Ayoob's Poor Case for DAO Triggers

D

Double Naught Spy

New member
On the cover: Self-Defense & The Law A Court-Proof Trigger? The case for the Double-Action Only; 16 Case Reports.

In this Feb 2005 issue of Combat Handguns, Ayoob again double talks and mixes types of information in a confounding manner that gives the impression of a much stronger argument than actually exists in his writing, facilitating yet another Ayoobian myth. While the title above was on the magazine cover, the subtitle on page 8 said, "Pistol Design is important in court - sixteen cases show you why!"

Okay, from the titles, you would assume there are sixteen "cases" where trigger types have either proven to be the crux for some sort of guilty verdict or to have protected the shooter from such a verdict. This is NOT the case, nor is it the case that all of the ‘cases' even went to court.

Case 1 gave a newspaper headline saying a gun was blamed, but the officer was cleared of any wrong doing and no follow-up against the gun's maker, Glock, was made. Both the officer and Glock were free and clear. So is the Glock trigger court proof? It survived this legal process, but Ayoob would have you believe that having a Glock with a typical 5 lb trigger would be problematic for you. At best, this is a confused conclusion.

Case 2 was of an officer who fired a TDA Ruger during entry, did not decock, got into a struggle with unarmed suspect and the gun discharged and killed the suspect. Interestingly here was the fact that apparently the officer was not charged with a crime, or Ayoob conveniently forgot to mention it. He did mention a massive lawsuit, but failed to note whether it was won or lost. No conclusion can be based on this case as Ayoob failed to note any outcome. We don't know if the trigger is court-proof or not.

Case 3 was with a TDA Sig and an unarmed suspect killed during a struggle with an officer. In trial, the officer was acquitted. HOWEVER, Ayoob notes that many observers felt that had the pistol been DAO, he would not have been falsely accused. So here we have an ambiguous result of beliefs by observers. This isn't an actual conclusion. The fact of the matter is that the trigger did survive court, something Ayoob conveniently left out.

Case 4 is great. It has NOTHING to do with court. An officer fired a Beretta intentionally once, and then unintentionally once and the department decided to go with DAO Glocks. As this has nothing to do with court, it is irrelevant.

Case 5 was of a citizen who protected himself with a "light-triggered" High Standard .22 target pistol. He fired the first shot intentionally and a second shot unintentionally after the suspect turned away, killing the suspect. Now, the citizen escaped indictment, so this light trigger must be okay as well, right? Well no, not according to Ayoob. The guy was financially ruined and Ayoob posits that a gun with a heavy DAO trigger could have prevented the problem. More ambiguity - as obviously the trigger did survive whatever legal processes, but Ayoob still thinks it was a bad thing and has his suggested way in which the problem could have been resolved, but no proof of such. Sorry Mas, but a heavier trigger would not necessarily have prevented a second discharge as you have no idea why the second discharge occurred. A finger off of the trigger would have stopped it. It isn't the gun or trigger at fault, but the shooter and even then, he wasn't indicted.

Case 6, poor deputy shot himself twice with his Beretta, managing to try to reholster with his finger on the trigger after shooting an attacking dog. Contrary to what you said, this is a problem that happens with revolvers and Glocks as well, so your conclusion that a DAO trigger would have prevented this is unjustified. Also, since this didn't go to court, it really doesn't belong in the article.

Cases 7-14 were of Glocks being inserted into defective hoslters and discharging. You think a heavier trigger would have prevented this, but it would not as such events have happened with revolvers in the past. Let's see, cases 7-14 didn't go to court and so these are not relevant to the article.

Case 15 was a gun mishandled by an officer that discharged. It didn't go to court either and so this case is bogus for the results.

Case 16 happened to a friend of Ayoob's. Big whoopee. No discharge occurred and nobody went to court. Case 16 doesn't matter to the article either.

Tally?

3 cases went to grand jury or court and either did not result in an indictment after grand jury or did not result in a guilty verdict.

1 case resulted in a lawsuit about which we know no outcome

12 cases didn't go to court.

