Altering firearms

[C Philip]

I'm sure my lack of legal knowledge shows in the following question, but:

Isn't the issue whether or not there was a justifiable homicide? How does the type of weapon used factor into whether or not you had the right to defend yourself? You could use a rock or a pointy stick for all it matters (would it make a difference if you sharpened it yourself?), the details of the weapon are not important, whether or not you were justified in using it is.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm sure my lack of legal knowledge shows in the following question, but:

Isn't the issue whether or not there was a justifiable homicide? How does the type of weapon used factor into whether or not you had the right to defend yourself?....

See post 26.

Of course if everyone who matters agree it's a justified shooting, things like alterations of the gun won't he an issue. But if there is a disagreement, and if you're going to have to be telling your story to a jury, things like alterations you have made to the gun could affect the impression that members of your jury have of you. Things that might bother a jury can influence how they evaluate you, your testimony and the evidence.

Remember that a big part of your legal defense will be you telling your story, and so the jury's take on you can matter. We know, from post verdict interviews of some of the jurors in the Harold Fish case (in gun friendly Arizona), that some of them were bothered by his use of a powerful gun (10mm) and JHP ammunition. (Fish was convicted of manslaughter and went to prison. He did win his appeal, and is now free. But the point is that the gun and ammunition affected how his jurors evaluated the evidence.)

 

[maestro pistolero]

Modifying a trigger can only a factor if you are claiming it was an accident. If you had to shoot someone on purpose, and you hit what you were aiming at, the weight of the trigger is irrelevant In no intentional defensive shooting has trigger weight been an issue. Cite one. If brought up, and your attorney can't dispose of the notion in a hurry, you have way bigger troubles than whether or not you got a trigger job. It can be easily and factually argued that a good, 4-5 lb trigger prevents errant rounds from hitting unintended targets.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Modifying a trigger can only a factor if you are claiming it was an accident. If you had to shoot someone on purpose, and you hit what you were aiming at, the weight of the trigger is irrelevant In no intentional defensive shooting has trigger weight been an issue. Cite one. ....

If you want to believe that, be my guest. The general issue has been discussed many times. See the threads I've linked to in post 26.

There's also been discussion about why people don't cite cases. The short answer seems to be that the vast majority of self defense shooting incidents involves box stock guns.

....If brought up, and your attorney can't dispose of the notion in a hurry, you have way bigger troubles than whether or not you got a trigger job....

What sort of motion do you have in mind? And yes, if you're on trial you have a lot more troubles than just a trigger job. But at least the trigger job wouldn't have been one of them it you hadn't had it done.

...It can be easily and factually argued that a good, 4-5 lb trigger prevents errant rounds from hitting unintended targets....

First, those sorts of arguments tend to be too "inside baseball" and put a jury of people with no knowledge of, or interest in, guns to sleep.

But second, a 4 to 5 pound trigger shouldn't be a problem, at least on a 1911. I can find a number of good police armors who will testify that a 4 to 5 pound trigger on a 1911 is appropriate on a duty gun.

It's the triggers lighter at, say, 3 pounds or lighter that will be the problem. With a very light trigger, the prosecutor will have no trouble finding police armorers who will testify that such a trigger is reckless and unacceptable on a service gun. And now the prosecutor argues that the jury should consider your reckless and trigger happy disposition when they evaluate your story about how you had no choice but to shoot that nice young gangbanger to death.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Still no cite of a single example? Find ONE intentional, otherwise justified self-defense shooting where a trigger job resulted in a conviction. Just one.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Still no cite of a single example? Find ONE intentional, otherwise justified self-defense shooting where a trigger job resulted in a conviction. Just one.

As I pointed out, this question has been addressed multiple times.

First, if it was an otherwise justifiable shooting, a trigger job alone is not going to result in conviction. There will be other issues. Harold Fish's use of a 10mm wasn't the only reason he was convicted either. But it was a factor. If you are on trial, you will have a lot to worry about. If you want your trigger job to be one of them, that's up to you.

Second, I don't know if there's ever been a claimed self defense shooting go to trial in which the gun had had a trigger job.

