Modified triggers and self defense

[Frank Ettin]

The point is that people toss around that "a good shoot is a good shoot" nonsense as a reason not to concern themselves with various matters like their choice of gun, choice of ammunition, manner of dress and deportment, etc

...........and how is that any different from folks tossing around, "you can't use this or you can't shoot that or you're gonna go to jail? Or "gotta shoot factory loads and non-modified guns or you'll get convicted of murder/manslaughter"?...

Not a single person has said anything like that.

What some people, people who may be lawyers or who have studied the matter, have pointed out that certain factors may increase one's risks in dealing with the legal aftermath and make it more difficult to convince a DA, grand jury or trial jury that one's use of lethal force was justified.

It's about risk management.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by buck460XVR: If one really is in a situation where it is you or the other guy, would anyone really rather DIE than live to face possible wrongful charges?

Actually, I would rather have a third choice, and if I think about the risks, I may well be able to mitigate a number of those that could get me into legal difficulty.

But this thread is about modified triggers, I'm less concerned abut "possible wrongful charges" than about the ability of a plaintiff's attorney, with only a preponderance of the evidence threshold, presenting evidence regarding a modified trigger (or safety, as the case may be) to discredit my claim of self defense--my claim that I intentionally fired to defend myself--to persuade a jury in a civil trial that my action had been one of negligence or accident.

I can make a decision in advance to mitigate that risk.

Now, if the question had been about the type of firearm, we do have substantial evidence that the selection of certain firearms can have a very adverse effect on jurors' perceptions. The prosecutor doesn't even have to bring up the subject; the firearm is entered into evidence and remains there for the jury to consider for the duration.

The defensive action may have been a "good shoot", but only the defendant and surviving attackers really know that, and unless the evidence that can be put together after the act is generally favorable, the triers of fact may not decide accordingly.

Neither the selection of a black rifle with a bi-pod and tricked out accessory rails, nor the selection of pistol grip shotgun with a flashlight on it, will change the circumstances of the "shoot", but either can influence the final judgment.

That 's something that can be addressed in advance.

Did someone mention risk management?

Should anyone want more information on triggers, safety modifications, firearm types that can be used to the disadvantage of a defendant, burdens of proof in civil and criminal trials, and when "good shoots" may not be seen as such by those who must decide, all accompanied by real cases, I cannot think of a better opportunity than this.

 

[buck460XVR]

Did someone mention risk management?

Yes they did. But regardless of how much risk management one takes, it will not make one eyeota of difference if you are dead. Maybe I'm expressing myself wrong, but living to see another day and to watch your grandkids grow up is always the best choice and the reason that using deadly force instead of dying is a "good shoot". Giving yourself the edge or advantage over your adversary by using a gun with a trigger job or handloads that shoot better outta your gun than factory, to me, is worth that risk. That does not mean using explosive rounds or any thing else not legal or readily available to any gun owner. If some quack DA wants to make a case outta that fact and he/she can find twelve honest citizens to convict me, then I still will be alive to see my grandkids grow up, even if it is from a jail cell. To me that risk is smaller than the one I take by honing my trigger. We all have to make choices. As always, I recommend folks make their own.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...regardless of how much risk management one takes, it will not make one eyeota of difference if you are dead. Maybe I'm expressing myself wrong, but living to see another day and to watch your grandkids grow up is always the best choice and the reason that using deadly force instead of dying is a "good shoot"....

It's not so much that you're expressing yourself wrong. It's that you're talking about a different subject.

Yes, surviving a violent encounter is paramount. But not going to prison because your jury didn't buy your claim that your use of lethal force was justified (a "good shoot") is also highly desirable.

...Giving yourself the edge or advantage over your adversary by using a gun with a trigger job or handloads that shoot better outta your gun than factory, to me, is worth that risk....

People successfully defend themselves in violent encounters all the time using factory guns and quality commercial ammunition.

If someone really wants an edge, he'll get some good training and keep practicing. Equipment is no replacement for skill.

