Gabe Suarez on mass shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php?t-1866.html
That thread has some information on Gabe.

Some of the folks in this thread make it sound like he was killing orphans and nuns. Don't you guys believe in rehabilitation? Or, is it "once a criminal, always a criminal?"

And, even if Gabe was guilty of something more heinous than what he did time for, it seems his contributions to the 2A and SD communities are tremendous and give him a bit of redemption.

Some tidbits:
- Gabe spent 15 years in LE in CA, he was a SWAT (or similar member) and was involved in at least 4 shootouts (yes, he terminated some perps).
- He also suffered numerous on-the-job injuries and had to leave the force due to serious back injuries (quote below).

"I awoke one morning in such pain I had to go to the doctor. My low back felt as if there was a knife in it. X-rays, and MRIs showed a compression fracture of vertebrae as well as two bulged discs, one with a tear, all in the lumbar region. Bad JuJu. The doc said surgery for the back and retirement or end up in a wheelchair. I chose the retirement option, without surgery if possible. The injury was work-related and I was entitled to benefits."

"I was officially off duty and on worker’s comp benefits for almost a year, while the docs tried to fix me, and the lawyers worked to retire me. I realized I would need an income after it was all said and done. I’d already been teaching for several years, first at Front Sight and then at a couple of other places. It was a lucrative and viable way to make a living. Not being particularly patient, I asked the doctor if teaching firearms classes was OK. He said, “As long as you are not out doing a police job or working as a bouncer, its just fine”. I checked with the WC attorney. He said the same."

Thus, he started building his training business.

"Another issue is that you cannot build a business in secret. I was quite clear and up front about what I was doing and advertised classes on the internet and by mail. When my adversaries in power learned what I was doing, they saw an opening to do me harm and spared no expense to accomplish their goals. They put together a case against me in size and scope rivaling cases I’d seen for multiple murders."

"To make a long story short, my agency had put together a case charging me with worker’s comp fraud, along with a litany of other high crimes ranging from money laundering to just about everything except maybe piracy on the high seas and shooting JFK himself. It’s a common tactic to stack charge upon charge so that at least something will stick."

After a lot of being jerked around, Gabe could see that he'd probably end up in bankruptcy as he fought the charges for years. They offered Gabe a "deal" and he took it:

"I plead guilty to a misdemeanor, paid fines, and did seven months in a small room by myself. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. While “inside” I spent my days exercising, reading the Bible straight through three times, and devised business plans."