Third, the trigger job issue will be something that comes up in the trial court as a matter of trial tactics. But it's only court of appeal opinions on matters of law that are commonly reported.

Anyway, do as you please.

 

[C Philip]

I understand that it's a matter of how you look to the jury, but still the thing the jury is deciding on is whether or not you were justified in shooting/stabbing/whatever another person, not whether the weapon used is "acceptable." Dead is dead, regardless of how they got that way.

So what about this:
Prosecutor: Mr.X, did you shoot Mr. Y using your custom semi-automatic .500 super ultra magnum with nuclear handloads?

Mr.X: Yes sir I did, I was in fear for my life and was forced to defended myself.

Prosecutor: Don't you think having such a powerful custom gun is overkill and suspicious? Weren't you curious to try out your nuclear handloads?

Mr.X: I carried and defended myself with that gun because it's the one I am most comfortable handling and safely using. How is that relevant sir?

Prosecutor: It's relevant because only a madman/killer/whatever would carry such a gun. You must have been out to shoot someone!

Mr.X: Would driving a Ferrari mean I must be out to speed? Intent can not be attributed in inanimate objects.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't logically conclude that weapon X makes a justifiable homicide any less justifiable than weapon Y. Yes, the jury needs all the facts, but the weapon type is an irrelevant one. It would be like saying causing an deadly auto accident going 100mph in your Ferrari is worse than causing a deadly accident going 100mph in your Toyota Corolla. Either way you were speeding and killed someone. The car is irrelevant and you can not infer intent to speed just because someone drives a Ferrari. Any car is capable of speeding, and any decent lawyer should be able to point this out to a jury.

 

[Timcat]

The only thing I'm not seeing here is that the criminal part of a shooting ain't all there is. Your actions might not attract criminal prosecution but you'd better believe that a civil action is highly likely. Even if you don't go to jail your life will not be the same even if you win after you finish paying for your defense, and anything that a hired gun (sorry, I meant the plaintiff's attorney) can think of using against you is fair game. I went so far as to find out what ammo our local PD was using and that's what my SD weapon is loaded with.

 

[maestro pistolero]

First, if it was an otherwise justifiable shooting, a trigger job alone is not going to result in conviction.

Thank you. That was my entire point.

Second, I don't know if there's ever been a claimed self defense shooting go to trial in which the gun had had a trigger job.

Exactly.

Anyway, do as you please.

Yep, and it pleases me to have a trigger that gives me the most control over where the rounds go, and more importantly, where they don't go. Part of avoiding liability, is not doing unnecessary harm in the first place.

In the highly unlkely event that I should have to defend myself with a firearm, and I become the first in the history of jurisprudence to be prosecuted for it because I have a 5 lb trigger on my XD, then that is the argument my attorney will make.

 

[OldMarksman]

Intent can not be attributed in inanimate objects.

True, but mens rea (state of mind) can be inferred from a lot of things.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't logically conclude that weapon X makes a justifiable homicide any less justifiable than weapon Y. Yes, the jury needs all the facts, but the weapon type is an irrelevant one.

That is, of course, true by definition. The issue comes into play when the jury has to decide from the facts presented and from impressions derived therefrom whether or not the homicide was justifiable.

The evidence may be clear cut. It's one thing if you are in your home and live in a castle doctrine state; someone with whom you have not had prior dealings of any kind breaks "tumultuously" into your house with a weapon; you shoot him; there are no indications from the forensic evidence that you either used excessive force or fired after the intruder decided to leave. It would be pretty clear that the homicide was justifiable.

Start changing those conditions one by one, and that clarity begins to disappear. One way or the other, the jury will have to decide whether a shooting was justifiable or was not. To the extent that defense has difficulty presenting sufficient evidence indicating that a reasonable person would have believed that imminent danger existed, that the shooting was immediately necessary (no other alternative was available), and that the shooter was not in any way a party to having brought about the confrontation in the first place, indications of the shooter's state of mind will likely become increasingly important.

Whether fair or not, such indications could conceivably include internet postings; visible tattoos; any prior dealings between the parties; and so on, perhaps including, yes, the choice of weapon used.

