Previous Post
Next Post

Gabe Suarez — known for being a firearms instructor and so much more — is offering a new ‘lecture series’ through his company, Suarez International. It’s called — and I’m not making this up — Killing Within The Law. It covers, well, this . . .

Unique in depth of instruction, originality of content and credentials of presenters, this series is designed to round out the physical training and equipment proficiency of the modern warrior – the Gentleman Killer. Through an incredibly honest, first-hand, “been there-done that” instructor-led discussion the participant will gain a personalized and in-depth knowledge of the following areas:

  • Mindset of the Gentleman Killer
  • Understanding the Law and Use of Force – Removing Misconceptions and Hindrances to Survival
  • Instilling Trigger Points, Though Processes and Articulable Facts into the Warrior Lifestyle
  • Flowchart of Killing
  • Navigating the Gray – the Post-Shoot Treatise; Mental, Financial, Civil and Criminal Aftermath Success

Upon completion of the day’s instruction, group discussion, and through individual attention, the participant will leave with a strong mindset and rigid framework from which to successfully negotiate a lethal force incident.

“The Gentleman Killer” you say? Well, that is an interesting phrase. It’s the kind of interesting phrase that I’d love to say in court, repeatedly, if I were a prosecutor in a murder case and the defendant had attended this lecture series (or, indeed, any of Mr. Suarez’s training courses).

Don’t worry, won’t happen to you? Horsefeathers.

The law is filled with examples of law-abiding people who had to defend themselves with deadly force — only to find themselves going to trial because the prosecutor had an anti-gun agenda, or needed to be seen as being tough on crime, or any one of  a dozen reasons.

I spoke with such a person in Detroit recently who lost nearly a year of his life and tens of thousands of dollars before being exonerated.

If you’re training to defend yourself with deadly force, there’s no reason in the world to hand such a ready excuse to government lawyers. They already don’t like you just because you have a gun, and used it to kill someone.

Harold Fish learned that lesson. He used deadly force to protect himself in Arizona and was convicted after the prosecutor presented evidence in Court that his 10mm Glock loaded with jacketed hollow points was “more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection.”

His conviction was overturned on appeal…three years later. Hope your life wasn’t messed up too much in the meantime.

Despite all that, though, I’d love to attend this course if I could make it out to the Grand Canyon State next month.

I’ve never met the gentleman, but I’ve read one of his books and a few of his articles. They were thoughtful and interesting. They challenged my thoughts on self-defense. I respect that. As a result, I’m sure I’d learn something. Even if it was an example of something not to do.

Plus, I don’t know about you, but I’m really curious about WTF he’s going to teach here.

Maybe I’ll save my money, though. Arizona is a long haul, and Mas Ayoob’s MAG-40 is coming to a range near me this year.

(H/T: Bob Owens, BearingArms.)


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Is The Gentleman Killer a gentleman who kills or a killer with descerning taste who opts to only kill gentlemen?

    • Off topic, but am I the only one who feels that the FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise has suffered due to the lack of Ja Rule after the first movie?

  2. A course name we will all remember, but I would also not want to be part of it. The gun grabbers want to look at anyone who owns firearms for self defense as wannabe killers. That is as far from reality for anyone I know that it could be.

    I never want to kill anyone, but even more, I don’t want to be killed, or watch any member of my family killed, hurt, raped and/or robbed.

    Better name would be “How a Gentleman can keep the lives, innocence, and property safe in a world that shelters those that would harm”. Not as catchy, but much closer to the truth.

    • “I never want to kill anyone…”

      One word: Kim Jong Un.

      Okay, that’s three words. I could have gone with Turd, but too many people would not have understood the translation from North Korean.

      Some people just need killin’.

      • This may make me controversial, but I have no desire to kill Kim Jong Un, either.

        As long as he stays on his side of the DMZ, he is not my responsibility in any way at all.

    • The beauty of being an adult is that you can generally not do things even if you really want to. For example, I wanted to drive my cock-blocking waiter’s head through the wall last week. I managed to put my big boy pants on and restrain myself. Shocking, I know. But hey, I would be surprised if leftists knew the meaning of the word “discipline”.

  3. In a world where politicians, judges and lawyers, enable the criminal society, I am sure the lecture is filled with some good information. Information that an intelligent, educated and law-abiding citizen should be able to learn from. As well as separate the fluff, entertainment, shock value and flare that is sometimes delivered by Mr Suarez.