http://www.smmirror.com/volume2/issue39/smpd_offic ers_charged.asp

SMPD Officers Charged With Fraud
Clara Sturak
Associate editor

On Friday, March 2, two Santa Monica Police Officers were arrested in connection with conspiracy to defraud the City of Santa Monica through Workers Compensation fraud. Officers Jason Comer and Gabriel Suarez were arrested along with Suarez' wife Cheryl Suarez.
According to a press release issued by the Public Information Office of the Santa Monica Police Department, the three were charged after a "long term and intensive investigation" on the part of the Department's Internal Criminal Unit, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, and the California State Department of Insurance.
Comer, 32, a six-year veteran, and Suarez 40, a twelve year veteran, along with Mrs. Suarez, are charged with four criminal counts, explains Deputy District Attorney Craig Omura, who led the DA's portion of the investigation. "Count one is conspiracy to commit workers compensation fraud, count two is workers compensation fraud, count three is money laundering, and count six is grand theft, because the money they obtained was over $400." Counts four and five, both for perjury, apply only to Officer Suarez, in regards to false depositions he gave in March and June of 2000. Details of the case have not yet been released.
The investigation, says Omura, has been going on since October of 2000, when the SMPD became aware of possible criminal activity. "They brought the information to [the District Attorney's office] in November of 2000. At that time we began a three-pronged investigation with the Santa Monica Police and the State Department of Insurance." SMPD did the most of the investigative footwork, according to Omura, consulting with the other two departments as to "what elements [they] needed to prove."
The charges and subsequent arrests were not made public until March 7, with an interdepartmental memo sent by SMPD Chief James T. Butts. Although there has been concern that some City officials were not made aware of the situation until several days following the arrests, Judy Rambeau, Assistant to the City Manager states that the City Manger's office was aware of the investigation from its beginnings. "The City Manager is always alerted when something like this is going on," said Rambeau in an interview on Monday. "That doesn't mean we have all of the details as the investigation proceeds. The police need to keep tight control over who knows what's happening at any given time."
In fact, that's exactly why City officials were not informed. Chief Butts' memo states that "there are other long-term investigations concerning potential fraudulent application for Workers Compensation benefits by other members of the department that continue." SMPD Public Information Officer Captain Gary Gallinot confirmed in a telephone interview with the Mirror that, "it was our intent that the investigations be entirely wrapped up before we went public." But, says Gallinot, the District Attorney's office felt they had enough information to go forward, and "since they are the prosecuting authority, it was up to them."
Once any arrest is made it becomes a matter of public record. However, the SMPD did not issue a statement on the day of the arrests. According to Gallinot, "the reason [the arrests weren't] made public [by the police department] is because we did not want to jeopardize the ongoing investigations. Once we realized it was going to be made public [in the media], our strategy had to change, and notifications were made."
Gallinot could not comment on the ongoing investigations, except to say that they are "specific" in nature, and that the DA's office is involved.
"It's important to note," he said, "that this investigation was started by our police department. We are vigorously involved in the discipline and prosecution of misconduct [on the part] of our employees. If you don't look for misconduct or criminal activity, you seldom find it. The fact that we do so shines a positive light on our institutional integrity."
Jason Comer, Gabriel Suarez and Cheryl Suarez are scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, March 14. If convicted, Jason Comer and Cheryl Suarez could serve maximum prison sentences of 5 years, 8 months, and Gabriel Suarez could serve a maximum of 7 years, 8 months.

They claimed he committed Workman's Compensation Fraud, by starting his training business, while on WC, pending medical retirement.

The tacked on additional charges (like that's never happened before), including the catch all, conspiracy to commit a crime.

Well, he probably could've beat the charges, but when they offered him a chance to plead out to a misdemeanor, and serve 7 months, he took it. Otherwise, they would've bankrupted him.
 
...Anyhow I recently read his tactical pistol book and was disappointed, it lacked substance that I got from Massad Ayoobs Combat Handgunnery.

Was he a student of Jeff Cooper? Or loosely associtated with him?
I have read the books of both Ayoob and Suarez and attended Suarez' Interactive Gunfighting class twice. I have graduated Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute (ie, done LFI 1,2, 3 and 4).

From that perspective it is my opinion that both are very different and both are very valuable. LFI-1 is an absolute must. Mas' delivery is similar to that of a Hell, Fire and Brimstone preacher. You will come out of LFI-1 owning firearm safety and responsible carrying attitude. You will come out of LFI-4 owning the reasons for gun failures, missed shots, slow times etc.

Gabe does not have the same Moses coming down from the mountain delivery that Mas does. But the material he teaches is quite powerful. It's been developed in the force-on-force arena where you find out what really works and what merely looks impressive. You really know you've learned something about carrying a gun when you do a Teuller Drill against a live attacker with a carry gun (airsoft copy of your "real steel" carry gun) and carry holster from under concealment. ("Why isn't my 1911 firing?" "Disengage the safety!" "Safety? Safety? It has a safety?" Anyone who's been to this class knows exactly what I'm talking about.). Now do it again from 5 yards. Now do it again from 3 yards (Spend a little less time on the range and a little more time in the gym/dojo). You will also know that even in the absense of a firearm at Virginia Tech, there is no reason, other than the victims having been trained in being good little subjects, that someone armed with anything less than a machinegun wasn't torn to pieces by that many people in a confined space.

There are "malum in sea" (I'm sure that that's not correctly spelled) laws that address things that are inherently evil, such as murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. Then there are "malum in prohibitum" laws that address things that are not inherently evil such as, for the purpose of conserving fuel lowering the speed limit to 55 mph on roads that originally had 60, 65 or 70 limits. When you break the first type is when you become "just like them".
 
