Gabe Suarez's Interactive Gunfighting in Manassas Virginia

[Old Fuff]

Manual & Grip Safeties

On the subject of deactivating manual or grip safeties on 1911 platform pistols, it is interesting to note that William E. Fairbrain, of Fairbrain and Sykes fame, had the manual safeties in the .380 Colt pistols issued to this Oriental police officers in Shanghai, China blocked in the “off” position with a screw. It was his stance, based on considerable experience, that in a fast gunfight they were more of an impediment then an aid.

Grip safeties can also get one in serious trouble if they aren’t fully depressed, and this is often a matter of an individual’s hand size and grip on the handle. I found this to be the case when I took a high hold, with my thumb resting on top of the safety lock (manual safety). With my thumb below the safety, things were fine. To make sure I could use either hold, I deactivated the grip safety with a screw, so that it could be removed, and the safety’s function restored if for any reason I changed my mind. So far I haven’t. On pistols belonging to others I sometimes modified the safety, at their request, so that a slight movement would render it “off.”

Others of course may find themselves in different situations or circumstances, and do things differently. But I agree with Fairbrain’s view that a proliferation of safeties in fighting pistols is not a good thing, and in this John Browning also agreed.

 

[pax]

I have taken training from Mr. Suarez. The class was well-organized and he does have some good things to teach on the range.

If you have never taken any other classes, I would not start with a Suarez course. His legal troubles mean he'd be a really useless person to put on the stand on your behalf -- his testimony would not be credible. This is germaine because if you get into a defensive shooting, you may very well want or need your trainer to testify for you about the kind of training you have had, to explain for you why what you did was the right thing to do and why you were trained to do that thing. Suarez cannot fill this very basic need for his students.

Worse, his legal background might actually be a detriment to your attempts to look like a responsible person interested only in protecting yourself. You can easily imagine the field day a prosecutor would have with that: "You learned to shoot from a criminal? Did you take any training from anyone not a convicted criminal?" -- etc, etc. Best to be sure that you've taken training from a few other places first.

Suarez' class also left me with some grave doubts as to the legal position his students would be in if they followed much of the advice in his "mindset lecture." He coyly flirted with the idea of waiting until the criminal was thoroughly dead before calling 911, for example. There were other examples that I'll not list here.

To sum up: Suarez teaches some good stuff, but after taking his class, I don't think the good stuff he teaches outweighs the bad advice he saddles his students with, or the bad history he carries. Think of it as an elegant, delicious meal laced with ex-lax.

pax

 

[30 cal slob]

thanks for the feedback, pax.

as an LFI-1 attendee myself, i can certainly understand your perspective about the need for follow-up trainer support in case the unthinkable does happen.

 

[redsaber75]

I have taken training from Mr. Suarez. The class was well-organized and he does have some good things to teach on the range.

If you have never taken any other classes, I would not start with a Suarez course. His legal troubles mean he'd be a really useless person to put on the stand on your behalf -- his testimony would not be credible. This is germaine because if you get into a defensive shooting, you may very well want or need your trainer to testify for you about the kind of training you have had, to explain for you why what you did was the right thing to do and why you were trained to do that thing. Suarez cannot fill this very basic need for his students.

Worse, his legal background might actually be a detriment to your attempts to look like a responsible person interested only in protecting yourself. You can easily imagine the field day a prosecutor would have with that: "You learned to shoot from a criminal? Did you take any training from anyone not a convicted criminal?" -- etc, etc. Best to be sure that you've taken training from a few other places first.

Suarez' class also left me with some grave doubts as to the legal position his students would be in if they followed much of the advice in his "mindset lecture." He coyly flirted with the idea of waiting until the criminal was thoroughly dead before calling 911, for example. There were other examples that I'll not list here.

To sum up: Suarez teaches some good stuff, but after taking his class, I don't think the good stuff he teaches outweighs the bad advice he saddles his students with, or the bad history he carries. Think of it as an elegant, delicious meal laced with ex-lax.

pax

AFAIK, Gabe Suarez does not testify in court as a matter of company policy so that is a moot point.