...If some quack DA wants to make a case outta that fact and he/she can find twelve honest citizens to convict me, then I still will be alive to see my grandkids grow up, even if it is from a jail cell...

If you're on trial, you have a number of problems. And that DA is no more a quack than any other lawyer doing the best within the rules with what he has to further the interests of his client. That's no less than you'd expect from your lawyer.

...We all have to make choices. As always, I recommend folks make their own.

By all means, do what you want. It won't be my problem.

 

[buck460XVR]

Yes, surviving a violent encounter is paramount. But not going to prison because your jury didn't buy your claim that your use of lethal force was justified (a "good shoot") is also highly desirable.

On that, we agree. But, can you give me one instance where a trigger job on a SD gun made the difference to any jury, that a shoot was not justified? I'm not talking about maybes or could happens, I mean documented cases where the trigger job itself was the determining factor. There must be some documented example somewhere that makes you so sure a trigger job is detrimental to ones case for a justified shoot.

People successfully defend themselves in violent encounters all the time using factory guns and quality commercial ammunition.

If someone really wants an edge, he'll get some good training and keep practicing. Equipment is no replacement for skill.

So you are saying that competitive shooters are wasting their money on action jobs and after market barrels, sights and other mods? That really all they need to get the edge on the other competitors is more practice and training? Or is it that defending oneself against a paper target or a steel silhouette more important than defending one's life? If you are so sure one is risking jail time by using a modified trigger, why is it that multiple training courses and above average range time not show that same intent to a jury? Isn't the intent of both practice/training and quality equipment the same? Especially to someone on a jury that has no knowledge of firearms and shooting?

By all means, do what you want. It won't be my problem.

No it won't. As I said before we all need to make our own choices. We must also live or die by those same choices. My choice is to give me the best chance to survive a threat. That I can control. As you have stated yourself, one cannot control the minds of a jury. I am not promoting reckless use and the use of illegal equipment. I am telling folks to stay within the parameters of the law and use what THEY need to stay alive.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...But, can you give me one instance where a trigger job on a SD gun made the difference to any jury, that a shoot was not justified? I'm not talking about maybes or could happens,...

See post 12 and the threads I've linked to in that post. See also posts 25 and 36.

This is well trod ground, and we won't be trampling it again.

...So you are saying that competitive shooters are wasting their money on action jobs and after market barrels, sights and other mods? That really all they need to get the edge on the other competitors is more practice and training?...

In competition, the difference between first place and 10th place can sometimes be fractions of a second, but I suspect that everyone, at least above the bottom few, shooting the match that day might well have survived the gunfight. And the competitors won't have to answer to a grand jury afterwards.

...if you are so sure one is risking jail time by using a modified trigger, why is it that multiple training courses and above average range time not show that same intent to a jury? Isn't the intent of both practice/training and quality equipment the same? Especially to someone on a jury that has no knowledge of firearms and shooting?...

Again, well trod ground -- see the threads I've linked to in post 12.

...As you have stated yourself, one cannot control the minds of a jury. I am not promoting reckless use and the use of illegal equipment.....

Where exactly did I say that? Various factors and choices we make can help influence the thinking of a jury -- one way or another.

 

[MLeake]

How often do competitions require shooters to cover a hostile target for an extended period of time, but not shoot?

 

[OldMarksman]

Missing the Point Again

Posted by buck460XVR: If some quack DA wants to make a case outta that fact and he/she can find twelve honest citizens to convict me, then I still will be alive to see my grandkids grow up, even if it is from a jail cell. To me that risk is smaller than the one I take by honing my trigger.

Personally, I do not think that honing your trigger is likely to create any significant unfavorable evidence in a criminal case in which the defendant raises a defense of justification after a shooting incident. But that's just me.

But there's no way I would choose a handgun with a modified trigger for self defense if I had a choice.

The real issue, I think, is whether a plaintiff's civil attorney will be able to convince a majority of the jurors that it was more likely than not that the shooting was not intentional, even when the defendant claims that it was not only intentional but justified.