And, even if Gabe was guilty of something more heinous than what he did time for, it seems his contributions to the 2A and SD communities are tremendous and give him a bit of redemption.

What contributions are those? I'm not being snarky, but I know Suarez takes credit for a lot of things that originated elsewhere. For example, his article on tackling training myths set himself as an outsider going against the established SD training community. Yet, the only myth was that he was the lone voice in the wilderness on any of these issues.
 
And, even if Gabe was guilty of something more heinous than what he did time for, it seems his contributions to the 2A and SD communities are tremendous and give him a bit of redemption.

He was a cop who committed fraud for personal gain. He had the trust of the people when he was a cop and he piddled it away. He didn't do just one thing wrong, but several. He didn't accept the plea bargain because he was innocent and just wanted to put the matter behind him. He did it because it was a way to avoid a felony conviction if he tried to fight it in court.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
 
What contributions are those?
His school, his books, his websites, his articles in CCW magazine.

Of course, this is relative. Some folks don't think the articles are worth the paper they are printed on. I enjoy reading them and find him to be knowledgeable.
 
His school, his books, his websites, his articles in CCW magazine.

I guess that's the problem I have. Everything that he's done has been or is being done by someone else (which was the counterpoint to his myth articles). So, where are the contributions that are so significant that even if he'd gone down for something more significant than defrauding the public, said crime should be forgotten?
 
I guess that's the problem I have. Everything that he's done has been or is being done by someone else (which was the counterpoint to his myth articles). So, where are the contributions that are so significant that even if he'd gone down for something more significant than defrauding the public, said crime should be forgotten?
Should there only be one brand of car? Flavor of ice cream? Choice of caliber? The fact others are in the same business does not discount Gabe's worth.

I'm not implying he's the messiah or anything. But some of the posts in this thread make it sound like the guy is selling CCW badges.

As for his guilt, plenty of men have pled guilty in the face of adversity. Wrong or right, it happens, and sometimes it can be a wise move. I'm not saying he's innocent or condoning his crime. However, I do believe that he has repaid society for his supposed transgressions by spending time in jail.
 
Gabe strikes me as a colorful character and his personal situation is pasted all over the interblab and there is no shortage of controversey surrounding him ...

...but I have to agree with him 110% on what he said in the OP's article.
 
He didn't accept the plea bargain because he was innocent and just wanted to put the matter behind him. He did it because it was a way to avoid a felony conviction if he tried to fight it in court.

Apparently you've never had to fight a court case. Lawyers are expensive. If you are embroiled in a legal battle, it very quickly becomes a choice of taking a deal or bankrupting yourself to prove your innocence. Suarez took a misdemeanor plea to prevent inflicting bankruptcy and distress upon his family. Frankly I'm surprised that a site that jumps so quickly to the defense of individuals with much less reason to be defended is so quick to condemn an individual who, from everything I've read and heard on the subject, was the target of a witch hunt.

Moreover, to disparage a man's training methods without having actually experienced them seems pretty weak to me.
 
The fact others are in the same business does not discount Gabe's worth.

I'm not implying he's the messiah or anything. But some of the posts in this thread make it sound like the guy is selling CCW badges.

No, he is selling himself as the source of truth. Go to the Truth in Training thread on his website and see the myths of training that all other instructors perpetuate and which he alone refutes. Then go do a search of other schools and instructors and find out how many were dispelling said myths long before Suarez was out of jail.

Maybe it's just, but I've trained under some very good people who Suarez was basically calling worthless.
 
Gabe strikes me as a colorful character and his personal situation is pasted all over the interblab and there is no shortage of controversey surrounding him ...

...but I have to agree with him 110% on what he said in the OP's article.

Strangely enough, this might be where his value lies. He is extremely controversial and out of the "mainstream" because of his own actions. Thus, he can advocate opinions and ideas that others might hesitate to share. Mind you, that doesn't mean that all such opinions are worthy of thought (I recall one about making sure there is "one story" following a shooting that would lead a person to charges of tampering with evidence and witnesses, following an otherwise legal shooting).