That the gun can influence the jury is not pure conjecture. As Glenn E. Meyer pointed out in Post 23, "There is a large body of research on what influences juries. Weapons issues have been shown to influence mock juries." Law school jury simulations have shown that jurors are more likely to convict persons who have used military style assault weapons, etc. than persons who have not. By extension, one could reasonably expect concerns with jurors over modified weapons, depending of course upon the modifications in question and on the totality of the facts.

Of course, the actual cases cited by B. Lahey in Post 29 represent more than simulation in a mock courtroom. I haven't researched the details, but I think it would be rather foolish to dismiss them out of hand.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It would be like saying causing an deadly auto accident going 100mph in your Ferrari is worse than causing a deadly accident going 100mph in your Toyota Corolla. Either way you were speeding and killed someone....

But that's not really an apt analogy. Let me try to explain it this way.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the physical evidence in your auto crash case was, for some bizarre reason, equivocal as to the speed you were traveling at the time of the crash. (I know this would be highly unlikely to be the case in the real world -- it's just for the purposes of illustration.)

You are claiming that you were traveling no faster than 60 mph, within the speed limit and a safe speed under the conditions. Therefore, you were not at fault, and the crash was the result of the other car suddenly changing lanes in front of you.

The prosecutor, however, puts on an expert witness who testifies that from the physical evidence he has concluded that you were traveling at least 100 mph. So now the prosecutor argues to the jury that they should believe his expert witness and find that you were driving your car at an unlawful and indeed reckless speed and that they should, therefore, find you guilty of involuntary manslaughter (or whatever that particular crime is called in that jurisdiction).

Now, don't you think that whether you were driving a Ferrari or a Toyota Corrolla might affect which story and which evidence the jury believes?

Here's how self defense works at trial.

Ordinarily, in a criminal prosecution the state must prove the elements of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the crime charged, and for which the defendant is on trial, is manslaughter, the state must in general prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant was there; (2) the defendant shot the decedent; and (3) the defendant intended to shoot the decedent. In defending the charge, the defendant merely needs to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to any one of these elements. The defendant can try to cast doubt on the state's claim that he was there (alibi defense); that he pulled the trigger (some other dude done it) or that he intended to shoot the decedent (the gun went off by accident). But all of that is completely inapplicable when the defendant pleads self defense.

If you claim self defense, the prosecution doesn't have to prove, at all, that you were there, that you shot the decedent or that you intended to shoot the decedent, because you will have admitted each of those element of the crime of manslaughter. If you are claiming self defense you necessarily must admit that you (1) you were there; (2) you shot the decedent; and (3) you intended to shoot the decedent. You have made a prima facie case against yourself for the prosecutor, and he doesn't have to prove any of the things he ordinarily would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have admitted it all.

Your defense is that your act of violence on another human being was legally justified. The allocation of the burden of proof burden of persuasion between the prosecution and defense in a self defense case varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But you will at least have to put forward evidence establishing a prima facie case of justification according to the standard applicable to the use of lethal force in self defense in your jurisdiction.

The prosecution will seek to discredit, consistent with the applicable standard of proof in your jurisdiction, your claim of justification. Facts, like your having alerted your gun in certain ways, facts that might incline your neutral, but unsophisticated about gun matters, jury to think you might be a reckless, trigger happy gun nut obsessed with making your gun the most efficient instrument of violence possible will help the prosecutor in those efforts. And Suzi Soccermom, as she and her other jurors decide whether to believe your story, wonders why the gun as it came from the factory wasn't lethal enough to satisfy your pervert blood lust.

...What I'm trying to say is that you can't logically conclude that weapon X makes a justifiable homicide any less justifiable than weapon Y....

But we know from post verdict interviews of jurors that factors like that can have an effect on how they evaluate the defendant and evaluate the evidence.

...We know, from post verdict interviews of some of the jurors in the Harold Fish case (in gun friendly Arizona), that some of them were bothered by his use of a powerful gun (10mm) and JHP ammunition. (Fish was convicted of manslaughter and went to prison. He did win his appeal, and is now free. But the point is that the gun and ammunition affected how his jurors evaluated the evidence.)...