He or she will have his experts, both in the field of firearms and in the field of the physiological reactions to stress.

And it will likely not be possible to persuade a majority of the jurors that a light, short trigger pull is not much more likely than a heavy pull to result in an unintentional shooting under stress.

It might be possible to successfully argue that a trigger modification of the kind offered by some after market specialists to smooth the trigger without making the pull shorter or lighter would not contribute to an unintended shot. Or not.

The first thing I was told in my CCW class was that if I were defending myself with a DA revolver that had an external hammer, I should not cock the hammer, period.

Here's something on that subject.

You may recall that in the waning days of issue revolvers, a number of law enforcement agencies changed their rules to permit only the use of double action revolvers that could not be cocked. The issue had to do with liability.

Of course, revolvers are pretty much a thing of the past in law enforcement. Almost all semiautomatics used today either have a positive safety or a double action (or functional equivalent) pull, at least for the first shot--usually long and heavy. The reason is to reduce the likelihood of an unintentional discharge.

The Glock "New York" trigger takes it just a step further. Would using one increase the likelihood of not being able to survive a defensive encounter? Well, one of our better known members here has used one in compettion and won.

Of course, targets in competition do not sue.

Want to know more? You can talk to him about it and learn a lot more about how civil and criminal attorneys and juries actually operate for not very much money. I strongly recommend it--one more time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Personally, I do not think that honing your trigger is likely to create any significant unfavorable evidence in a criminal case in which the defendant raises a defense of justification after a shooting incident...

There's also the question of what type of trigger job one is talking about. It would be one thing to tune an overly heavy gritty trigger to get a good service trigger. It would be another thing to set up the trigger to be very light.

I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who could be an expert witness. He will state that a 4 to 5 pound trigger is appropriate for a service handgun (single action or striker fired) and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound is reckless.

• Having lightened the trigger, a prosecutor can vilify you as reckless and trigger happy. That will not sit well with a jury of folks who know nothing about, and aren't interested in, guns. The prosecutor will no doubt be able to find and put on the witness stand a police armorer or firearms instructor as an expert witness that something like a 3.5 pound trigger on a gun to be carried for self defense is reckless.
  
  
• You might claim that you acted intentionally in self defense, but the prosecutor could point to the lightened trigger and perhaps convince a jury that you actually fired the gun accidentally. That might get you convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
  
  
• Messing around with your carry gun might not hurt you in court, but it sure won't help you any. And it really won't help you on the street. If you can't manage a stock, service Glock or a 1911 with a 4.5 pound trigger in a real life encounter, it's you and not the gun (get some serious training and practice).

 

[peacefulgary]

Having lightened the trigger, a prosecutor can vilify you as reckless and trigger happy. That will not sit well with a jury of folks who know nothing about, and aren't interested in, guns.

Regardless of whether you modified the trigger, the prosecutor will still vilify you as "reckless and trigger happy".

The prosecutor will no doubt be able to find and put on the witness stand a police armorer or firearms instructor as an expert witness that something like a 3.5 pound trigger on a gun to be carried for self defense is reckless.

The prosecutor will no doubt find a witness who will testify that carrying any handgun, regardless of trigger pull weight, is reckless.

You might claim that you acted intentionally in self defense, but the prosecutor could point to the lightened trigger and perhaps convince a jury that you actually fired the gun accidentally. That might get you convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

The prosecutor might convince the jury that you accidentally shot the "victim" regardless of trigger pull weight.

Messing around with your carry gun might not hurt you in court, but it sure won't help you any. And it really won't help you on the street.

This is just plain out silly.
If one shoots better, and more accurately, with a lighter trigger, then a lighter trigger is the way to go.

If you can't manage a stock, service Glock or a 1911 with a 4.5 pound trigger in a real life encounter, it's you and not the gun (get some serious training and practice).

It's not about what one can "manage"....
It's about quick and accurate shooting.
And if a lighter trigger helps then there's nothing wrong with that.

