Carry guns and modification.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A good attorney representing the accused will refute every one of 'em too.

Interesting question - some jury research shows that if one attorney or DA brings up bad thing X, your attorney then spends a fair amount of time 'refuting' X:

1. It may be that all the jury remembers is that X is a bad thing. Your guy just drives the negative message in more.

or

2. If you are making such a point that it is a good thing, then what are you trying to hide - it must be a bad thing.

 

[armedleo]

Well, counselor, I have some observations based upon some 30 years as a detective having been assigned to the Major Crimes Division which, as you guessed, includes homicides. I am not an attorney so this is in no way legal advise.

As you say, the defendant at bar in criminal court, bears no burden of proof and can sit back with a "prove it" attitude. However, an affirmative defense, as you well know, is required when certain defenses are going to be employed. Under a (FL) "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" defense, the defendant not only must take the stand and testify, but must appear and testify before the judge in a bench trial (no jury) to satisfy the question (and elements) that the shooting was good. And if the defendant can convince the judge, there will be no criminal trial before a jury. Case closed. However, if not successful, the case is bound over to criminal court for trial. And, at trial, the defendant can again use the defenses brought at the bench trial to convince his jurymen.

From where this misinformation comes that you will not get your firearm returned to you if it is taken in as evidence is beyond me. Frequently, at bench trial or upon acquittal by jury, the judge orders all property, including the firearm, to be returned to the defendant. In other words, I don't know anything about carrying a Bar B Q gun for EDC, but I would use a gun of a quality and reliability you're willing to stake your life on. Don't cheap out on something like that. And even if true (although its not) the best gun made is likely going to come thru when needed most and if it saves your life it earned its keep. Let 'em keep it. Buy yourself another one.

The criminal v. civil arena. It has been my experience, merely as a witness but also having been qualified and testified as an expert witness that the truth is more often gotten to in civil court as opposed to criminal court. Less procedural rules barring evidence and kinds of evidence and a lot more latitude given to the lawyers in both discovery and what the judge will allow in at trial.

Weapons modifications. Well, of course, if the case is sent for criminal trial these things will be brought out. If the preliminary hearing judge is satisfied it is a case of self-defense and a good shoot this is a non-issue. But at trial it will loom large. Some modifications are helpful. White light on accessory rail; plastic sights replaced with steel night sights. Others not so much. Exotic hand loads that explode upon impact or are body-armor piercing; trigger mods.

I agree with someone above that said keep it as stock as possible.

 

[K_Mac]

I think that installing an aftermarket trigger, reasonable modifications to a factory trigger or removing a magazine disconnect are perfectly acceptable modifications to a self-defense weapon. I think a case can be made that this makes them more useful. What I think doesn't matter too much though. If the States Attorney or a jury of my peers decides that these changes show I am predisposed to violence, unsafe in my actions, or have made my weapon more dangerous, I will be treated accordingly. We each have to decide for ourselves if the benefits out way the risks.

 

[Spats McGee]

A good attorney representing the accused will refute every one of 'em too.

If the issue at hand is a trigger pull weight modification or a change in a safety, that "good attorney" would have a rough time "refuting" the testimony of an expert witness to whose expert qualifications he or she has stipulated.

On that note, let me add three more wrinkles to this already convoluted analysis:

1) The defense attorney does not have to stipulate to qualifying the other side's witness as an expert. If the witness really does look like he's an expert, it's often wise to do so, however. Why? Because if one side does not stipulate, then the other side has to go through the process of qualifying the witness. That means that the jury has to listen to ~45 minutes of the witness telling them about all of his or training, classes he took, cases in which he's already been qualified as an expert and generally Why He's The Smartest Guy In The Room.

2) When it comes to the criminal side of things, the State has salaried experts on staff. And if it needs more, it has a much larger budget to hire experts than I do.

3) Finally, don't rely too much on technical expertise to show the jury that you're the good guy in all of this. I've often heard it said that "a jury is made up of 12 people who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty."

 

[HiBC]

I talked to Apex.Feedback was,IMO,an honest reflecting of what I have been told here.
Not a direct quote,but essentially,"We make a quality product that does what we say it will do.We cannot give legal advice.Consult your attorney,make your own choices"
I have no complaint with that answer.I suppose it is the best they can do.

My initial plan:I Purchased the thumb safety version of the M+P, ,ordered via my LGS,because I intended to use the forward set,short travel,relatively light (4 lb) trigger). For myself,I figured the sane weight of pull,trigger flipper,thumb safety,and proper holster represented a reasonable package to carry.
Duly noted,Apex recommends this trigger for competition only,not for duty or carry.

Thanks to my education here on TFL, this is no longer my plan.

I now wish I had ordered the version of the M+P without thumb safety,but my LGS took good care of me,I'll take good care of them.Thats what I will have.Its no big deal.I'm used to a 1911.

I'll try it stock.Maybe I'll call it good enough.That is not my expectation.We'll see.

If I do make any change,I will use parts clearly specified "For Duty and carry use"

I have a trigger pull gage.I'll start with a 5 lb minimum standard,and maintain 4 1/2 lb minimum with age. Yes,spare springs on hand.