  4. He’s just playing for a specific audience. Theres definetly a market for it. theres a lot of big talk on the internet (and on this blog) about being ready to kill a person any time, anywhere over no matter if its for your life or its for a $30 blu ray player from Walmart.

  5. Lord Zekefellow Farthingworth-Smythe III, upon finding a burglar traipsing about his estate:

    “Dreadfully sorry, old fellow… but you really shouldn’t go ’round breaking into houses and all that. You haven’t really left me much of a choice now, have you?”

    (Calmly and discretely fires his intricately engraved small-caliber revolver at the intruder, who promptly and politely falls dead. Lord Zekefellow calls to his butler.)

    “Jeeves… call the constables, would you? And when they’re finished, tidy up any blood they might leave behind. There’s a good chap, thank you, Jeeves.”

    • This humble Texan with redneck aspirations is a bit unlear on the proper protocol here, your Lordship.
      Shall I clap for you, bow or curtsey?

      • Ha! Since all I learned about aristocracy came from “Monty Python,” you could probably just slap me with a large fish, and I’d figure it was about right. 🙂

      • Quite true, isn’t it? The Jeeves family does have a long and distinguished tradition of service, I suppose. Most commendable indeed.

  6. IDK ? ! ?
    For me, Gabe was primarily known for his advocacy of micro red dot sights on concealed carry pistols.

    Tom McCahill, who was an automotive writer in the 1950’s – 1970’s, referred to cars like the Chrysler 300 M as a “gentleman’s express”. Maybe Gabe is referring to a doctor, lawyer, businessman or some other respectable person being forced to use a firearm to defend their own or a loved one’s life. Apparently, the course does not involve actual shooting, if I’m reading the description correctly.

  7. I don’t know about the material, but the marketing is stupid.

    And I bet it attracts the kind of person that would tend to get in the most trouble with it.

  8. If you do take that class, even just for the ‘entertainment’ value, I sure hope you *never* need to lethally defend yourself.

    You know and I know the fascination (to say nothing of the sheer entertainment value) of hearing what (an alleged) nutjob like this guy might have to say, but, damn, having to explain that in court when discovery inevitably unearths this post from the web in your trial will be the finest tap-dance of your life… 😉

  9. I am not a gentleman, nor is anyone who I might have to shoot. Ergo, Suarez’s course has nothing for me. Money saved is money earned.

  10. Does it involve hallucinating about God telling you to kill your coworkers because they uncovered your criminal activities?

      • Yes, your ignorance is obvious. 🙂

        Extra fail points for you for not recognizing Gabe Suarez’s back-story.

        • Dude, reading comprehension.

          Actually I don’t blame you that much, jwm’s attempt at an insult was entirely off-topic and irrelevant.

        • You must not have a job, mds. You gots time to look up back stories on everybody.

          And then to make comments that leave out that you’re repeating THEIR backstory and not yours. Not that it would surprise anybody to find out it was your backstory.

        • Ahahahaha… here is a free lesson on reading comprehension. OP topic is Gabe Suarez’s supposed teachings. That is the “it” of reference. But since you are so erudite and well-learned, feel free to point out any word in my post that could *possibly* indicate my back-story as opposed to Suarez’s.

          Also the hilarity of sniveling about mockery of your milquetoast attempt at an insult by whining at your betters at recall memory. 🙂

  11. Dear Lord, the man has completely jumped the shark and landed in Crazy Land.

    Took a course from him years ago before he went all gym/all the time (read into that what you will) and came out ripped and bragging. The course was pretty good – even, dare I say it, level headed.

    But then things changed in Suarez World. Success, acolytes, a rep for pushing the PC boundaries, and who knows what running through his blood, and he turned into a world class clown.

    The “Christian Warrior” part of him completely disappeared and I thought his stupidity had stopped at being a total jackass, but this is a horse of a different color. The man has absolutely lost it.

  12. I stopped reading at “Gabe Saurez…” I don’t care what he’s offering, I’ll never consider the idea of taking a gun class from someone convicted of a crime.

  13. It would probably be good of you to do some additional research before running your mouth based on someone else’s blog response. The course curriculum is tailored and written by law enforcement. In reality it is a confidence course meant to prepare you on how to not be the victim in a mental capacity so that one does not turn into a stuttering idiot in the aftermath when inevitably dealing with law enforcement and attorneys. No one ever claimed there wouldn’t be court proceedings. The plain truth is you will always be dealing with the fact that you killed somebody’s something. Its a course based physical action, mindset, and articulation among other attributes. Just do yourself a favor and don’t shy away like Bob Owens of if the opportunity to attend the class for free and learn what the course is actually about is extended to you.