Suarez took a misdemeanor plea to prevent inflicting bankruptcy and distress upon his family.

If I recall correctly, his spin is that he took the misdemeanor so his wife wouldn't go to prison. She caught pulled into this as she received the funds from his activities, which led to the allegations of money laundering and conspiracy.
 
No, he is selling himself as the source of truth. Go to the Truth in Training thread on his website and see the myths of training that all other instructors perpetuate and which he alone refutes.

OK, so he's doing exactly what Cooper, Chapman, Ayoob, and a whole bunch of other people did.

Then go do a search of other schools and instructors and find out how many were dispelling said myths long before Suarez was out of jail.

Yeah, so? If a technique is valid, or a philosophy is sound, more than one person is going to adopt it.

Maybe it's just, but I've trained under some very good people who Suarez was basically calling worthless.

His premise is that that training is obsolete. We have tools and techniques available now that weren't available even 10 years ago. If someone were teaching to stand in the Camp-Perry-approved-one-handed-stance such as was taught up into the 60's, wouldn't you want someone to look at real gunfights and modify said training?
 
OK, so he's doing exactly what Cooper, Chapman, Ayoob, and a whole bunch of other people did.

All of them gave credit where credit was due and without disparaging those they learned the technique from.

His premise is that that training is obsolete. We have tools and techniques available now that weren't available even 10 years ago. If someone were teaching to stand in the Camp-Perry-approved-one-handed-stance such as was taught up into the 60's, wouldn't you want someone to look at real gunfights and modify said training?

Ah, so no one else is teaching what he is teaching. No one else teaches force on force (ignore Pat Goodale for the moment). No one else teaches movement while firing (ignore Awerbuck, Rogers, Farnham, Goodale, et al). No one teaches anything but the 1911 (ignore everyone else).

His argument might have been valid 20 years ago. But his techniques are those being taught by everyone else, just repackaged with his label.

Yeah, so? If a technique is valid, or a philosophy is sound, more than one person is going to adopt it.

You are correct. He adopted them from others, and packaged himself and the techniques as being radical.
 
Understand that your safety is your own responsibility. Carry a weapon...everywhere. Company Policy says you can't? Hide your gun better. Law says you can't? Tough choice isn’t it, but I'll point out some dead people who would love to be live outlaws.
Being the realist though I'd also like to remind people that their odds of say being pulled out of a car by paramedics after a wreck who will find your gun are probably far higher than the odds of you needing your gun for self defense. Its a bad choice to have to make either way, but people making that decision need to stay firmly grounded in reality as well.
 
Hey everyone. How about more discussion on the message? I think Mr. Suarez has been disucssed enough. I do knot know the guy, nor have read anything of his but a couple newsletters. Still, if the devil told me fruits and vegetables were good for you, I would not quit eating them.
 
???????/?/???

my take on this whole dicusion is the change in thinking that has ocured since my days of youth.we had pistols all the time in Mass.none of us thought about the license.police were respected as the naborhood officer had been on duty for yrs in the same area.he did not harase any one.the highschool had a rifle team and range in top floor.DCM guns 22cal Win 52s.
then the 1960s came and people became subjects just look at this post.:uhoh:---:confused:----:fire:---:banghead:----:cuss:----:D---:D
 
(One of my improvised weapons ideas inclued tossing a cat at an imaginary attacker busting in the door... don't laugh, she still has her claws...)

I had a tactical cat once - or tacticat, as I preferred to call her. At least, until the nonstop negligent discharges upon my purty wood flooring. She was also equipped with a grenade launcher. You don't want to know the destruction that thing made.
 
Last edited:
That's an excellent insight into the minds of lawbreakers. They violate laws when they choose, usually when it's to their advantage, and they hide their violations. When good guys cross the line they become bad guys.

Tough choice isn't it. You become who you are by making many small decisions in life, and then one day you look at yourself in the mirror and see you looking back at yourself.

