To cock or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
0

05Passat

Inactive
I'm not new to firearms but I am new to carrying. Its perfectly legal for me to carry concealed on my own premises but I went the extra mile and got my license to carry concealed. I'm a home owner and a business owner. I feel justified in owning a firearm to defend my life, my family and employees lives, and my property. I'm currently deciding what I'm going to carry on a daily basis.

My question is this: a friend claims that in a justified self defense shooting, the investigating DA can use whether you cocked the hammer or not against you. The DA can claim premeditation if you cocked the hammer first. Obviously that can change the circumstances of the shooting from justified self defense to murder. Therefore my friend strongly recommends against carrying anything with an external hammer.

My position is that showing the pistol is the warning, cocking the hammer is the very stern warning and the rest is what it is whether the hammer is internal or not. To me the decision to cock the hammer in front of the would-be-assailant gives him another opportunity to walk away before something bad happens. It lets him know I'm really serious about this and yes this could happen.

I like the look and feel of an external hammer and would prefer to carry one. Anyone have any advice? Any words of wisdom? Something your crazy Uncle Rob told you? Preferably something your cousin who is a DA told you. I don't need any problems and I prefer to stay out of trouble.
 
There is a lot of conflicting "information" about such things out there so I won't comment one way or the other about what the DA is going to say in the aftermath of a shoot.

What I will say, though, and this is just my opinion, is that the only warning you should give is a verbal shout, "STOP! I HAVE A GUN! DON'T MAKE ME SHOOT YOU!" It's a phrase which has allegedly been proven in court because it warns the guy about your gun and puts the responsibility for the shoot on him.

Obviously, ever situation is going to be different, however, showing a gun or cocking it is not going to be an effective warning, in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

--Wag--
 
I should also mention that I'm fully aware of the "I have a gun, don't make me shoot you" line. I guess I should have mentioned that the complete order would start with the verbal warning.

To my mind cocking the hammer just shows the assailant how serious I am. I've heard people say "I have a gun" before and I know damn well they don't.

What I'm really talking about I guess is an escalation of force or an escalation of warnings as it were. I think its appropriate to give that one last chance to walk. There's nothing like the sound and sight of a hammer cock to really hit home that this is about to get serious. Its like the sound of a pump shotgun action or a rattlesnake's rattle. Its unmistakable that this just escalated from what might have been just jaw-jacking up to the realm of what could be a very serious matter.
 
My question is this: a friend claims that in a justified self defense shooting, the investigating DA can use whether you cocked the hammer or not against you. The DA can claim premeditation if you cocked the hammer first. Obviously that can change the circumstances of the shooting from justified self defense to murder. Therefore my friend strongly recommends against carrying anything with an external hammer.
Click to expand...

Normally, in order to prove homicide, the prosecutor has to prove that you were there, that you intentionally shot the person, etc. In a self-defense case, the prosecutor does not have to prove these elements because you admit to them in order to claim self-defense.

So obviously, there is going to be a certain degree of premeditation in shooting someone if you claim self-defense. In addition, single-action firearms can only be fired if the external hammer is cocked. So, I am having a hard time seeing how just cocking the firearm would show premeditation to commit murder absent other incriminating facts.

I would recommend giving Cornered Cat's Legal Section a read. It covers many common aspects of self defense use of firearms and the legal system and it sounds like you and your friend would benefit from it.

My position is that showing the pistol is the warning, cocking the hammer is the very stern warning and the rest is what it is whether the hammer is internal or not. To me the decision to cock the hammer in front of the would-be-assailant gives him another opportunity to walk away before something bad happens. It lets him know I'm really serious about this and yes this could happen.
Click to expand...

Putting aside the legal issues, as a warning, it may not be very effective. Many self-defense shootings take place in low-light, it is quite possible the person you are trying to intimidate will not see or hear your "warning" especially given the effects of fight-or-flight stress on the human body (tunnel vision and auditory exclusion are two common side effects).

Second, I'd give some thought to the type of firearm you are using and training. For a lot of people, trying to thumb cock a hammer on a modern pistol under stress is probably not a good idea.
 
Massad Ayoob....

.... recommended against cocking a DA weapon in one of his articles.

