shooting an unarmed man with no other evidence of self-defense other than your word isn't a good situation to be in
All the cops have to do is claim the suspect made a "furtive movement" to a weapon. Works for them, works for me?
Dear Threegun, not sure what the basis of your statement comes from? Personal experience?
I listed my comment coming from my CCW instructor, Ed Santos, a nationally and internationally recognized firearms expert. In addition to the risk of criminal prosecution, almost every "good" shoot will be followed by a civil court case by the victim or the victim's relatives. Impression of the shooters intentions and actions are easily clouded by such things as modified triggers. In addition, it sets up increased expert witness costs as well since you will have to answer these issues with your own expert witnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The man's prior history in and of itself doesn't prove much, but it does make Fish's story more believable.
Maybe, but if I read the reversal correctly not allowing that evidence was not reversable error rather it was the judge's instructions to the jury.
The retired teacher was later convicted of second-degree murder and spent more than three years in prison before the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed his conviction in June. In a unanimous decision, the panel awarded Fish a new trial because he was not allowed to present evidence that showed Kuenzli was mentally unstable and violent.
In June, the appellate court ruled that the jury was not instructed properly as to what constitutes "unlawful physical force." The court also decided the jury should have heard evidence that Kuenzli was known to act violently when confronted about dogs in his care.
My point here is that if I was confronted with Ted Bundy (unbeknownst to me who he was), shot and killed him and did not meet the legal standard of self defense then I could be successfully be convicted of murder regardless of his past. However, in Bundy's case I suspect the DA would not press charges but he could.
Yes, and yes. You are violating a basic gun safety rule by pointing a loaded gun at a person. However, you are doing it for what you believe to be good and prudent reasons.Eghad, are you ignoring safety rules if you cover an assailant?
Or are you taking a necessary defensive action?
The prosecution will paint your character as a trigger happy Rambo want to be gun toting dangerous to society sociopath waiting to act as a Charles Bronson going after a situation to provoke it and make it happen in the first place. Since this has been a common tactic used against people involved self defense shootings in the past, it is certainly a tactic that will occur again.
09-08-2010, 15:16 #131
Mas Ayoob
KoolAidAntidote
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,701
And I appreciate your input too, Guy. It's good to have a civil discourse on the topic. It doesn't always go that way.
Thing of it is, I have to respectfully disagree with your CCW instructor. The work of Kleck and Lott dramatically shows that with armed citizens as well as cops, the drawing of the gun results in the felon fleeing or surrendering more often than it results in the citizen having to shoot the offender. You don't want to throw that advantage away. Waiting until you have to shoot often means, tactically, that you've very likely waited too long.
A "hair trigger gun" can be a monster trickbag for the armed citizen as well as the police officer. Look up NY v. Frank Magliato, in which the licensed CCW citizen actually did AD his revolver, a cocked Colt Detective Special determined in court to have a 4.5 pound trigger. Colt literature warning that it was dangerous to use the cocked revolver with its light trigger pull for gunpoint-type situations was invoked by the court, as Glock literature warning against use of their 3.5/4.5 pound trigger options for defense use would be used against someone genuinely or falsely accused of having accidentally shot a suspect at gunpoint with a Glock.
The myth that citizens aren't allowed to take dangerous criminal suspects at gunpoint is something that should probably be addressed in a separate thread.
best,
Mas
Mas Ayoob
KoolAidAntidote
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,701
A number of folks agree with you, Guy. Jeff Cooper did, and taught a low ready position he called The Guard (Position). Last I knew, Washington State criminal justice training council was teaching something similar.
Insofar as false allegations that a deliberate and justifiable shooting was an unintended and negligent (and therefore indefensible) one, however, it brings us back full circle to the same he said/she said argument.
The defense maintains that the defendant always keeps his finger off the trigger until intentionally firing, AND that he aimed the gun at the ground in front of the suspect until the suspect went for his own weapon or whatever. The accusing party, perhaps including the suspect himself if he survives, testifies that he was backing away harmlessly when you pointed the gun at him and shot him by accident.
If you're equally persuasive, it's a coin-toss at that point.
But...
"Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant is so habitually reckless with firearms that he deliberately ignored and violated the gun manufacturer's recommendation and installed (or had installed) a 'hair trigger' of a kind known to be associated with premature firing" is an argument that could tip the balance away from you and the other good folks at Glock Talk.