Sorry Ayoob, but your argument is pretty darned poor for suggesting that these cases argue for DAO court-proof trigger. First, of the 3 cases that went through the process and had an outcome reported by you, none failed court. One was a lawsuit and you reported no result. Of the last 12, none went to court and so are not relevent to your argument that somehow DAO triggers would be protected in court. Good God man, in Case 16 a gun didn't even discharge and yet you present it as part of your argument for DAO triggers!!!! If there was no discharge event, then how can you argue a DAO trigger would have prevented the supposed accident waiting to happen????

I know, I know. Ayoob is a court expert. I certainly hope that he does a better job with argument presentation, facts, and math in court than he does in his writing. A full 3/4 of his presented information was not court-referenced.

Weak, very weak for an article claiming pistol design is important in court.
 
I think Ayoob was more trying to illustrate situations that went wrong due to the light trigger pull, and could have had legal ramifications. Except for the unarmed suspect struggle (unless it was a Glock), the point (if not the court record) supports his thesis. All are factual events where it is arguable that an automatically decocking trigger might have prevented a prosecutable incident. And I don't think there's any doubt that all those people were sweating after those accidental shootings. From the shooter's standpoint, they might not have shot. From an administrators standpoint, there would have been less excuse for some errant shots.

So I think the argument, in those situations, is valid. However, one could detail a similar series of case studies where the officer was hampered by a heavy trigger pull from making a life saving shot. Plus, Ayoob doesn't really specify what the boundry between DAO and "other" is. 8 lbs? 9 lbs? 12? Would a Glock with a NY1 trigger be a boon or a liability? He doesn't say.

The real world problem with the second scenerio is that cops don't face legal action for not performing to a higher standard. Legal liability is only for full on SNAFUs, not minor incompetence.
 
An idiot struggling with an officer stands a good chance of meeting his doom. I see that as a justified homicide. I guess old Ayoob is just trying to get everybody scared of lawsuits. You do know that if you take his training course, he will appear in court for free? Combat Handguns is an infomercial anyway. I stopped buying it because of all of Ayoobs Y2K garbage. I have more money for ammunition.
 
If the officer is in the wrong, the place to address it is nearly always in court, not by resisting the officer, at least here in the US.
 
Really, when in the US...Great Railroad strike, Haymarket, Bonus Army March, Oklahoma City, Birmingham Alabama....?
Court maybe, but that takes money, and most of the people who might have justifiable confrontations with LE, will not likely have those funds. And the procedural safeguards, emplaced as safeties, for both LE and the public...have been substantially curtailed in recent years.
Not to say that the cases cited by Ayoob, are fully applicable to this particular aspect...but neither is the stated concept that any resistance to LE is inappropriate, or that the courts will remedy any excesses.
Recall that not too long ago, a elementary school kid was 'tasered'. And in that context, even if the idiots responsible for that one, are repremanded/fired/etc...the direct and indirect damage has already been done.
LE is only as good as the people who stay in it. And as good as they might be trained, both in tactics and legal rights. Otherwise, police status does not equate to unquestioned authority.
In that case, mayhaps what some of Ayoob alludes to is a acknowledgement of some of the problems caused by poor training and screening. When the Glock first came out (long back in the faraway '80's) there were an appalling number of AD's. Training took a while to catch up with the new technology.
 
A new title holder

"The fact that you're struggling with someone in a uniform doesn't automatically put you in the wrong."

I've seen some pretty lame-brain things on message boards. However, this may be the new record holder.
 
While some of Ayoobs examples are not the best for the intended lesson his point is valid. A too light trigger can open the door wider to lawsuits and legal charges if there is any question about why you shot as well as AD issues.
 
"The fact that you're struggling with someone in a uniform doesn't automatically put you in the wrong."
I've seen some pretty lame-brain things on message boards. However, this may be the new record holder.
Click to expand...
Says a guy who has never seen or dealt with police brutality or harrassment.

I will agree that it is the wrong time and place, even if you don't have funds for a lawyer.
 
Mas Ayoob is a writer. He gets paid for writing articles. When there is nothing more to say about a subject, like most writers, he starts creating things. In novels they call it fiction, in newspapers they call it news. In a gun magazine they call it an article. ;)
 
"The fact that you're struggling with someone in a uniform doesn't automatically put you in the wrong."