  14. For everyone surmising that attending this, or any sort of firearms training, will somehow allow prosecutors to paint them as a bloodthirsty killer looking for a chance to cap someone a more logical argument can be made on the other side by simply asking, who would you rather have carrying a gun, someone who does not train to be competent with it or someone who takes their responsibility seriously enough to spend their time and money improving their skills? What type of doctor would you want operating on you? And consider this: How will they know what training you’ve had unless you tell them? There is no central keeper of training transcripts. I have taken so many courses I do not remember them all. And would you apply the same logic to movies you’ve seen or books you’ve read?

    FYI, Gabe and instructors are donating their time for this course. All the proceeds will go to provide training scholarships for law enforcement officers to attend Suarez International Gunfighting courses. Because cops need to know this stuff as much as anyone.

  15. I read Suarez’s blog and actually think he has some valuable insights into mindset and the ways to handle the variety of threats in the modern world (average aggressive junkie to lunatic spree shooter to jihadist). And that’s what I read his site for, not for aftermath management. I can’t recall Suarez ever talking about testifying in court on a use of force case. Has he ever been hired as such an expert, even as a consulting one? What about the people he has teaching the class? So far, the three or four defense attorneys and prosecutors (only one of them a “gun person”) I’ve shown the course description to either rolled their eyes or lol’ed, just like I (also a CDL) did when I read it. Take that FWIW, because those are the people who will be asking you the hard questions in the day, weeks, months, and even years while you are waiting to go to trial (possibly in a jail cell).

    I’ve watched Suarez go nuclear over these criticisms of this “Gentlemen Killer” course on his FB page the past several days. He thinks he has some insights into this that other trainers don’t have who have been teaching this aspect of self-defense for a long time. But I’m skeptical. I’ve done Ayoob’s MAG40 (twice, actually), and let’s face it, that’s who Suarez has firmly planted himself as competing against even though he hasn’t said it directly. If Suarez is up for giving me free tuition like he did Bearing Arms Bob, I’d gladly take the class and provide a fair assessement. I’ve seen prosecutors flummox defendants on the witness stand with far more innocuous phrases than being a “Gentleman Killer.” It wasn’t pretty, and while I can’t tell you per se that one thing was the defendant’s undoing, it certainly didn’t help. So if he thinks he has some insight the dozen or so other internationally recognized trainers don’t, I’d love to hear it.

  16. I’ll be looking forward to Gabe’s DVD, especially for those of us who are unwilling to fork over airfare to AZ and put up with the TSA bullshit in two directions. There’s a helluva lot a like about Suarez, especially his emphasis upon how critical it is to train in force on force scenarios. I also applaud his new course in which he addresses managing the aftermath. I’m excited to read how he’ll address the issues involved therein. E.g., how would he manage the aftermath of a defendant who spent almost an entire year in solitary confinement post-shooting, exhausted all his financial resources, but, for the sake of expert testimony by one nationally regarded use of force expert and having had one outstanding, privately retained criminal defense lawyer, likely would have gotten at least 20 years, FWIW, it may be for Suarez and his fellow trainers that following a dealy force encounter in which the BG took a dirt nap that defender’s “beer was colder and sex was better.” Truth be told the PTSD industry has sold well the (IMHO ‘bogus’) claim that taking a life in self-defense inevitably leads to that Dx. Combat trauma? Not bogus. So, private citizens who do use deadly force may want to at least consider that their “beer won’t be colder and sex will not be better” (the latter will be especially true if defendant is married ??) and that they will go broke. And that will be particularly true if the defender gets an anti-gun judge who blocks the jury from even getting to hear critical evidence. And the judge doesn’t even need to be anti-gun, just flat-out oblivious to criminal matters, perhaps having been a former family court judge, or perhaps having held a position as an administrative law judge, or before becoming elected spending most of his time in Wills and Estates or Patent Law. ?? So, GABE, put your course on a DVD for those of us who are eager to hear about aftermath management. It’s the one area that appears systematically absent from too many firearms training courses. I applaud your including it. ?? That said, your marketing strategy for your new course was utterly superb.?? Stay frosty, gang.??