I agree with you that his courses are not for beginners nor are they meant for beginners.

When I took the class, I didn't notice anything that seemed like advice that directly went against our common understanding of the legalities of self-defense. There wasn't any sort of "shoot 'em outside, drag em inside!" nonsense.

As for making sure the BG is dead, that is simply what is euphemistically called "stopping the threat". I don't mean to start an argument but that is what I would glean from that comment.

The main thing I got out of the class was that it exposed me to my own limitations and has allowed me to plan out where the gaps in my own training are and fix them.

This is the reason I recommend his force-on-force class.

 

[Jeff White]

AFAIK, Gabe Suarez does not testify in court as a matter of company policy so that is a moot point.

Any trainer who is instructing any self defense technique who will not testify in court as to what he taught you is stealing from you when he takes your money.

It could be absolutely critical for both your continued freedom and financial well being that a trainer is willing to explain to a jury, that you acted as you were trained and that the way he trained you is a legal, acceptable method of self defense. His expertise may also be vital if the physical evidence doesn't seem to support your version of the events. Having someone who knows about such things explain that your round hit the assailant in the back because the assailant turned during the fight is preferable to the jury thinking the assailant broke off the fight and you shot him in the back.

I wouldn't give any trainer who wasn't willing to back his program up in court any of my hard earned money.

Jeff

 

[pax]

As for making sure the BG is dead, that is simply what is euphemistically called "stopping the threat".

No, it is not. And the fact that you think it is actually beautifully illustrates the reservations I had with what Suarez tells his students.

You see, killing the bad guy is just one subset of the larger category called "stopping the threat." Killing the attacker isn't a synonym for stopping the threat, merely one of many branching possibilities that accomplish the ultimate goal of protecting yourself and your family.

When you confront your attacker, he might pee his pants and run screaming into the night. That isn't a defeat. It's a victory. You did not kill the attacker. You met your goal: stopping the threat.

When you shoot an attacker, he might drop his weapon, fall to his knees and scream for his mama. That's stopping the threat. He might live, he might die. Not your problem. Your goal was to stop the threat and even if the attacker lives, you accomplished that goal.

If you shoot the now-unarmed attacker while he is writhing on the ground and crying for his mama, you will kill him, but you haven't stopped the threat (it was already stopped). Instead, you've just committed a murder -- one for which you might escape the legal consequences, but for which you will ultimately pay the moral price.

If instead of administering that final, killing shot, you simply stand there and wait for him to stop screaming, watching his life's blood pour out onto the floor while his cries grow more and more feeble, and then wait for his body to grow cold before you pick up the phone and report the event, you haven't stopped the threat. The threat was already stopped. All you've done is burden your soul with a memory that should never be yours to carry.

The ultimate goal isn't having a dead body in your living room. The ultimate goal is to be alive to clean up the mess.

pax

 

[crucible]

I wouldn't give any trainer who wasn't willing to back his program up in court any of my hard earned money.

Then you have the freedom to not do so. Isn't freedom grand?

I wouldn't expect anyone other than me to defend my actions in court, to my family or God; anything and everything I may or may not do is my personal decision and responsibility and no one elses. Pawning off responsibility to a trainer for any potential actions I may or may not do seems to be a disingenuious tactic-in court or on Internet bulletin boards. If that's a requirement for you as a student, then I'm sure there's plenty of trainers out there who'll do that, to training subjects, levels and information you're comfortable with as a student. Again-isn't freedom grand?

The man offers good training as several members of this board-good members-have stated in thier after action reports of a recent class, and there's a good many others who would agree. Others differ. Whatever.

C-

 

[30 cal slob]

I wouldn't expect anyone other than me to defend my actions in court, to my family or God; anything and everything I may or may not do is my personal decision and responsibility and no one elses. Pawning off responsibility to a trainer for any potential actions I may or may not do seems to be a disingenuious tactic-in court or on Internet bulletin boards. If that's a requirement for you as a student, then I'm sure there's plenty of trainers out there who'll do that, to training subjects, levels and information you're comfortable with as a student. Again-isn't freedom grand?