I've seen some pretty lame-brain things on message boards. However, this may be the new record holder.

You MUST be kidding?
 
Must not have had anything to write about

Ok, if I were to write an article that says why a heavy trigger is a good idea for legal reasons, I would want to show legal cases that were dismissed or not guilty because of the DAO trigger.

If that was not availible I would want to show court cases in which a light trigger or non-DAO trigger was directly the cause of someone going to jail or paying a large court settlement.

If the title or premise of the article is LEGAL reasons for carrying DAO then I should be expected to use and cite actual CASES tried in court supporting my position.

Anecdotal evidence of an opinion (what Ayoob wrote) is not the same as cited court cases and outcomes that prove the opinion (what the title suggests).
 
Fighting police officers

I must have accidentally logged onto The Felon Line instead of The Firing Line. In the state I live in, it is a felony to fight a police officer!! If you get a ticket, you sign it. If you get arrested, you go peacefully. The place to seek justice in in a court of law, not the side of the road. I would not recommend anyone follow this foolish advice. You get convicted of a felony and you can kiss all of those precious firearms you go on and on about goodbye!! Oh, yeah voting and working at a decent job, those too!! And this crap about criminal defendants not having the money to defend themselves in court. It makes me sick that my tax money goes to pay some lawyer to defend these idiots, but it does. If they can't afford a lawyer, the court gives them one. So here is the bottom line. You fight a police officer, you take your life in your own hands. You deserve to get you butt kicked on the side of the road and sent to prison when you get to court! You resist with a weapon, you deserve one center of mass!!!!!
 
Perhaps, and the public defenders have an appalling caseload, and some are reluctant to involve in legal confrontations over clear right cases...because its disadvantagous to their own futures. Can't run a good private practice if you've alienated the courthouse culture.
Concerning open resistance to a LE official, its been rare in the US, to have it necessary, but it has legitimately occurred. In the recent past, the civil rights movement is an example...most of them went peaceably, and many were beaten for their troubles. And even their usually non-violent resistance was considered 'inappropriate' to the authorities involved. And at situations like the bonus army march, even non violent and very well trained protesters were fired upon, without substantial provocation, and some did have to protect themselves with like responses.
Resist a LE officer, and 'take your life in your own hands'? Presumably, any competent LEO is aware of proper reponse and escalation of force. And any responsible citizen is not going to be conducting themselves in such a manner as to have these confrontations.
A whole range of ambiguous responses to all the potentials here...but one very disturbing trend, is the concept that authority should be surrendered to, even if it might be clearly in the wrong. Reality check, in those rare instances when LE has been used for extreme agendas, the courts have tended not to remedy. At least until after the grave has been dug, either literally or that of a lost right. And in the recent past, many of the safegaurds which were emplaced by that difficult process, have been removed in the interests of the 'war on terror' or 'drugs', or 'crime' or etc. And those procedural safegaurds protected all the civilians involved, LE or otherwise.
And when our society comes to believe in 'authority right or wrong', it will be the death of the republic.
 
I wasn't saying that law enforcement officers are right or wrong. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. A court of law is the the main idea. If you are mistreated on the side of the road so to speak by an LEO there are steps to take to remedy that problem. There are civil lawsuits and also Federal Civil Rights Violations for the deprivation of life, liberty and so on and on. There is no guarantee that a cop is not going to break a flash light over your head for no apparant reason. They are trained not to do that, but we all know incidents have happened. But looking at the total number of LE contacts with citizens in an entire year, this is a very, very small number of incidents. It is foolish to recommend and advocate that a citizen resist a law enforcement officer. If you are so paranoid and distrustful of our system of government that you feel this way, then relocate to another country. I'm not saying that to be sarcastic, it's true. Our democratic form of government is the model of world. Our police personnel in this country are the best trained and equipped in the world as well. Sure you can point to a few black smudges in American history and say, well what about this or that, but just stop for a minute and look at the police agencies of the Hitler era, the KGB, China, or the Mexican police. Would you rather take you're chances there? Our democracy is based on using your voice and your vote to elect a government of the people. If you don't have that type of government, vote for someone else. These people we vote into office make laws. These laws are enforced by our police. The courts then interpret these laws and apply them. You are not going to effect any meaningful change by violating our laws and fighting with the police. You can make a meaningful change by electing lawmakers and stating your point in court. A prime example of this is Dr. Jack Kavorkian. He believed in a cause that put him and the law on a collision course. He disobeyed the police and the courts. He is now warehoused for the rest of his life in a prison. Obviously he was an intellectual man or he wouldn't have been a doctor. If he had pursued his objectives through legislative change and court actions he might have made a meaningful impact. But, he chose unwisely. And you too will choose unwisely if you make some political statement by resisting and fighting with a police officer on the side of the road. You will eventually be arrested, you will most likely be convicted, and you will go to jail. You will be viewed by the average citizen as part of the problem, not the solution.
 