For 64 yrs,I have managed to live life in a way that has only required me to use deadly force on one bear.

I sincerely hope I finish getting old and pass on without ever validating all this advice.

In the mean time,thank you.

Life has Risk.

 

[DT Guy]

Just going to throw this out there-

In all these 'will modifications come back to haunt me' threads, one thing folks never seem to focus on is you have to survive the incident to stand trial.

If you can't shoot a stock trigger well enough to survive, or fail to disengage a too-small factory safety and lose the fight, your heirs will not get a chance to appreciate your foresight in avoiding potentially liability-inducing pistolsmithing that might have let you survive.


Just MHO, of course.


Larry

 

[Nanuk]

Most of my guns are modified in some way, all of my AR I built (I am an armorer). My state and 19 others have some sort of qualified immunity to civil suits for act of self defense.

All of the cases I have seen with problems with modified guns are negligent shootings.

If you live in a part of the country with draconian laws I can see the concern, it is almost impossible to give valid advice for all 50 states without being so cautious one is afraid to fix a crappy factory trigger.

 

[Sharkbite]

I have Apex FSS kits in all 3 of my M&P's.
1 9mm CORE w/RMR
1 9mm full-size W/iron sights
1 9mm 9c Compact

My shooting/training partner has the Carry kits in his full-size and compact.

The carry kits are MUCH better then stock. Not AS nice as my FSS's.

Now, ive got 3decades as a professional weapons and tactics instructor. Both High end LE and Mil. I have NO doubt my trigger finger discipline is subconsciously ingrained.

I would NOT recommend the FSS trigger for the novice. There is NO room for error. VERY little slack and a light short press to fire the shot. You finger MUST stay off the trigger until you have decided to fire and sights are on tgt. ANY other action will result in problems.

That said, its the closest thing to a tuned 1911 trigger i have found in a striker fired pistol (i carried a 1911 as a LEO SWAT member for years)

So, for an experts gun...im ok with the FSS. The duty/carry kit will give more leeway in imperfect trigger finger discipline. It maintains the origional slack, just improved trigger break and reset

 

[HiBC]

Thanks,Sharkbite.
I do not claim to be an expert.
This M+P 9C will be my first striker fired handgun.
While I have owned (and sold) a few DA revolvers,
my trigger experience in handguns has been with Ruger Single action revolvers equipt with spring kits and lightly touched with a hard Arkansas,(fixture)

.22 bullseye grade semi-autos,with very nice triggers

And 1911's with quality trigger kits installed...C+S or EGW. The 4lb to 4 1/2 lb kits

I'm not really concerned about what a good 1911 tuner can take a 1911 down to,if I get a trigger kit with .021 engagement instead of .018,I just go with it.

As a former mold maker,I know the precision of the grinder at C+S or EGW will not be enhanced by any "Dermil tool" experience

I keep my sear spring tweaking to a minimum,mostly for functional balance

I'm saying single action triggers of "good 1911" quality are all I know.I don't have anything else. Yet.

I have little doubt that I could safely manage the FSS trigger,and it would be supplemented with the thumb safety.I believe that might be my preferencethough I have not tried them.

However,I'm weighing what Frank Ettin and others have advised me.

For myself,I will compromise a bit.I would rather the "expert witness" reports "aftermarket duty and carry upgrade parts in proper working order" versus "Competition only,not recommended for carry" parts.

You have given me some good info.Thanks

Actually,later on,a few $ from now,I may decide to have the slide milled for a mini red dot and put a hardened Docter on it..My eyes are not as good at focusing on sight alignment as they once were.

Prosecuters might not like that,either.Ihate to bow to ignorance.

 

[Sharkbite]

As i sit here writing this (waiting at the Barbershop) my carry gun is a G19 with a RMR milled into the slide. That gun also sports a custom trigger.

I look at those modifications as ACCURACY ENHANCING modifcations. In other words those mods allow me to shoot the handgun MORE accurately. Thereby reducing the possibility of collateral damage and reducing the number of rounds im likley to have to fire.

Any shooting may lead to civil liability. Im going to push the odds in favor of me landng mtpl shots--FAST on the adversary.

Custom pistols are easier to shoot well. I'll make that case AFTER i win the fight.

 

[K_Mac]

Sharkbite you bring up an interesting point. With your credentials you have a great chance of making that case. For a novice with little or no training or experience that argument would be harder to make.

 

[OldMarksman]

That gun also sports a custom trigger.

A custom trigger that is smoother, or that has a better shoe, would be one thing, but one that is too light might well be another.

I look at those modifications as ACCURACY ENHANCING modifcations. In other words those mods allow me to shoot the handgun MORE accurately. Thereby reducing the possibility of collateral damage and reducing the number of rounds im likley to have to fire.

Understand. However, there are other considerations.

Any shooting may lead to civil liability. Im going to push the odds in favor of me landng mtpl shots--FAST on the adversary.

Fine, but the question at hand here is whether it will be seen by others that the trigger modifications also increased the odds of an unintentional discharge.

Custom pistols are easier to shoot well.