He cited a case where a guy shot an assailant, after cocking the gun. The prosecutor basically claimed the BG had stopped the threatening behavior, but the shooter flinched and ended up firing the gun because it was cocked, and had a light, short trigger.

IE, instead of justifiable homicide, self-defense, it was either manslaughter or negligent homicide, due to mishandling a cocked revolver.

Legal issues aside, cocking a DA weapon does make it easier to flinch-fire the weapon, and undoes the safety advantage of the DA weapon, IE the longer, heavier pull.
 
I believe in some states it is not legal to draw your gun unless your life is under imminent threat and that is where this argument comes from.
If you draw your gun and take the time to cock it, how imminent was that threat?

Further, cocking a DA revolver offers very little advantage in most self-defense shoots. I only cock the hammer on a DA to take a longer more precise shot. This is rarely the case in a SD shoot, although there certainly have been cases where people would be smart to take that aimed shot and justified in relatively long pistol shots.
If you are taking a longer, slower shot it isn't going to benefit you.

Even a well worn in Ruger has a pretty short light SA trigger, so I can see the flinch-fire potential.

If you are firing SA and your first shot is slow fire, how many ungrateful witnesses do you expect to be around? Trick question, there is always a camera.
 
In truth, and this is my experience only, it's unlikely that if you find yourself in the given situation you will be thinking about cocking your hammer. Having the gun at the ready and being prepared to use it, as well as trying to deal with the situation on the whole, will be occupying all your thoughts.

It is probably best to not think about that as being part of your readiness in general, if that makes sense.

That being said- regarding your question about what to carry- if that is the type of weapon you like and prefer and it works for you, that is what you should carry.
 
I fear I may have mislead my own thread. For that I apologize.

The real question here is not really whether cocking the pistol is a big deal or not. The real question is whether my buddy is right or not. His claim is that you should avoid the situation entirely by carrying a hammer-less pistol. That takes the entire cocking or not situation completely out of play. Is he right or is the playing field between hammer-less and hammer pistols closer than he claims? Is there a legality issue that could be averted simply by carrying a hammer-less pistol?
 
If that were the case, guns with hammers would be a much larger issue.

Carry what works best for you.
 
Depends on how you want to use it...

... and what you shoot best.

Hammerless advantages usually fall more on the "snag-free" side. IE, easier to draw without fouling on clothing, etc. Also, one less exposed part that can get gummed up with crud from the environment.

I have DA weapons, but I also have SA weapons which I use from cocked and locked. I don't worry about the legal implications of either mode, but I am very much aware of the lighter, shorter pulls on my SA weapons.

Advantage - accuracy and speed potential; disadvantage - easier to fire when one might not have really meant to fire. Mitigation - training and practice.

For the John Q Public type shooter, who probably doesn't practice all that often nor take many training courses, a DA or DAO gun is probably the safer bet, but YMMV.
 
Before double action revolvers died out in LEO use it had become a very common precaution to render the officer carried weapon DA only. It was not to counter the idea of "premeditation" but to avoid negligent discharges. Once cocked a revolver has no trigger travel and minimal force required to discharge. There were many instances of negligent discharge due to fingers on the trigger and the pull reduced to the minimum due to being cocked. I had a relation on a major city PD put a bullet crease in her own shoe while holding her DA revolver between her legs as a rookie in the car as they chased someone down an alley. It was 30 years ago and yes stupidity and poor training contributed but couple that with nerves and a cocked hammer and she was lucky just her she was shot.

If you shoot someone intentionally in a justifiable self defense situation you shouldn't have a problem but if your weapon was cocked they may try to make the case that you shot accidentally and therefore may be eligible for a charge of homicide.
 
I can't quite decide if this thread belongs in Legal or Tactical... It has equal elements of both.

That said, I'll leave it here and see how it goes.

I think a couple of considerations are necessary, in order to state what might or might not be "more" legal than not.

Regardless of your State laws, do you live in an area that has an anti-gun Sheriff/Police Chief/Prosecutor? If so, then more caution on what you choose to carry and not just how you carry is warranted.

If not, then are you completely comfortable carrying your particular firearm cocked or not?

Do you train (and practice what you have trained) how you carry?
 