And dammit, Guy, I'd hate to see that happen.
best,
Mas
Mas Ayoob
KoolAidAntidote
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,701
If you think about it, Guy, every court case that was ever wrongfully brought was apples and oranges: the poison apple of the false accusation, and the honest orange of the defense.
Frank Magliato accidentally discharged the gun, and that was what the defense had to work with. But an appellate court decision that held it constituted negligence to point a "hair trigger" 4.5 pound pull gun at an armed opponent carries enormous weight that none of us in this discussion can escape.
Safe to say we both agree that if his gun had been double action only, it's much less likely that it would have discharged at that moment?
Agreed: we have to assess the probabilities and weigh the pros and cons of our own armament decisions. There have been so many genuine unintended discharges with light triggers AND false accusations of them that cops from Miami to LA to NYPD have gone with DA only revolvers and standard to heavy trigger Glocks. Glock, monitoring the majority of American police who carry their guns, strongly recommend the 3.5/4.5 pound pull ONLY for recreational guns. That in itself carries enormous weight. The handful of cases mentioned here only touch the surface. They're the tip of a very large and heavy iceberg.
If anyone could show proof that the light trigger was better all around for the self-defense function, we'd all be carrying them. But if you look at the great gunfighters of the 20th and 21st Century, you see double action revolvers from Jelly Bryce to Jim Cirillo, standard trigger pull 1911s from Bill Allard of the NYPD Stakeout Squad to the members of LAPD SWAT, and stock trigger pulls on the Glocks of Anchorage PD with their 90% hit rate department wide in actual gunfights. The evidence for a survival advantage with a lighter than factory spec trigger pull simply isn't there.
Sounds to me as if we may be approaching consensus, Guy.
Eghad, are you ignoring safety rules if you cover an assailant?
Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.
1st off I did not read all the forum posts since my last entry on the topic but I will add these remarks;
Its not really fair or practical to "muddy the water" with a forum member's statement(s). I wrote that Harold Fish used a 10mm 1911a1 pistol in his incident NOT a .45acp 1911a1 model, .45acp service models/1911 type ARE more common in US military spec ops or US SWAT or SRT units but NOT the 10mm caliber. That was part of my point.
Quote:
To be clear, a "legal expert"(who I believe was a retired CT state trooper) stated under oath in the Fish trial how no major US law enforcement agency issued or used the 1911a1 series 10mm.
Perhaps not in combination, but both 1911 pistols and the 10mm cartridge have been used by major U.S. LE agencies. Both the FBI HRT and LA County SWAT use 1911 handguns (Springfield Armory and Kimber respectively) currently and the FBI has a history of using 1911's on a limited basis all the way back to the 1930's. Regardless, it was the 10mm cartridge and JHP ammunition rather than the 1911 pistol that the prosecutor chose to attack.
Also, both the FBI and Kentucy state police used S&W 1076 handguns in 10mm Auto (the FBI used them in the early 1990's and KSP used them until 2001 IIRC). For whatever reason, Fish's attorney failed to use the above information to counter the prosecution's arguments.
A "hair trigger gun" can be a monster trickbag for the armed citizen as well as the police officer. Look up NY v. Frank Magliato, in which the licensed CCW citizen actually did AD his revolver, a cocked Colt Detective Special determined in court to have a 4.5 pound trigger. Colt literature warning that it was dangerous to use the cocked revolver with its light trigger pull for gunpoint-type situations was invoked by the court, as Glock literature warning against use of their 3.5/4.5 pound trigger options for defense use would be used against someone genuinely or falsely accused of having accidentally shot a suspect at gunpoint with a Glock.
The prosecution will paint your character as a trigger happy Rambo want to be gun toting dangerous to society sociopath waiting to act as a Charles Bronson going after a situation to provoke it and make it happen in the first place. Since this has been a common tactic used against people involved self defense shootings in the past, it is certainly a tactic that will occur again.
Frank Magliato accidentally discharged the gun, and that was what the defense had to work with. But an appellate court decision that held it constituted negligence to point a "hair trigger" 4.5 pound pull gun at an armed opponent carries enormous weight that none of us in this discussion can escape.