Certainly. But a trigger that is too light is also easier to set off unintentionally when fine motor skills are impaired, whether in a novice or in a trained LEO.

That much is widely known. I really would not want the expert witness bought in by a plaintiff's attorney to testify that the trigger pull of a gun modified at my behest was materially lighter than he would allow on guns that he maintains for the police department.

 

[Sharkbite]

but the question at hand here is whether it will be seen by others that the trigger modifications also increased the odds of an unintentional discharge.

If the case at hand involves an unintentional discharge, that will certainly be an issue. In a self defense shooting where i INTENDED to fire the shots in question, i dont see that as a germain issue.

YMMV

 

[OldMarksman]

If the case at hand involves an unintentional discharge, that will certainly be an issue. In a self defense shooting where i INTENDED to fire the shots in question, i dont see that as a germain issue.

That does sound reasonable, doesn't it?

BUT: consider two things:

1. A plaintiff cannot collect from your insurance company if the shots were intentional, and
2. you can swear up and down that you intended to fire the shots, and the plaintiff can contend othersise, introduce evidence that an unitentional shot was more likely than not, and prevail with a prepondereance of the evidence.

Far fetched? Don't bank on it. It happens.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And something similar happened in the Larry Hickey shooting trial. Hickey's first criminal trial ended in a hung jury. Meanwhile, the people who attacked him were trying to collect against his homeowner's insurance in a civil trial and in order to do that, they had to change their story to acknowledge they were on Hickey's property when the shooting occurred. Their depositions were eventually used in Hickey's second criminal trial.

So even as they were telling the police Hickey shot them from across the alley, they were telling the insurance company it happened on Hickey's property. And had the first trial not ended in a hung jury, Hickey could have been imprisoned and convicted before that came to light.

So much of trial work is about controlling what evidence is admitted in court. Everybody has this idea that they will just tell their side of the story and the jury decides; they don't realize the opposite attorney is going to concentrate effort on making sure the jury never hears key parts of your story if they can find a reason in the Rules of Evidence.

 

[springer99]

Sharkbait nailed it!

"If the case at hand involves an unintentional discharge, that will certainly be an issue. In a self defense shooting where i INTENDED to fire the shots in question, i don't see that as a germane issue. "

AFAIC, all this talk about gun modifications, in an intentional shooting case, as being a determinant item doesn't follow any logic. Using that same argument, then deciding to use a 38Spl over a 22LR as your sidearm would meet that test; OMG what would they say if you chose a 44Mag instead. It's possible that IF you tipped your bullets in Cyanide or Plutonium, things might get interesting but, short of that, it's a non-issue.

Until anyone can site an actual court case that differs, then it's just an academic, hypothetical discussion.

 

[Lohman446]

The very few circumstances in which I would be willing to actually use deadly force involve protection of my children from the threat of severe bodily harm or kidnapping. Under a moral obligation to provide a safe work place they also involve active resistance against someone in the work place attempting to do do severe harm. The nice thing for me is these things line up with the legal use of deadly force.

That being said while I may see the legal concerns as secondary they are a pretty close second. Given the option of equipment that places me in less legal jeopardy vs equipment that places me in more legal jeopardy I am opting for the former. Even if I am legally right I don't need my attorney to spend countless hours and tens of thousands of dollars explaining why modification X did not alter the function of the pistol and why modifying my pistol did not make me "someone just waiting for the chance."

I also question the exact value of these modifications to shoot well? If I have the choice of three shots going (somewhat randomly) in a six inch circle around center of mass or three shots forming a ragged hole I think the six inch circle may actually give me a better chance of stopping an aggressor. This is not a bulls-eye match we are discussing and I see no purpose in preparing for it as if it were.

 

[OldMarksman]

Sharkbait nailed it!

"If the case at hand involves an unintentional discharge, that will certainly be an issue. In a self defense shooting where i INTENDED to fire the shots in question, i don't see that as a germane issue. "

Read Post # 34.

Until anyone can site an actual court case that differs, then it's just an academic, hypothetical discussion.

Attend Mr. Ayoob's course in use of force law, or do some reading.

Look: when attorneys and their clients can take a course of action and it is to their advantage to do so, you can bet that they have and will continue to do so.

 

[springer99]

That's OK, I'll wait for the court case to be cited. Other than that, it's just opinion. Granted, I will agree that sometimes attorneys, like all normal people, can and do say silly things. In the end though, it was just noise that is quickly dispensed with.

 

[Lohman446]

That's OK, I'll wait for the court case to be cited. Other than that, it's just opinion. Granted, I will agree that sometimes attorneys, like all normal people, can and do say silly things. In the end though, it was just noise that is quickly dispensed with.

Citing a court case can only tell you what has happened. While it may help you decide what could happen that discussion is one best held between yourself and multiple attorneys.

The fact that it is a controversial issue on a firearms forum should not make one dismissive of the possible risks if ever brought in front of a jury "of your peers" or what a possible anti-gun prosecutor may make an issue. Remember even if you are in the right if it is an issue that you must refute during trial it will cost you time and money at best and may negatively influence the entirety of your defense even if you are right in the end.