Well, if you land in jail for a lousy defense, you'll know why. There's internet chest-beating, and then there's reality...

 

[crucible]

Well, if you land in jail for a lousy defense, you'll know why. There's internet chest-beating, and then there's reality...

And if you believe that a trainer's testimony is some kind of magic talisman against legal or civil liability then your reality is not one I'm familiar with, in theory or otherwise.

C-

 

[brownie0486]

24. Understand what "In Quartata" means with regards to fighting in a hallway

If you think you learned "In Quartata" in his class, you would be mistaken. His video of "In Quartata" isn't close to how the technique is performed properly and would be very hard to use with a gun to beginn with.

"In Quartata" is rarely understood in it's correct context, let alone executed properly except by those who have a lot of time in that particular skill, and they don't learn it in anyones gun classes in a day or two.

Brownie

 

[Jeff White]

Crucible said;

And if you believe that a trainer's testimony is some kind of magic talisman against legal or civil liability then your reality is not one I'm familiar with, in theory or otherwise.

You obviously have absolutely no clue about what goes on in court. Documentation of your training and documentation that the training was relevant and that you were trained to a generally acceptable standard is very important in court.

It may be a large part of your defense against charges that you are some out of control gun nut looking to add some notches to the grip of your pistol. In law enforcement we document all of our training and I don't see why it would be not necessary for a civilian to do the same thing.

I wouldn't expect anyone other than me to defend my actions in court, to my family or God; anything and everything I may or may not do is my personal decision and responsibility and no one elses.

And what exactly is your experience? What makes you such an expert on the dynamics of combat and the legal application of force that are sure you can go it alone? When the states or plaintiff's attorney says "Mr. Crucible, where did you ever get the idea that it was ok to shoot the deceased in that situation?" You're going to be happy with; "It was my personal decision and I take full responsibility for my actions."

Good luck with that defense. In the real world, not on the internet, professionals state, "I was trained to take that action in that situation by ___________ (name of trainer here) is certified by (name of governing body here) to conduct this training for the Police Standards and Training Board of (fill in states here). Here is a copy of the program of instruction. You will see that my actions were within the guidelines that peace officers in this and (list other states here) are expected to follow in a similar situation. We are prepared to put (name of trainer) on the stand and he is prepared to explain how my actions were consistent with established policies and procedures for peace officers."

You've got it backwards. In the real world, people go to jail or become financially ruined when they ignore problem 2. It's only on the internet that everyone pats you on the back for taking out societies trash.

Jeff

 

[30 cal slob]

...especially when you have a district attorney or other prosecutor in a large city that is hostile to gun rights.

for better or for worse, a shoot, even righteous, will be viewed by society at large as the death of a citizen, and you can expect the legal system to respond accordingly.

 

[SteveS]

Documentation of your training and documentation that the training was relevant and that you were trained to a generally acceptable standard is very important in court.

Very true. If I were defending some one involved in a shooting, I would say that this information is extremely important. While it won't turn a 'bad' shoot into a 'good' shoot, it can show that your actions were within what is considered justified. Your trainer could testify about the framework of the course and what kind of student you were. Assuming you took a good course and were a good student, this an be a huge plus in your favor.

Your trainer's testimony is not a magic talisman, but is is an important component in a successful defense, IMO.

 

[Bix]

Indeed, the purpose of an expert witness in this context is not to somehow accept responsibility for your actions. Rather, the witness is a vehicle that allows your attorney to get evidence critical to your case in front of the trier of fact. I don't mean to pile on - but I think that's a pretty important point.

 

[smince]

I wouldn't give any trainer who wasn't willing to back his program up in court any of my hard earned money

Other than Ayoob, which trainers WILL appear in court for you? Serious question, as I'd like to know? He is the only one I've heard of.