Nothing stated in this entire threat has proven, or even indicated, that a modified trigger pull weight will have any negative impact in a court of law when concerning an otherwise justifiable self defense shooting.

It's just internet nonsense.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Regardless of whether you modified the trigger, the prosecutor will still vilify you as "reckless and trigger happy".

How would you know?

The prosecutor will no doubt find a witness who will testify that carrying any handgun, regardless of trigger pull weight, is reckless.

Really? From where? What would his qualifications be? How would you know?

The prosecutor might convince the jury that you accidentally shot the "victim" regardless of trigger pull weight.

You obviously have no knowledge of, or experience with, the way things are argued and proved in court. A prosecutor could argue an accidental shooting only if he put on some evidence to support the claim. Otherwise he wouldn't even be able to make the argument, let alone convince a jury. A light, delicate trigger would be one piece of evidence he could use.

Messing around with your carry gun might not hurt you in court, but it sure won't help you any. And it really won't help you on the street.

This is just plain out silly.
If one shoots better, and more accurately, with a lighter trigger, then a lighter trigger is the way to go.

If you can't shoot accurately with a decent, service trigger, it's you and not the gun. Get some good training and practice.

...It's not about what one can "manage"....
It's about quick and accurate shooting....

What do you know about quick and accurate shooting? If one can't shoot a gun with a decent service trigger quickly and accurately, it's him and not the gun. He needs training and practice.

...Nothing stated in this entire threat has proven, or even indicated, that a modified trigger pull weight will have any negative impact in a court of law when concerning an otherwise justifiable self defense shooting.

[1] It's not a justifiable shooting until the court says so.

[2] There's no need to prove anything here. As a lawyer, who is familiar with the legal system and the the way things work, I won't carry a 1911 with a trigger lighter than 4 pounds. I've had some good training and practice regularly, so I can shoot quite well with such. Others in this thread, and other similar threads on this topic, such as OldMarksman and MLeake, have had some good education in the legal system, as well as good defensive shooting training, also understand the issues. If you don't, it's not my problem.

It's just internet nonsense.

That's your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but all opinions aren't equal. An opinion from someone with appropriate professional education and qualifications is one thing. The opinion pulled out of the air by a person without professional qualifications is quite another.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Frank Ettin: Having lightened the trigger, a prosecutor can vilify you as reckless and trigger happy. That will not sit well with a jury of folks who know nothing about, and aren't interested in, guns. The prosecutor will no doubt be able to find and put on the witness stand a police armorer or firearms instructor as an expert witness that something like a 3.5 pound trigger on a gun to be carried for self defense is reckless.

I should not have discounted that risk.

After an out of doors incident with scant remaining evidence, contradictory witness testimony, and my word against that of the attacker, I really do not want to deal one more royal card to the other guy's hand--and I can avoid it.

You might claim that you acted intentionally in self defense, but the prosecutor could point to the lightened trigger and perhaps convince a jury that you actually fired the gun accidentally. That might get you convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

I had overlooked that one.

Of course, the plaintiff in a civil case, not having the BARD threshold, may have an easier time of it.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by peacefulgary: If one shoots better, and more accurately, with a lighter trigger, then a lighter trigger is the way to go.

There's also the question of unintended shots under stress, and that's not something you want.

It's about quick and accurate shooting.

Perhaps you could describe how "quick", and just how "accurate", you have in mind.

What kind of pull do you like? The standard 4.5 pound trigger in my STI Guardian serves me well in any kind of shooting.

I have been amazed, however, at how much more rapidly some competitors can get shots on targets in high performance defensive pistol shooting with unmodified service pistols with heavier DAO and long striker-firing triggers.

 

[RickB]

I think this makes the most sense:

I can only live in fear of so many things in my life at one time. A modified trigger (within reason) is not something I would worry about.

