Anything you video can be used against you

The first thing I thought of when I read this was the gun bloggers who went to summer camp at Blackwater a couple months ago. The critical portion is this (emphasis added):



The video that spurred the investigation of five men accused of plotting an attack on soldiers on New Jersey’s Fort Dix shows some of them in camouflage clothing, firing rapid-fire weapons on a snowy driving range.


An investigator who was on the case from the beginning testified Tuesday that the way the men were firing was unusual.


They were actually advancing toward a target,” said Fred Lang, a member of an FBI anti-terrorism task force who was previously in the military. “Through my years as a firearms instructor, I’ve never seen that done.”


“There’s only one reason for that,” Lang said. “It’s a fire-and-maneuver tactic.”


We did that at summer camp (see the video here). We do that in USPSA matches all the time. Yet this is being used against these guys as if it were something essentially unheard of.


It may in fact be these guys were training to kill U.S. soldiers and should be sent to prison for a long time. But this one thing in and of itself should not be conclusive proof of evil intent. I am concerned of precedent being set.

3 thoughts on “Anything you video can be used against you

  1. In the elementary-level pistol classes I took (required for Idaho concealed carry) years ago, we did that same type of maneuver. This Fred Lang joker’s never heard of it? Where’s he been? Apparently FBI anti-terrorism training, and “the military”, are both years behind the Idaho concealed carry permit process. Are we to believe that “fire and maneuver tactics” are completely useless for anything other than attacking the United States? Self defense should not involve “tactics”? Wow. Advancing toward a target. So, should we run away from any and all attackers, shooting over the shoulder in a full sprint, so as to prove our goodwill toward the U.S. government.?

    Any decent defense training involves fire-and-maneuver drills, but I’d go a little further with it and say it should be a “maneuver-fire-and-maneuver” drill.

  2. “They were actually advancing toward a target,” This Mr. Lang may have been in “the military”. Whose military or just what this guy did in the military is the question. Typical pencil pusher if you ask me.

  3. Mr. Lang’s testimony reveals one of two things:

    First, if he’s telling the truth, the US military and FBI don’t train to advance on a target.

    Second, if he’s lying, he’s a federal law-enforcement agent perjuring himself in criminal court.

    Honestly, I don’t care for either possibility.

Comments are closed.