Sorry, pax, but I didn't get any of the same stuff from his class you did. Maybe he changed cirriculum since you took it. Maybe I missed that part. Or maybe you read in something that wasn't there. However there are many instructors who teach to shoot until the threat stops.

The Extreme Close Range Gunfighting class I took wasn't geared as a shoot/no shoot class. It was what to do if shooting was unavoidable. As others have stated, not a beginners class. I stated that I wished I could have taken something like this 20 years ago, but I wasn't a beginner then.

He seems to have satisifed all his legal obligations, made peace with God (who forgives things that man can't seem to), and it seems he has been blessed with a thriving business.

I, for one, was 100% satisfied with my class.

 

[Jeff White]

Other than Ayoob, which trainers WILL appear in court for you? Serious question, as I'd like to know? He is the only one I've heard of.

Suarez is the only one I'm aware of that refuses.

Jeff

 

[Soybomb]

I'd just like to throw in how glad I am that the civil discussion of Suarez pros and cons is allowed here. I'd like to take my first real class something late this year probably and as I've looked for who I might want to take it with I find that its very difficult to find positive AND negative feedback on the instructors. They all seem to have some negative sides and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend they don't exist and not to discuss them. I'm still not sure who I'd like to spend my money on, but things like this do help. I was not aware of suarez's refusal to appear in court for anyone. Really the only instructor I've decided on so far is pat rogers for a carbine class. Handgun instructors seem to be a little bit harder to find quality in.

 

[smince]

Just wondering. I'd never heard of the late Col. or Clint mentioning testifying for a student. Ayoob does all the time.

In a related note, Gabe mentioned an aquaintance of his who had taken one of the 'lawyered-up' gun courses (my term, not his). Anyway, this man had it drilled into him what all might happen to him in court if he used his gun on a BG. When he walked in on a rapist on his wife in his own house, he hesitated long enough for the BG to knife him, take his gun and escape out the window (still hasn't been caught). After lengthy hospitalization and rehab, the end-result was that he still lost everything, plus his health.

BTW, there were several LE in my class and they didn't take any exceptions to what was taught by Gabe. I used to shake my head at stories of cops emptying their mags into BG's and only getting peripheral hits. But the truth is real life ain't a square range, when both participants are moving misses happen, you don't always get A-zone hits, you seldom get to use your sights and a dozen other lessons I learned over the course.

 

[Ron_Miami]

I have trained with Gabe Suarez and consider it money very well spent.

I do think his training should not be one's first or only training. Ayoob's LFI-1 is best for that.

 

[Curly]

1911 safety

I have trained with and used my 1911 for well over 20 years. In that time I've had no issue with the safety on the standard two-hand hold draw, since depressing the safety was apparently programmed to the weak hand being correctly positioned on the grip. My "disconnect" occurred when drawing and shooting strong-hand only. To my horror I discovered I was not "programmed" to depress the safety in that case. Conclusion, practice, practice, practice, because the way you train will be the way you react under stress.

 

[pax]

Sorry, pax, but I didn't get any of the same stuff from his class you did. Maybe he changed cirriculum since you took it. Maybe I missed that part. Or maybe you read in something that wasn't there. However there are many instructors who teach to shoot until the threat stops.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting until the threat stops. Gabe (and every other reputable trainer) has that part absolutely correct. He is not exactly unique in that -- every reputable trainer teaches that.

By phrasing it in those words, you imply that I said shooting until the threat stops is some sort of problem, and you trivialize what I did say.

Shoot until the threat stops. Stop shooting once the threat has stopped. That's the straight dope, K? That's good stuff there. Now we're on the same page.

Here's where I took issue with Gabe's instruction. Every reputable trainer I know tells his students:

Once the threat has stopped, call the cops. That's what smart and honest people do.

It's that last little bit that Gabe seemed to have a problem with. His exact words were, "Don't be in much of a hurry to call the cops." This was specifically in the context of after a shoting, when the BG is down and probably unconscious. His reasoning was that you wanted to give the BG time to die.