  17. I am an instructor with Suarez international and I know the gentleman who wrote the course curriculum. He is an experienced law enforcement officer, specializing in violent crime investigation. He understands investigative procedures, the questions law enforcement asks in the aftermath of violent encounters, and the answers that will help keep you out of jail (easily articulated if you were justified in the first place). He is uniquely qualified to explain the conditions in which lethal force is justified as well as how to articulate the necessity of such force.

    Earlier this year I invited him to speak to a group of roughly 40 students (both civilians and law-enforcement). The course was a master class on several topics for the legal use-of-force. The material was engaging, informative and entertaining, and the feedback I received from students was phenomenal. In particular I kept my eye on some of the officers in attendance and often noted them nodding their heads in agreement.

    Here’s the thing guys, if you have to protect yourself with a gun, you will probably need to kill. If you don’t want to go to jail, that killing must be within the law. And if the course title “Killing Within the Law” is too strident for you, I suggest that you reconsider carrying a firearm because the reality is probably a bit too spicy for your delicate sensibilities. Nothing within the course material suggests getting away with murder. Murder and killing are different things, as I would expect you all should know.

    The course material was delivered with eloquent professionalism and raw honesty. It’s based on real-world experience. I have been through other legal seminars in the past and none had the amount of detail, insight, and practical perspective found in this course. Many of the comments here indicate a complete lack of understanding of the realities of a gun fight, let alone the legal aftermath.

    I attended the first iteration of this course, and reviewed the curriculum prior to its presentation. It is professional, articulate, and above all practical. It is for mature audiences who are actually interested in increasing their knowledge, skill and confidence. It is not for those who only sit on their ass lobbing rocks from the safety of the keyboard.

    Finally, for those not aware, this course is being offered to raise scholarship money to provide firearms training to law-enforcement officers. This is excellent material, for a very reasonable price, with the proceeds going to an admirable cause.

    Brent Yamamoto
    Suarez International

  18. Sir, in the event that you need to inquire of anybody else whose done what you’re describing Gabe is doing, may I suggest you contact the good folks at Force Science Institute. They’ve been there, done that, are doing it now and with their new facility in IL will continue providing LE and attorneys with pretty doggone good data that can be relied upon in Court. And they do it without provocative, bullshit titles….. (full disclosure: I’m not a FSI Cerified Analyst, just someone who has relied upon their data in my efforts to assist private citizens and LE w/ surviving the aftermath of their use of deadly force). Good luck with your course. I look forward to a DVD.

  19. Sorry, Brent, but your post amounts to a “take my word for it” and as near as I can tell from your bio on Suarez’s website, you simply aren’t qualified on this aspect of use of force.

    What exactly is it with the evasiveness by both you and Gabe about who is teaching this class? “Uniquely qualified?” Then surely we’ve heard of him (or her). I watched Gabe’s video on the class today and he was equally vague about all of these renowned experts he’s managed to sign on to this course. I know, trained, and worked with a bunch of them. What hidden savant has Gabe managed to find who isn’t already instructing and consulting on this?

    Who were any of the roughly 40 students who got to see the “soft opening” of this class, and why should I care if the LEOs were nodding their heads in agreement? Have any of these students provided an unbiased review of the class and would care to post it here? Are they some authority on aftermath management that they know and have addressed the complex issues faced by civilian defendants? Did they have to mortgage their home to come up with trial fees? Did they wake up at night in a cold sweat from nightmares? Could they figure out why they are angry all the time and taking it out on their loved ones? Did they call their attorney repeatedly and rant and rave about how “unfair” the system is when the system is treating them like everyone else?

    Since you seem to think anybody who doesn’t agree with you on here is “sitting on their ass lobbing rocks from the safety of a keyboard,” let me be clear that I am a defense attorney and I’ve handled self-defense cases. I have more training and practical experience on aftermath management than I have gun training, but I have a fair amount of gun training too. So let me blunt: The course name is stupid. The “Gentlemen Killer” branding is stupid. Some of the language in the course description already has me working through the cross-exam questions to tear the student apart. Those will be the same questions the prosecutor will think of. This course title being too “strident” for me is irrelevant. The question is it too strident for a jury and will a prosecutor use it? The last thing I need (as possibly the guy trying to keep your student out of jail) is another “cut” in the death by thousand of cuts of stupidity. If somebody from SI gave some indication of who was teaching that class and what exactly the curriculum compromises, I might believe the class has better insight than the instructors already established in this area and testifying in court now on behalf of defendants. (BTW, who will be showing up for graduates of this class in their time of need?) But for now, those established instructors make this class not worth the risk given its controversial branding, the vague curriculum, and unknown instructors. Harsh reality, but true.

