A case for single action shooting

[Blue Duck]

while the liability certainly exists, I don't think it to be a major concern of citizens carrying revolvers for defense, the way it is for police departments. The primary reason is that police FREQUENTLY hold suspects at gun point, while armed citizens do it much, much less often.

My thoughts are liability always exists, because even if you do get past the legal system with a clean slate, you can still be sued by the perp if he's still alive, or a member of his family.
For one thing, some ambulance chasing lawyer will be looking to make a buck, by saying you were willfully negligent and with video cameras everywhere, not to mention a live witness who could testify that you cocked the hammer, before taking out their beautiful innocent loved one. You could still end up losing in a civil case. And that sorry lawyer will lie in court and accuse of cocking the hammer and then accidently firing the weapon. It has happened in the past.

 

[44 AMP]

And that sorry lawyer will lie in court ....

Which is, actually, their job....

Do note that in court the ONLY people under oath are those called to the stand to testify.

Not the Judge, not the prosecutor, not your lawyer, or anyone else is under oath to tell the truth.

Twain wasn't wrong back when he said a jury was 12 men chosen to decide which side had the better liar.

I've always figured the response to the accidently shooting accusation would simply be to state you intended to shoot them....

Seems like doing that forces the argument back to if the shoot was justified or not, and not that you accidently shot when you didn't intend to...

Personally, I can't see what difference it makes if you cocked the hammer with your trigger finger (DA) or with your thumb (SA) doesn't change the results. (unless,maybe your name is Baldwin)