"When good guys cross the line they become bad guys. "

In the town I live in there is a law on the books stating that it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits. I asked an officer about this when I was talking to him about a separate issue. His answer was that basically if I need to discharge a firearm to dispatch an attacking dangerous animal (wolf hybrid in this case) or against an attacking home invader then it will be up to the discretion of the local prosecuting attorney or DA if the discharge violation will be charged against me.

If I ever have to cross that line I won't consider myself a bad guy, I will only consider the law at fault for not allowing exceptions to the law and leaving the situation up to the discretion of someone else. But then that's life, isn't it.

It's against the law to jaywalk and cross a street anyplace other than the crosswalk in many cities, yet I've broken that specific law many times, sometimes due to lazyness, sometimes due to just prudence, and sometimes to negate or avoid a dangerous situation. The act of doing so does not imply criminal intent, the act of doing so does not necessarily imply a good guy going bad.

I understand what was said in the quote above, but the quote didn't allow for any exceptions. Sometimes the situation over-rides the law, that too is life - isn't it.
 
I don't know much about the guy, but judging by that posting about his whole legal ordeal, it sounds completely possible that he wasn't defrauding anyone and that he was screwed over by his department. There are too many ifs ands or buts IMO to just flat out call the guy a scam artist or criminal as far as I'm concerned.
 
cyclist:

"When good guys cross the line they become bad guys. "

In the town I live in there is a law on the books stating that it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits. I asked an officer about this when I was talking to him about a separate issue. His answer was that basically if I need to discharge a firearm to dispatch an attacking dangerous animal (wolf hybrid in this case) or against an attacking home invader then it will be up to the discretion of the local prosecuting attorney or DA if the discharge violation will be charged against me.

If I ever have to cross that line I won't consider myself a bad guy, I will only consider the law at fault for not allowing exceptions to the law and leaving the situation up to the discretion of someone else. But then that's life, isn't it.

It's against the law to jaywalk and cross a street anyplace other than the crosswalk in many cities, yet I've broken that specific law many times, sometimes due to lazyness, sometimes due to just prudence, and sometimes to negate or avoid a dangerous situation. The act of doing so does not imply criminal intent, the act of doing so does not necessarily imply a good guy going bad.

I understand what was said in the quote above, but the quote didn't allow for any exceptions. Sometimes the situation over-rides the law, that too is life - isn't it.

Cyclist, some people think in a such a literal manner that they can't deal with abstractions, don't understand them or how to work with them, and feel threatened by them. When I wrote the brief message that you've twisted and distorted, I actually did consider raising issues such as the doctrine of competing harms. But I've worked with so many of those people for so very many years that I've come to recognize that there's no way to help keep them on track because it's far too narrow a track.

Yes indeed: if you are the subject of a deadly force attack in a city in which it is illegal to discharge a firearm, you presumably will use your firearm to defend your life. And if the police or a prosecutor charges you with illegally discharging a firearm within the city, your attorney will argue in your defense along lines invoking the doctrine of competing harms.

So in anticipation of that possiblity you blend that situation with the one I raised, considered them much the same thing, and continue along your narrow track. On your track it's therefore okay for you to carry a firearm where the law prohibits you from doing so because somebody sometime might try to attack you and you can argue that you did it to save your life and everyone will applaud you and give you a party and that cop you asked will plant a big wet one on your lips and you will get your own reality TV show called America's Greatest Gunman and Gabe Suarez will be your co host.

And somehow you've also blended that fog with jaywalking and Perry Mason addressing a 1950s jury on television: "sometimes due to lazyness, sometimes due to just prudence, and sometimes to negate or avoid a dangerous situation. The act of doing so does not imply criminal intent, the act of doing so does not necessarily imply a good guy going bad." Yes, your honor, my client did jaywalk but look at him. Is that the face of a criminal? To which the judge would likely reply, "Mr. Mason, this is television melodrama and not The High Road, and here we know that jaywalking is not a crime. What's wrong with your head, Mr. Mason?"

I'll stand by what I said in response to what Gabe Suarez wrote. It's not my problem if you can't get your mind around it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top