    • You might consider looking at other comments considering i clarifued already tgat the curriculum is primarily written by active law enforcement. The course has not yet taken place so there is no one who can give you your unbiased review. You can write all the questions you want as a DA but when it cones right down to it, how amdo you expect to know if some one took this course? Are you going to ask tge defendant in any shooting case you deal with from now on if they took Gabe’s class? Are you going to try to subpoena their financials? Or maybe you’ll just ask in open court if tge defendent considers themselves a gentleman killer? A term which you clearly misunderstand. Since as a DA I’m guessing if you had to deal with me in open court, you too would try to make the statement that i was trained to shoot and hit targets with ricochets, in which case you would be the 4th DA that i laugh at while on stand, but i digress, you have your reservations based on words, rather than simply picking up the phone abd asking for an in, whether by teleconference or physically being there

  20. iDefend, I’d never expect you to take my word for it. I’m neither a lawyer nor an LEO, and made no assertion that I was qualified to teach this course or even to evaluate it from a legal/LEO perspective. However, I have been a lifelong student and a successful instructor for a number of years, so I’ll assert that I’m qualified to give a layman’s opinion on the material, and certainly an educated opinion on the professionalism of the delivery.

    And so far, I’m the only one here that’s actually experienced the course. I’m at least as qualified as anyone else to comment on it.

    I’ve not mentioned the author of the curriculum because he’s still active in his department. He doesn’t wish to make a name for himself in the training world; his interest in sharing this material is to provide knowledge, confidence, and ultimately to save lives. (I don’t expect you to buy that, nor take my word, but I know the man and his motives. Again, only an opinion and as valid as anyone else here.) No, he’s not a name you’d recognize. Name recognition is a great thing many reasons but I’ve not found it to be a reliable indicator of skill, knowledge or ability. There are great instructors who are well-known (and many not-so-great), but there are also some very capable people whom you’ve never heard of.

    None of the students who attended were well-known either (I only say this because it seems to be important to you). I made no assertion they were experts in the field, merely that their feedback was extremely positive. Some were LEO and a couple were attorneys with some background in self-defense cases, and they thought the course was accurate, practical and honest. To my knowledge none of them follow this site but perhaps some will comment.

    I respect your opinion on this subject as a defense attorney and so I wouldn’t apply my “lobbing rocks” comment to you. You’ve replied professionally and have knowledge of the subject, and I wouldn’t say such a thing to someone simply for disagreeing with me.

    However, I’ll stand by the comment for those that throw ignorant invective from the anonymous safety of a keyboard. Since I’ve actually seen the course I think I can comment with more knowledge than most who have commented here.

    I believe it’s important for those that carry a gun for self-protection to truly face that using a gun involves killing. Dress it up as “stop the threat” all we want (and I’m not saying we should never describe it that way), but the reality is that it involves killing. Obviously we all know that but the tittering squeamishness in the gun community about that simple fact is tiresome. Admitting that self-protection can mean killing doesn’t mean that killing is something we want or look forward to. Merely a statement of what it is. I didn’t come up with the title “Killing within the law”. One can argue whether that is an advisable marketing technique. But I will stand by the statement that killing within the law is exactly what lethal self-protection is. Legal self-defense is not murder, no matter what you call it.

    Opinions are free and people can judge the course title and marketing material how they want. (For the record, when I hosted the class, the title and course description were different…but that’s neither here nor there as Gabe can market the class how he wants.) I merely replied to this article because I’ve seen the course material, found it to be in-depth, enlightening and above all practical, and wanted to provide a dissenting opinion.

    Yes, I’m an instructor in the SI organization, not to mention friends with those involved with this course. But if I thought the course was crap, I wouldn’t jeopardize my reputation, such that it is, by endorsing it publicly, in my own name.

    Nobody has to take my word for it. This course already sold out, but I expect it will be offered again. At only $150 you can’t argue it’s unreasonable. If you’re squeamish about the course title, pay in cash and use a different name, no one will ever know you’ve attended. Then you can judge for yourself.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here