Lomshek, you have some examples? Ayoob doesn't so I would like to know what you are talking about. I see you are new to the board. I have had this debate previously and there is a striking lack of cases won again the notion of single action guns. Keep in mind that in many states in civil court, you can be sued for a lot of things. That is fine and folks have a right to do that. That is just the cost of doing business with a gun, but I am not familiar with those cases being won by the 'victim.'

Nope, Ayoob doesn't provide very good examples. He is the expert and if that is the best he can do, then I am inclined to believe what he has written is garbage and his point is unsubstantiated.

A couple of the cases noted involved improper actions on the part of the shooters, probably due to a lack of training. Lack of training will cause problems for people regardless of the gun they carry. The notion that a slightly heavier trigger would stop negligent discharges is purely speculation in these cases, regardless of what Ayoob and observers of the court cases thought.
 
Thanks Handy...The clarification helps all around. As good as our system is, to make an overall statement that it always works that is unrealistic. Sometimes acknowledging past flaws, prevents them.
How you are potentially treated by LE, in some instances, is partially contingent on social status. There are areas in the US, where that status does adversely condition the reponses of some LEO's to the general population...personally I've seen that effect in the barrios and here on the reservation-in some cases innocent people were assaulted or unjustly accused, and in others even murders have not been properly investigated. So, yes, the system works, but inconsistently, and there are places where it is the norm,to not cooperate with LE, even for the honest people, because reasonable experience has shown it is disadvantagous. Whether or not that moves into physical resistance is situational-and for most hopefully never necessary. Physical resistance/obstruction could be as simple as closing a door to a LEO who 'asks' to come into the house, and who doesn't have warrant/exigent circumstances. Especially under the some of the standards being advocated here. Simply put, our system, albeit one of the better ones, is inherently a situational equality.
The 'love it or leave it'...many will, others such as myself, are very concerned about the level to which authoritarianism which has escalated in this country.
The KGB, NKDV, Gestapo, fine analogy, except excesses elsewhere do not excuse or mitigate them here.
And having worked for the courts in the US, and once having had close ties to Mexico...at times I have seen goings on here, that were not much different.
As for Ayoob, sounds like the DAO in itself is a distraction. There were a substantial amount of AD's, over time, with the old service type revolvers...seems to be more a matter of standard of training needing to be elevated or evaluated. If the stress level training, or basic handling within that dept, is such that Glocks and etc are a problem...Go back to a system which the existing training is workable. So for example, if there's been a problem with AD's, nobody in that organization should be issued a 1911, Glock etc, until the proficiency problem has been resolved.
Personally, I've prefer revolvers and never felt that these were lacking. But at one time, long ago, I wouldn't have felt comfortable or would have been competent with a 1911/Glock type format. So part of the problem, in this DAO discussion, might be people wanting a technology, but not being willing to acknowledge either institutional or individual limits in training and accordingly skills.
And since this an equipment thread, methinks I'll contain any comments within that paradigm...as fun as the diversions were...
 
When Ayoob first came on the scene, he seemed like a very good guy to learn from. But over the years he's worn out his welcome a bit.

A few years back he was a guest instructor at our firearms instructors annual meeting. He had an AD with his rifle and was told by the range master he was off the range because of it. He made up some pretty lame excuses why it happened etc.

Yes he writes articles, but he needs to understand that there are some very influential people that may read his garb. and take it to heart.......
More & more his stuff doesn't hold much water......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top