tries to sell this as something he does for repeatablity--so that it can be played to a jury that shows exactly what you were taught. He may believe this, but I think it is lazy. If I am paying for a class with a person, I want that person to be presenting the lectures himself as opposed to watching a series of long videos.
Many law enforcement people regard Ayoob as a "hobby cop," someone who was a reserve "lieutenant" in a rural VT department that had less than 10 officers. They think he has greatly puffed up his experience and don't think he can talk authoritatively about policing the way he does. I have encountered many BTDT guys who really dislike him. These are people with police and military experience.
In reading some of his articles from his column in American Handgunner titled The Ayoob files, I notice that he sometimes exaggerates, embellishes, or leaves out key facts that make it more understandable why the person got in legal trouble. I have picked this up from my own knowledge and research. Some of his articles draw conclusions while leaving out important facts. I look at this and it makes me question his credibility in other articles where I don't have access to the information.
Some times he goes overboard on lawyer proofing. At one time, back when revolvers were more commonly carried, he was recommending that people have them modified to fire double-action only. That way if they shot someone in self defense an attorney could not accuse them of cocking the gun and having it accidentally go off. Think about this. In a situation where you are asserting that you shot someone in self defense Ayoob is worried that a lawyer is going to try to claim that your shooting was an accident and not self-defense as you claim.
He bases it on the Alvarez shooting, a situation in the early 1980s where a cop in Miami was holding someone at gunpoint and the person made a move toward a gun that they had concealed and the cop shot them in the head with his revolver. It wound up going to trial. Ayoob wrote articles about this and pointed out that an expert witness for the prosecution tried to claim that the officer had the revolver cocked when it wasn't. The expert witness said something along the lines of, "In my experience revolvers that are cocked go off more easily so I believe that the officer had the revolver cocked which was negligent.
The reason that the other side was trying to establish negligence is because the defendant in this case, Miami Officer Luis Alvarez, initially claimed that the shooting was accidental, which was a key factor in this case which brought into focus questions about what type of modifications Alvarez might have done to his gun, or other factors that could lead to a negligent discharge.
Ayoob has also said some absurd things, or perhaps repeated things he heard without critically considering their plausibility. I have an old tape of his titled, Knife, counterknife, from the 1980s. In it he asserts that the big three or four motorcycle gangs had a joint knife fighting school. Police were unable to infiltrate it because in order to get in you had to be a made member, and committed a major crime in the presence of other members.
Consider this, gangs who will attack members of rival gangs on site have a joint knife-fighting school. Okay, I will give him this one, because at one time I used to believe some stupid things also.
Explains a LOT, as well as some other info that has been provided to me.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks