DAO most defensible type of gun for concealed carry?

Why should my trigger pull be an issue IF I indeed intended to fire the shot? If it was one pound but I stand before the jury and say I intended to fire that shot (hopefully I'm also saying to save myself from being killed or seriously injured) then I just can't imagine a problem.

Save for one or two rare cases is it really that big an issue?

I think it would be harder to justify multiple hits to your adversary than a stinkin trigger pull.
 
Hogwash.

DAO = requires a firm, heavy, steady pull. Meaning you clearly had to have had the intent to fire. Intent. I say again, INTENT is a major factor in criminality. For example, battery, first degree murder, and other specific intent crimes require the showing of intent. If the trigger is lighter, then it is easier to show lack of specific intent (thus bringing down the severity of the crime and the concomitant sentence). There's so much crap about laws floating around the internet. Hence, take what you read (including this opinion here) with a grain of salt.

Edit: On the other hand, with respect to civil trials, in a negligence suit, DAO may help show due care. So it is more defensible in an accidental shooting, such as an ND which strikes a bystander.
 
Dear threegun,

My CCW instructor made a big point out of the trigger issue and told us to NEVER modifiy the trigger pull on a CCW weapon. His reasoning was that it leaves the impression with the jury of a hotrod gun slinger looking for someone to shoot. He serves as an expert witness in many firearms related cases and his conjecture is that appearance is one of the most important factors in a case that goes to the jury. He further stated that the prosecutor will focus on a modified or light trigger pull and it will be an issue.

I have a Ruger SP101 DAO and it offers me the peace of mind that it won't go off unless I pull the trigger. I personally would never carry a 1911 which must cocked and locked to use immediately in a self defense situation. Just my own choice. Others feel confident with this weapon. Once again, just personal choice.
 
I think the best reason for carrying a DAO handgun is so the plaintiff or overzealous prosecutor doesn't try and go after you with the "Hair Trigger" argument. a long 10 or 11 lb revolver pull is easily defensible simply because you can demonstrate that it is clearly not. Or if you have a Glock, the standard 5.5-6.5 lb trigger is also a good way to avoid the premeditation by hair trigger attack that firearms-ignorant, anti-gun, politically focused prosecutors will try even in clear cut cases.

I read in an article written by Massad Ayoob a while back that for Glock carry guns you should consider having professionally installed a NY-1 trigger package bringing the trigger pull up to 8 pounds to further insulate yourself.
 
KChen, you have something dangerously backwards. Self defense is an affirmative defense; to use it, you have to establish intent. Shooting without intent can be (and has been) cause for a Manslaughter conviction, when shooting deliberately due to reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury would have been ruled justifiable.

In other words, the ONLY time one would want people to think a shooting was accidental, would be when the shooting was not justifiable.
 
Fish's lawyer never presented a strong counter-argument to the prosecution
Click to expand...

Never have understood that, since the NRA was involved in Fish's defense and should have known better. Maybe NRA members aren't getting their money's worth.


Mas does list one case where a cocked D-frame, and subsequent startle-response shooting, turned what should have been a good SD case into a Manslaughter charge
Click to expand...

That sounds like the case in which an expert witness testified that involuntary muscle movement would invariably fire a single action gun if the shooter's finger stayed on the trigger. It is a scientific fact this will happen with anybody. Gist of it was, use of a deadly weapon in self defense must be a conscious action on the part of the shooter.

To address startle response, participants in a combat action course were instructed to keep their fingers on the trigger. Everyone of them squeezed the trigger enough to fire a round when grabbed around an ankle by an "assailant" in hiding. No mention of what percentage had to change underwear.
 
Mleake....what?

You're saying that in a justified self-defense shooting (i.e. there was an objective legitimate fear of serious bodily harm), shooting without intent removes it from the category of legal Excuse to manslaughter?

That's a pretty huge claim. With all due respect, I need to see some case law if you're going to make such a claim.

I fail to see how no intent to shoot in a good shoot will turn a good shoot in to manslaughter.

And to everyone making such a claim, show me how LEGALLY the defense of justification fails when there is lack of intent.
 
If the trigger is lighter, then it is easier to show lack of specific intent (thus bringing down the severity of the crime and the concomitant sentence). There's so much crap about laws floating around the internet. Hence, take what you read (including this opinion here) with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Ah, Jeez. Lack of specific intent? That's a manslaughter rap which includes accidental injury because of your negligence.

If the trigger is lighter then it's easier for an opposing attorney to claim you accidentally shot his client.

That opens the door for him to collect, on his clients' behalf, your home owner's insurance policy which covers ACCIDENTS on your property. If you shot Bubba intentionally, then there's no insurance pay off.

A light trigger, such as on a cocked revolver, is not your friend in court.

There's NO LEGAL DEFENSE for accidentally injuring or killing someone.

Ayoob has pointed out (correctly) that if you shot someone in self defense, and your attorney decides to plead manslaughter, then fire the S.O.B.

Which is about all you can do, since shooting the bastard would raise eyebrows and make it difficult to find another lawyer.:D

The affirmative defense is used because it must be. You can't claim you didn't shoot someone when self defense was the issue. Your defense is "affirmative". You shot him because you were justified, and the burden of proof shifts to you to show why.

You can't remain mute and make the court prove it wasn't, since, as mentioned, the burden of proof is on you.

If you didn't shoot anyone and someone claims you did, then that's obviously different. The burden of proof is on the court.l

LASTLY: If you had to defend yourself, DO NOT EVER say that you didn't mean to shoot him or anything that could possibly be interpreted as an accidental shooting. Like "the gun just went off", etc. There's a reason we're advised to keep quiet and not make statements.

No, I'm no lawyer, just my thoughts on the matter from studying the opinions of those who have made a more formal study of the law.:cool:
 
Last edited:
I fail to see how no intent to shoot in a good shoot will turn a good shoot in to manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Claiming that you accidentally shot when you would have been justified in shooting intentionally turns a justified shooting into an accidental unjustified shooting. If you'd really been justified, you would have shot on purpose.

I believe you would understand how a good shoot could turn into manslaughter if you read the simple definition of manslaughter.
 
He further stated that the prosecutor will focus on a modified or light trigger pull and it will be an issue.
Click to expand...

Yep, and there should be more emphasis on what the prosecutor might use to convict and less on what our personal opinions are with respect to how it should be.
 
Mleake,

I respect you as a contributing forum member with valueable input. However, if you read the case facts and subsequent opinion, you'll find the law operated very similarly to how I described it.

http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19851010_0050165.NY.htm/qx

As they proceeded west on Houston Street, a red Ferrari driven by Frank Magliato, the defendant, came on the scene. Apparently, the station wagon driven by Schneider clipped the rear of the Ferrari. Whatever the reason, Schneider did not stop. Defendant followed the station wagon until it stopped for a traffic light behind a truck. Defendant got out of his car. As he did so, Giani emerged from the station wagon carrying a nightstick. Initially, both men stood by their vehicles, facing each other and hurling epithets. Giani then started toward defendant. Uttering some of the choicest profanities, he threatened to kill defendant and directed him to "get out of here". Magliato returned to his car. In the interim the light had changed and Schneider drove off to find a parking spot, leaving Giani behind. Defendant followed the station wagon. His passenger, Edward Klaris, recorded its vehicle registration number. After Schneider had parked his vehicle at West Broadway and Broome Street, defendant drove past it and continued on toward Spring Street where he spied Giani, who, apparently, was searching for Schneider. Defendant drove his car past Giani, barely missing him.

Defendant then went looking for a police officer. Failing to find one, he drove to his home, parked the car and went to his apartment, leaving Klaris in the vehicle. He returned shortly. Now, however, he was wearing a holstered gun.

Magliato drove back to where the Schneider vehicle was parked and stopped across the street, near a phone booth. While Klaris called 911, defendant left his car and started toward the station wagon, again shouting profanities. Giani emerged from the station wagon, holding the nightstick in a threatening position. According to the prosecution, the two men faced each other across a distance of some 45 feet. Suddenly, defendant cocked his weapon and assumed a firing position, crouching with both feet planted apart and arms outstretched. The gun in his hand, he took deliberate aim and fired at Giani striking him in the forehead and causing such massive brain damage that he died two days later.
Click to expand...

Mr. Magliato never had a strong case for self defense as he basically provoked the accident, because he drove off, but then *CAME BACK ARMED* looking for a confrontation. Usually, duty to retreat precedes self-defense (as is the case here: NY requires retreat if it can be done with complete safety). As a juror, would you buy the story that the defendant who was able to drive off, then came back with a gun acted in self defense?

As an attorney, I read dozens of cases in which people claim self-defense, usually in very non-believeable ways. Perhaps I'm missing the trial record but from what I see, there was never a strong self-defense claim here. Hence, the issue became, could we mitigate the charge by showing lesser intent? Indeed, on appeal the lighter trigger actually *helped* the defendant by showing he did not have depraved heart recklessness (just as I described with a lighter trigger working to lower criminal liability).

Like I've said, if you have a justified shoot, intent is irrelevant. If you have a questionable shoot, lack of intent may bring down the severity of the charges.

=======================

Let me boil this down further:

New York statute requires that a person acting in a self-defense *REASONABLY* believe to deadly force is *necessary* to stop *imminent* use of deadly force against him. Where the lines are getting crossed is the interpretation of *REASONABLY.*

What I hear you guys saying is that a defendant by saying he 'unintentionally fired' means that the person did not *in-fact* believe deadly force was necessary. However, the reasonableness requirement in the self-defense statute means that the actors *SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION* is irrelevant. A reasonableness requirement for all intents and purposes is an *OBJECTIVE* evaluation. Hence, by having a lack of intent to fire, a defendant has BOTH defenses: That of self defense if under the circumstances the shooting is reasonable, and the defense of manslaughter if the shooting was questionable.

Here, from my reading of the facts, Mr. Magliato had a very questionable shoot. Especially where he left the scene, went home, grabbed a gun, holstered it, then drove back to confront the other parties.
 
Let me also emphasize that the justification of self-defense and the mitigation of 'no intent/depraved heart recklessness' are NOT mutually exclusive.
 
KChen, you make a good point in that Magliato did many stupid things that day, before, during, and after the shooting.

But let's look at subjective reasonability, and possible problems.

Let's say you have a case where a guy is behaving in a threatening manner, and is armed with a contact weapon (nightstick, knife, etc). CCW has reasonable cause (I'll use the Ayoob trilogy of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy) to believe he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Guy 1 has Ability - he's armed with a contact weapon; he has opportunity, assuming he's anywhere close to the Tueller Drill's 7 yards (since Tueller established that an average adult male can close 7 yards in 1.5 seconds) and has no intermediate obstacles to overcome; and Jeopardy exists, because Guy 1 has shown manifest intent - he's waving a contact weapon and screaming that he's going to kill CCW.

So, all the conditions are there for CCW to say he had reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

CCW draws and aims his weapon at Guy 1. At this point, that is clearly justified.

However.... Guy 1 immediately ceases closing on CCW. Witnesses observe this, and get the impression that Guy 1 is about to commence a retreat.

At this point, the "Jeopardy" portion of the triangle may be harder to establish, as Guy 1 has had a visible change in manifest intent, or at least appears to have had.

Here's where the light trigger, and a startle response, could be catastrophic.

Or, take it further. CCW drew, and Guy 1 surrendered, and dropped his weapon. CCW decides to prone Guy 1 out, and is covering him with his cocked D-frame. Something startles CCW, while he's covering a disarmed, proned-out Guy 1...

Again, not a good scenario, but not exactly an unlikely one, especially given the number of folks in this forum who seem to think they have a moral duty to try to detain the bad guy.

In the second scenario, even without witnesses, you now have a bullet entering the back of Guy 1, probably passing through into the ground or floor at an angle that will make investigators and coroners go, "hmmmm."
 
Here, this spells it out even better. *Legally*

"Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all. ... The defense of justification (NY Penal Law art. 35) affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances. ... The defense does not operate to 'excuse' a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful (see, People v. Taylor, 177 N.Y. 237, 245, 69 N.E. 534).
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

So, a good shoot would remain a good shoot since it was justified (conduct was never criminal at all).

Now *practically* maybe Mr. Magliato's lawyer screwed up and didn't set the trial up for one of self-defense (if they had a strong self-defense case). Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, usually lacking intent will help, not hurt your criminal case.
 
Mleake,

I think in your hypothetical case, say, where the fact that Guy 1 stopped is clearly established and a shoot should NOT have occurred, moves the discussion in to the realm of trigger types and external safety (and not justification thereof)--If in your hypothetical bad shoot, CCW shoots Guy 1, but with a heavy DAO instead of a light SA (i.e. a 1911) it would be legally *harder* to lower criminal liability since that shows the shooter had to exhert all 8lbs of trigger pressure to shoot.

So, my point is, at least legally, I'm not so sure a DAO would be more justifiable than a light SA.

If we're talking tactics and carry options, then I really think a DAO would definitely make it easier for a CCW to clearly make the decision to shoot vs not shoot. A light SA makes it a lot easier to commit an accidental shoot (thus potentially incurring criminal liability for a shoot that never should have happened, but if it does happen a light trigger mitigates criminal liability).

Anyway, that was my point. Good discussion all around. :)
 
Last edited:
KChen, I think you were typing while my last post came up, so my guess is you'll address those points soon.

I'm still not sure how you are separating the Mens Rea of the shooter out of the equation; the standard has to be one of what a reasonable man would think, but the affirmative defense requires proving that's what the shooter actually thought. IE, in most states (there are some that put the onus on the prosecution, not the shooter), the shooter must prove that his reactions and mindset were reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top