You have to first survive an armed encounter before you'll get in legal hot water as a result of it. I'd really hate to miss because my gun had a raunchy trigger.
Do you take self-defense training classes because you want to get in a shoot-out? Do you use Black Talon ammo because you want to saw your enemies in half? Are you a racist because you choose to shoot at black targets rather than white targets when you practice? Anyone can question your actions and motives at any time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...You have to first survive an armed encounter before you'll get in legal hot water as a result of it. I'd really hate to miss because my gun had a raunchy trigger.
Do you take self-defense training classes because you want to get in a shoot-out? Do you use Black Talon ammo because you want to saw your enemies in half? Are you a racist because you choose to shoot at black targets rather than white targets when you practice? Anyone can question your actions and motives at any time...

[1] There's a difference between a raunchy trigger and a decent service trigger. If you can't hit your target using a decent service trigger, it's you and not the gun. You need training and practice.

[2] The other points have been addressed in detail in the threads I've linked to.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Rather than spouting off - there is clear human factors research on lighter triggers leading to more accidental or negligent discharges.

Human Factors Issues in Handgun Safety and Forensics [Hardcover]
Hal W. Hendrick (Author), Paul Paradis (Author), Richard J. Hornick (Author)

Also, I know cases were being a competitive shooter has been presented to the jury as indicating premeditation as has OC'ing on the way to an incident.

If you really know SD cases and human factors we won't see so much denial here.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted RickB: You have to first survive an armed encounter before you'll get in legal hot water as a result of it. I'd really hate to miss because my gun had a raunchy trigger.

Do you know of any quality firearms that actually have "raunchy" triggers? Do you think that police departments would issue service arms with "raunchy" triggers?

Anyone can question your actions and motives at any time.

Well, yeah, but as Frank has pointed out, the question comes down in large part to the qualifications of that someone.

When both your attorney and the prosecutor have agreed that the prosecutor's witness, as a police armorer or firearms instructor, is an expert, they have given a lot more weight to that person's opinion than to just "anyone", and he or she will be the one who testifies against you.

And then, if the question is one of negligence or accident, there's the expert who will testify about the effects of stress on fine motor skills.

But it's much more than a legal issue. How would you really like to have shot someone unintentionally because your trigger pull was too light, or too short, for the kind of high stress shooting hat you had gotten into?

What kind of modification to the standard trigger on a quality handgun used in police service do you think would be appropriate for a defensive firearm?

 

[MLeake]

As has been alluded to, and politely hinted at, but not quite directly said (unless I missed it) - some folks are creating a false dichotomy. IE, triggers are either "light" or "raunchy."

I've used triggers ranging from 3lbs to 15lbs. The 3lbs trigger was on a friend's competition pistol. The 15lbs trigger was on my 442 (before I modified it to 9lbs).

The very heavy trigger in the very light gun was a pain. I don't think I would have a major problem defending a 9lbs pull; I don't get light strikes; and I can consistently hit targets at 20 yards plus with the 442. So, I am not opposed to certain types of modifications for a defensive handgun.

OTOH, most of my carry type guns have triggers in the 4.75-5.5lbs range. Even my modified guns (Novak BHP, M&Ps with APEX DCAEK) and semi customs (Fusion, Les Baer UTC) have triggers right around 5lbs.

For DA guns, most of mine are 9-10lbs.

All my guns have smooth triggers.

It should not be hard to defend smoothing out grittiness. It should not be hard to defend a service category pull weight. It could be very hard to defend a hair trigger, if the scenario is the least bit iffy. (That could be beyond our control - for example if all witnesses are the attacker's friends).

Going lighter than 4lbs could open major cans of worms - and from my perspective, is completely unnecessary. What gain would offset the risk?

As others have said, if you can't shoot accurately and quickly with a smooth, 5lbs trigger, that is not an equipment issue, it is a training issue.

 

[OldMarksman]

^^^^

Agree.

I do not know the pull on my 442. It does have a replacement trigger return spring.

 

[eldorendo]

I'm pretty new here, but not new to either the law or firearms. I'd like a link to a case where the use of a modified firearm was even a tangential issue in the case. Any links for my personal edification would be sincerely appreciated. I depend on real lawyers for my legal advice. Would strongly suggest that others do the same.