Glenn Meyer, a research psychologist, has participated in studies that indicate that weapon type has an effect on jurors.

...There is a large body of research on what influences juries. Weapons issues have been shown to influence mock juries....

 

[C Philip]

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it.

If you claim self defense, the prosecution doesn't have to prove, at all, that you were there, that you shot the decedent or that you intended to shoot the decedent, because you will have admitted each of those element of the crime of manslaughter. If you are claiming self defense you necessarily must admit that you (1) you were there; (2) you shot the decedent; and (3) you intended to shoot the decedent. You have made a prima facie case against yourself for the prosecutor, and he doesn't have to prove any of the things he ordinarily would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have admitted it all.

Saying this makes it sound like it might be better not to claim self defense, leading to the question posed in this thread. Might it be better not to claim self defense and make the prosecution prove everything?

 

[Frank Ettin]

First, if it was an otherwise justifiable shooting, a trigger job alone is not going to result in conviction.

Thank you. That was my entire point.

But you're missing the point that you won't be on trial solely because of a trigger job. You will be on trial because there were other factors, other evidence, that led the grand jury to conclude that there was probably cause to believe that the shooting was not justified, or that led the prosecutor to believe that he could overcome your self defense claim.

Remember, if it happens to you, there is no way you can know ahead of time whether in your particular case there will be ample evidence to support your claim of self defense or if, when the smoke clears, the evidence will be sparse that you were justified in using lethal force.

Everyone who has ever been on trial after a self defense shooting thought as he pulled the trigger that he was right -- that he had no choice. But the fact that he wound up on trial shows that in the aftermath the prosecutor found good reason to challenge the claim of justification and to believe that he could get a jury to agree.

If you are on trial, you and your lawyer will need to deal with any number of factors which, in some aggregation, could incline the jury against you resulting in a guilty verdict sending you to jail. In Harold Fish's case, using a powerful gun (10mm) and JHP ammunition, were two such factors. In another case, could a factor be altering a gun by having the trigger made so light that a qualified police armorer would testify that the trigger is unsuitable for a service weapon? Quite possibly. But then again, it's only a factor it you have chosen to do it.

As I mentioned previously, a 4 to 5 pound trigger on a 1911 shouldn't be a problem. I could find several qualified police armorers who will testify that such a trigger is suitable for a service 1911. And if one can't shoot a 1911 with a 4 to 5 pound trigger well, he needs some training and practice.

... it might be better not to claim self defense, leading to the question posed in this thread. Might it be better not to claim self defense and make the prosecution prove everything?

I don't think so. Some of the reasons why that's not a good idea were discussed at length in that thread. And Boston T. Party doesn't think it's a good idea either:

"...I am not recommending that anyone flee the scene of a justifiable homicide,...In fact, after reviewing the precautions such a flight will require, most of you will properly conclude that it's far too involved and risky to succeed -- and that's my point here. Call 911; don't flee..." (Boston T. Party, Boston's Gun Bible, Javelin Press, 2002, pg 5/2)

And --

"...Criminals have a better practical chance of getting away with ...flight because they have prior experience (you don't), they can plan for it (you got surprised , and thus retrospectively left many inadvertent clues). They have the immediate support of the criminal underworld (you don't). They are ruthless (you are just an average person), they feel no guit (you will, at least in the form of doubt)...." (Boston T. Party, pg 5/10)

 

[maestro pistolero]

I would agree with the point that, much under four pounds for a defensive pistol might be a little questionable. But I am simply not going to worry about something which has never happened, and which I conduct my life in such a way as to avoid at all costs. A so-called carry trigger job is usually in the range of 4.5. to 5.5 lbs. I'm comfortable with that. That, in my view, makes me a safer gun owner for all the reasons I have stated.

I'm more concerned about actually being responsible than appearing to be so. If that makes me naive, so be it. I would actually rather be accused of something egregious that I didn't do, than to actually do something egregious, and get away with it. In the first case, I could live with myself. In the second, I could not.

 

[JohnKSa]

Still no cite of a single example? Find ONE intentional, otherwise justified self-defense shooting where a trigger job resulted in a conviction. Just one.

But I am simply not going to worry about something which has never happened,

...become the first in the history of jurisprudence to be prosecuted for it...