NEVER cock the gun to show the BG you're serious !! If you just want to scare him you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.Don't engage in conversation .If your life or safety is in immediate danger don't talk just shoot. Don't try to be nice to someone who's there to harm you.
After all he may be mentally ill, sociopath, psychopath, high on drugs or alcohol , they're all unpredictable and dangerous.
 
I like the look and feel of an external hammer and would prefer to carry one. Anyone have any advice?
Click to expand...

Advice? Sure. Quit talking about the amateurish, dangerous, improper habit associated with cocking your double action revolver. Learn to use it properly.

Not talking about those semi-autos of SA design that are supposed to be carried that way.

The biggest problem you might have in the court system is being accused of cocking your revolver and thereby shooting Bubba accidentally as a result of the hair trigger you created.

If you shot Bubba accidentally, or his lawyer convinces the jury you did, you're home owners' insurance company is on the hook for the "accident". Shooting Bubba on purpose because you were defending yourself isn't covered. What do you think the civil suit is about?

Enough people get accused who didn't cock their revolver in a shooting, without compounding the problem by actually cocking it. Some Police Depts. removed the hammers from their DA revolvers for that reason.

Oh, one more thing. Accidentally shooting someone is never justified. In criminal court, it's called manslaughter.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:
 
Your friend's opinion is correct, for him. For the rest of the world, it's just an opinion.

It has been shown that while in a stand off situation, cocking the gun might just convince the bad guy to back down. BUT, it is also shown that cocked DA gun can get you in trouble in court. And that is a dilemma, now isn't it?

Every situation is different, but consider that if you have a single action revolver, or auto, the issue never seems to come up afterwards.

To me, the situation is simple. If you have a DA gun when the need arises, shoot it DA. IF its not DA, then you need to cock it in order to shoot anyway. If you think you might be tempted to cock your DA gun, then its possible you might be better off with a gun without a hammer. If not, then to me, its a non issue.
 
Unless someone demonstrates that the sound effect is more efficacious as a warning then pointed the gun and strong verbalization, I agree that it is a nonissue at best and worst an accident waiting to happen.

Carry a Glock (ducking for cover :D).
 
I've been in a situation where, confronting a burglar, I assumed that brandishing a S&W model 66 2&1/2" bbl revolver would intimidate him. I was sadly mistaken since they made more than one gun and he had one too. :eek:

The old admonition to only present a gun when you are absolutely prepared to use it, without reservation, is my policy now. In my case he and I were both fortunate that we were not on target that day. :o

One lesson I learned from that experience is that, for me anyway, pointing a loaded firearm at an individual had me doing a lot of thinking about the possible ramifications of using it. I doubt if he had any of the same constraints.

On the other topic, I have practiced double action shooting with revolver and semi to the point where I am very proficient and prefer that for any close and personal confrontation to avoid the possibility of hearing a loud noise that wasn't intended. :)
 
My position is that showing the pistol is the warning, cocking the hammer is the very stern warning and the rest is what it is whether the hammer is internal or not. To me the decision to cock the hammer in front of the would-be-assailant gives him another opportunity to walk away before something bad happens.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that these situations happen much more slowly than they actually do. In reality, you'll be lucky if you have time bring the weapon to bear at all.

Then there's the question of fine-motor skills under stress. Again, the situation will present itself with little or no warning, and your body will be quite keyed-up. Thumbing back a hammer with sweaty, shaky hands under stress is a recipe for a negligent discharge. Same goes for racking a slide.

If you have to present the weapon at all, assume you're going to have to fire it. Most jurisdictions I know of have laws against brandishing, so it's best not to get into the practice of doing so.

The gun should be thought of as a weapon, not a deterrent. If you do have to draw, and if it happens to scare off an aggressor, great. However, I wouldn't want to get into the habit of pausing to see if it works. That split-second could be very important.
 
The technique is used in TV and movies to make the scene more dramatic.

If I were on the jury hearing your self-defense case and heard that you'd cocked the hammer as a warning I'd downgrade my thoughts about your good sense because you were trained by Hollywood and not somebody sensible.
 
Your buddy makes a good point but is not entirely correct. You do not have to go hammerless but on the other hand I would never cock my defensive revolver on a perp for the potential he stated.

Let your demeanor show the perp you're 'cocked' and ready to shoot him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top