If you've had one of his classes, you might also remember a little concept Gabe calls "green room." That's the part where you gather up the witnesses and tell them what to say -- before you call the cops. That's bad juju right there.

And it's a problem, in my book. A big one. One has nothing whatsoever to do with stopping the attacker. It has nothing to do with "euphemisms," as Gabe likes to call accurate terminology. It has nothing to do with any of that.

It is simply a little matter of staying on the right side of the law, and within the bounds of human morality. Neither of which Gabe apparently worries about for his students.

Glad you got good things out of his training. There are good things on his curricula. But as I said before, it's like an elegant, tasty meal laced with Ex-Lax. That meal might be good to sample, but you're going to get hurt if you swallow everything he puts on your plate.

pax

People never believe in volcanoes until the lava actually overtakes them. – George Santayana

 

[JShirley]

Anyway, this man had it drilled into him what all might happen to him in court if he used his gun on a BG. When he walked in on a rapist on his wife in his own house, he hesitated long enough for the BG to knife him, take his gun and escape out the window (still hasn't been caught). After lengthy hospitalization and rehab, the end-result was that he still lost everything, plus his health.

It's hard to believe that a person who would hesitate in these circumstances (unless his wife was in the line of fire) would pull the trigger under ANY circumstances...assuming this was not an apocryphal story, which it certainly sounds like.

 

[crucible]

You obviously have absolutely no clue about what goes on in court.

And you have absolutely no clue that I just don't care about *your* opinion on the matter; we can play what-if's all the doggone day long.

Mr. Suarez is not politically correct in either societal or training issues of the day or in the training he provides-much of which is tactic-oriented beyond the shoot decision. This is not hidden information. Regardless, this rubs some folks the wrong way....so be it. There are plenty of other choices out there for folks who can't seem to get over those aspects regardless of training merit; you may indeed be better served by someone else who will provides their services in a more politically correct mindset if that's you.

The value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it-and I found this class very much worth what I paid for. Others did as well, and this is what the thread was about originally: presenting the experiences of a FoF class that was taken and paid for by members of this board to other members of this board.

C-

 

[Jeff White]

Crucible said;

Mr. Suarez is not politically correct in either societal or training issues of the day or in the training he provides-much of which is tactic-oriented beyond the shoot decision. This is not hidden information. Regardless, this rubs some folks the wrong way....so be it. There are plenty of other choices out there for folks who can't seem to get over those aspects regardless of training merit; you may indeed be better served by someone else who will provides their services in a more politically correct mindset if that's you.

There is politically correct and then there is legally stupid. You, my friend can tell your cell mates that you're in jail because you refused to be politically correct all you want. I imagine it will provide you with some comfort while you are serving your time.

The value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it-and I found this class very much worth what I paid for. Others did as well, and this is what the thread was about originally: presenting the experiences of a FoF class that was taken and paid for by members of this board to other members of this board.

And I would be remiss in my duties here if I didn't point out these things. I'm sorry if reality has burst your bubble. But we're discussing serious topics here. Situations that will be life changing events if you are involved in them. If Suarez wants to build his business around a personality that is seen as a rebel, then so be it. He's gambling that 99% of his students will never be involved in a situation where they will have to use force. That's fine if that works for him.

We will discuss all aspects of the class in a thread. This isn't Warrior Talk.

Jeff

 

[smince]

pax;

Sorry, I guess he changed his material or I missed a lot. No mention of a 'green room', shooting after they were down, waiting to call the cops, letting the BG expire, etc. None of the things you mentioned except good, solid tactics.

He did give us a few things to do before calling: Check the area for other BG's, reload, check yourself for bleeding, handle as necessary, then worry about the BG. Just common sense, IMO.

Mr. Suarez is not politically correct in either societal or training issues of the day

I agree. If you are overly sensitive, PC or of the touchy-feely school, Gabe IS NOT the instructor for you.