Please read post #29 on this thread for proof that it has happened.

Please read the rest of the thread to understand why even if it hadn't happened it's still clear that it could be a problem in some circumstances.

The point of this topic is NOT that a trigger job will convict you. It won't if the rest of the evidence clearly supports your claim of self-defense. The point of this topic is that if the rest of the evidence casts doubt upon your claim of self-defense, providing the prosecutor with MORE evidence that can be used against you is a very bad idea.

Given that it is impossible to predict the circumstances of a shooting, it makes sense to take reasonable precautions against providing the prosecutor with any evidence that might be used against you.

As pointed out, a "carry trigger job", preferably performed by a someone with the proper qualifications, that doesn't alter the safety function of the pistol and that provides a trigger pull that is within the typically accepted "prudent pull weight range" is NOT likely to be a problem.

Removing safety mechanisms, altering the basic function of safety mechanisms, lightening the trigger past the point that is typical for self-defense pistols, are not in the same class and could definitely be used against you under the proper (improper depending on how you look at it) circumstances.

Look at it this way:

If an armed serial killer, just escaped from the psych ward of the local prison, breaks into your house and you end up shooting him while he is in the process of abusing your wife and children there is no way that anyone is going to take a look at your gun to see if you've modified it.

BUT, if you are attacked on the street by a normal looking guy with no prior criminal record who pretends to have a gun in his pocket and threatens to kill you if you don't hand over your wallet and you shoot him with no witnesses present, that's a different story. When the police arrive on the scene, you are standing there with a gun that you just used to shoot an unarmed man. That is not going to be a clearcut case. It could very well come down to whether the jury likes you and believes you. If the prosecutor tells the jury that you don't have any regard for the safety of others as demonstrated by the removal/alteration of standard safety features of your firearm and brings in the local police armorer who testifies that the department doesn't allow such modifications for safety reasons, do you really think that won't make any difference at all to the jury?

Sure, you can bring in your expert witness to try to rebut the prosecutor's claims, but wouldn't it be a LOT easier and a LOT cheaper to be able to say something along the lines of: "My self-defense weapon is equipped with all the safeties that the manufacturer designed into it. Furthermore it is used by such & such LE organization in exactly that configuration."

 

[Sarge]

Here's how self defense works at trial.

Ordinarily, in a criminal prosecution the state must prove the elements of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the crime charged, and for which the defendant is on trial, is manslaughter, the state must in general prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant was there; (2) the defendant shot the decedent; and (3) the defendant intended to shoot the decedent. In defending the charge, the defendant merely needs to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to any one of these elements. The defendant can try to cast doubt on the state's claim that he was there (alibi defense); that he pulled the trigger (some other dude done it) or that he intended to shoot the decedent (the gun went off by accident). But all of that is completely inapplicable when the defendant pleads self defense.

If you claim self defense, the prosecution doesn't have to prove, at all, that you were there, that you shot the decedent or that you intended to shoot the decedent, because you will have admitted each of those element of the crime of manslaughter. If you are claiming self defense you necessarily must admit that you (1) you were there; (2) you shot the decedent; and (3) you intended to shoot the decedent. You have made a prima facie case against yourself for the prosecutor, and he doesn't have to prove any of the things he ordinarily would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have admitted it all.

Your defense is that your act of violence on another human being was legally justified. The allocation of the burden of proof burden of persuasion between the prosecution and defense in a self defense case varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But you will at least have to put forward evidence establishing a prima facie case of justification according to the standard applicable to the use of lethal force in self defense in your jurisdiction.

The prosecution will seek to discredit, consistent with the applicable standard of proof in your jurisdiction, your claim of justification. Facts, like your having alerted your gun in certain ways, facts that might incline your neutral, but unsophisticated about gun matters, jury to think you might be a reckless, trigger happy gun nut obsessed with making your gun the most efficient instrument of violence possible will help the prosecutor in those efforts. And Suzi Soccermom, as she and her other jurors decide whether to believe your story, wonders why the gun as it came from the factory wasn't lethal enough to satisfy your pervert blood lust.

