If that is what you were trying to say, you are on point.
But do not let that lead anyone to believe that the "weapon/bullet/method...applied" would not have the potential to strongly influence (1) whether "it" will be "found justified", or (2) whenever it is determined to have been the result of negligence.
That is what this discussion has been about.
Spats just said the same thing in a different way, but it bears repeating.
OldMarksman,
First, thanks for taking part.
That's what every statement I've made has said.
From my very first statement I have used the word "justified". The word in and of itself is past tense, indicating the process of justification has already taken place.
In another post, I plainly stated that I'm certainly not advocating modifying a pistol used for SD in such a way that it's UNSAFE, meaning could go off if bumped, dropped, etc., however, REASONABLE modifications made to make it easier to use efficiently by the end user shouldn't be considered "damning" in deciding whether or not to make your pistol more efficient/easier to use.
It's also worth mentioning, that like making the decision to use deadly force, the method/weapon/etc. used to apply it is the actors burden to bear through the justification process. So the modifications you make to your gun are your burden to bear. No one else's. That said, if the action of using deadly force is justified, the method becomes (or at least SHOULD become) irrelevant. I fully understand there have been cases where the weapon/method was assessed to lend to justification, or lack thereof, of the act.
A perfect example is a "string gun" when I sleep. If I set up a gun on a string pointed at my front door and it gets a Burglar while I sleep, I'm likely getting charged. Why? Same dead Burglar, same gun, same everything except the method. Justification is likely gone in that instance, even though it would have likely been justified had I been awakened by the burglar and pulled the same trigger with my own finger. Don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating using string guns, in fact the opposite. Deadly Force must not be applied without a human being's evaluation as to need, said evaluation being made AT THE TIME the force is applied.
Just so we're clear, and there's no confusion about what's "reasonable", I completely understand that reasonableness will ultimately (if it goes this far)be determined by a jury of your peers. It will likely be with the aid of the state, the defendant and expert witnesses injecting experience, opinion and technical information into the equation.
Anyway.............. I was saying the same thing as everyone else, just in fewer words.