...and here's how self-defense works in the real world. Self-defense shootings are not are not rocket science. They are far easier to sort out than your typical homicide, especially if you tell the truth. Motives are absent, the shooter/shootee usually don't know each other, they normally occur on neutral ground or the defender's turf...basic stuff.

Self-defense doesn't result in a charge, or a 'trial'. Murder and manslaughter do- but they will only be charged if your actions meet the elements of those charges, in the jurisdiction where the shooting occurred, and the prosecutor believes he or she can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

I can think of a half-dozen shootings or murder cases where we pretty well know who did it, pretty well know why, and yet they won't be filed because the REASONABLE DOUBT standard can't be met. Now if the state can't file those, why in the hell would they waste time filing self-defense cases where the shooter's actions are authorized under defense justification, castle doctrine, etc.?

Answer? They won't.

 

[JohnKSa]

Self-defense doesn't result in a charge, or a 'trial'.

Come on. Are you saying that anyone who has ever been charged or gone to trial is a murderer or manslaughterer?

The first TX CHL shooting went to trial and the defendant was acquitted--his claim of self-defense was upheld. Are you saying that he just beat the rap and must really be guilty since he was charged and went to trial?

I understand the point you are TRYING to make, that most self-defense cases don't result in a charge or a trial. However, it is completely inaccurate to claim that self-defense never results in a trial or a charge.

 

[Uncle Buck]

BUT, if you are attacked on the street by a normal looking guy with no prior criminal record who pretends to have a gun in his pocket and threatens to kill you if you don't hand over your wallet and you shoot him with no witnesses present, that's a different story. When the police arrive on the scene, you are standing there with a gun that you just used to shoot an unarmed man. That is not going to be a clearcut case. It could very well come down to whether the jury likes you and believes you. If the prosecutor tells the jury that you don't have any regard for the safety of others as demonstrated by the removal/alteration of standard safety features of your firearm and brings in the local police armorer who testifies that the department doesn't allow such modifications for safety reasons, do you really think that won't make any difference at all to the jury?

Thanks John. I have trouble figuring out all the who's, why's, where's, and even quite a few when's. You cleared up a lot of it and it explained some of the other posts. Fiddletown explained a lot and it helps me to understand different aspects of this conversation.

I was wondering what about the guy who is minding his own business in his home when attack and the only thing he has to defend himself with is a gun he uses to target shoot. That gun has been heavily modified, but he is in his own home and he was attacked. Your explanation makes the other explanations clearer.

What about a guy like me, who is disabled and has trouble getting around. I am not capable of, nor wish to, take some of the beatings I took as a youngster . If I am working in one of my barns or fields and someone threatens me, and I honestly believe that my life is in serious risk of bodily harm or even death, what can I do. Do I have to worry about literally losing the farm? Probably not, because I would have met some of, if not all of, the elements needed for self defense.

Now Joe Billy Jim Bob has a gun with all the latest video game add-ons and he goes out looking for trouble, with a big sign on his back that says "I have $1K in my pocket". Well, he probably is going to have trouble claiming self defense.

The biggest unknown factor in all this, of course, will be a jury. The Human factor is not completely predictable and therefore should not be taken lightly.

Although I have learned a lot reading these forums, I still continue find this information very, very educational. I just hope and pray that I am never put into a situation where I have to find out what the local prosecutor thinks of guns.

 

[Sarge]

Come on. Are you saying that anyone who has ever been charged or gone to trial is a murderer or manslaughterer?...

That would be ridiculous. Your 'reformatting' of what I stated above changes neither the meaning or the truth of it.

What is ridiculous, however, is insinuating that anyone who acts in self defense is likely to have to claim self-defense 'at trial'; as if criminal charges are sure to follow.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No one said that, what was repeatedly said is that if you go to trial, these factors can have an impact.

Being ridiculous is to continue to miss that point, repeatedly. It is also ridiculous to insist that juries are not influenced by such factors when the experience of lawyers, written up in their texts plus seen in trial presentations, and legal/behaviorial research also demonstrates the effects.

If you manage not to go to trial, good for you. If you do, good for you if your lawyer thinks such are ridiculous. Have a nice time.