OldMarksman
Staff
I can't answer for others. I chose not to use a black rifle to protect my home partially because of the politics around them
There is sound rationale for that decision.
I can't answer for others. I chose not to use a black rifle to protect my home partially because of the politics around them
It does come down to personal choice, but it is my hope that folks reading and participating in this thread will make educated choices, rather than just dismissing the (potentially very expensive) legal risks that can come with some choices.stephen426 said:I guess this comes down to the personal choice, and whether or not one feels the risk being prosecuted (or sued civilly) for having an aftermarket trigger is worth the benefit of those aftermarket parts.
". . . . something straight from a factory may seem easier to justify . . . . " There are actually several facets to this that I see, in the legal context, and which ones are applicable may depend on both what modifications were done as well as who did them.stephen426 said:The examples I used were somewhat tongue in cheek. Why would we choose a more lethal round? Why not shoot to kill? I understand that something straight from a factory may seem easier to justify, but how about those who choose to use "assault rifles" to protect their homes?
I don't. Neither do police, for that matter.stephen426 said:Why would we choose a more lethal round?
I never would. I would shoot to stop.Why not shoot to kill?
This reminds me very much of a seminar I went to several years ago where Rob Pincus was the speaker. To paraphrase him, one thing he said that stuck with me was this: People always give me scenarios and ask, "Can I shoot?" They're asking the wrong question. The question they should be asking is, "Do I have to shoot?"Loosedhorse said:. . . . If I'm shooting to stop, and the guy falls, throws away his gun and puts his hands up, I get to stop. . . .
JohnKSa said:If you're one of the people who believe that questions must have simple answers, then the most accurate answer is "Don't".
If you're willing to accept a more complicated answer, then the answer is: "It depends."
JohnKSa said:Your fate will be decided by a bunch of people who learned about firearms from watching movies and tv shows. You won't be arguing your case against a bunch of gun enthusiasts ...
You'll be arguing against a person whose profession is making people look guilty ...
If the modification makes it easier to argue that your self-defense shooting was more likely to be an accidental shooting than an intentional one ...
One only has to find another "expert" with a different opinion, since that's all he's offering.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 to be reckless.
You used the word "only." Have you priced expert witnesses lately? Do you know what it takes to get a legally-admissible expert opinion, either in terms of process or cost? And if you don't know about the process, you do realize you'll have to pay your lawyer to go about the work of finding you an expert, right? Your buddy Sam down at the LGS won't cut it.Snyper said:One only has to find another "expert" with a different opinion, since that's all he's offering.
1. Harry Hiddenholster carries a modified pistol. He had the trigger smoothed and lightened to 2.5#. He had the work done at a nationally-known shop. If Harry has to shoot someone:
(a) the weight of the trigger (being pretty low) may become an issue if someone decides to claim that the shooting was not intentional (a necessary element of an SD claim), but was negligent; and
(b) there's a neutral third party (the nationally-known shop) that can testify about the work done to the pistol without Harry having to take the stand. (He may have to testify anyway, but we lawyers like to keep our options open. Besides, if he shot someone, his credibility may already be an issue.)
(c) I still have to explain why a 2.5# trigger was necessary & why Harry couldn't have shot just as accurately with a 4.5# trigger.
And let's not forget, you'll be starting from a position of a LIVE client who survived the encounter to stand trial.
2. Greg Gunderson also carries a modified pistol. His has the same 2.5# trigger as Harry's, a set of death's head grips, and he has removed a safety device for a better trigger. Greg did the work himself.
(a) If Greg shoots someone and shows up in my office and tells me all of the above, my price goes up. He has complicated my job by an exponential measure, for reasons that follow.
(b) By doing the work himself, he has eliminated the possibility that I can pick up the phone, call the shop and have them fax me the records on the work done. If I want reliable, admissible data on the trigger, I have to hire an expert and have him go test the pistol. Then I have to have him prepare a report, turn it over to the other attorney(s), and pay him big $$ to come testify.
(c) By putting the death's head grips on it, Greg has turned his pistol into a giant piece of demonstrative evidence that may well be shown to the jury every time the other side gets up to speak, and there won't be a damn thing I can do about it. This is a jury perception problem, but your lawyer has to deal with it one way or another.
(d) And I still have to deal with that 2.5# trigger.
Frankly, Greg sounds like a nightmare client; but again, a LIVING nightmare client. He's made his own defense harder with the imagery, for sure.
3. Finally, Sally Semi. She bought a gun with a trigger that she liked, and it came with night sights from the factory. It's bland. It's boring. It's reliable. Sally likes her gun. Sally's lawyer likes her gun, too.
Sadly, Sally was presented with a difficult head shot on an aggressor abducting her 5 year old, and Sally had to try and take a shot at a moving, bobbing target at 20+ yards. The 7# trigger, with grit and creep, was unmanageable, and she sadly struck and killed her own child.
From a legal perspective, however, Sally will not fact criminal charges or a civil suit, simplifying her legal needs.
1. Smoothing out trigger defects (e.g. grit & creep), particularly if the work is done by the manufacturer shouldn't cause any problems. This would be seen as correcting a problem more than as modifying a pistol.And let's not forget, you'll be starting from a position of a LIVE client who survived the encounter to stand trial.
Frankly, Greg sounds like a nightmare client; but again, a LIVING nightmare client. He's made his own defense harder with the imagery, for sure.
Sadly, Sally was presented with a difficult head shot on an aggressor abducting her 5 year old, and Sally had to try and take a shot at a moving, bobbing target at 20+ yards. The 7# trigger, with grit and creep, was unmanageable, and she sadly struck and killed her own child.
From a legal perspective, however, Sally will not fact criminal charges or a civil suit, simplifying her legal needs.
If "consensus" means general agreement or unanimity, and votes are running about 4:3 ... it's not exactly a tie vote but it's a long way from achieving consensus.=Merriam-Webster]
Definition of consensus
1
a : general agreement : unanimity
the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead
2
: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Not so fast! There are rules of evidence that govern the admissibility of expert testimony.One only has to find another "expert" with a different opinion, since that's all he's offering.
Not exactly. This is an area in which I worked in a prior life.Once accepted as an expert, ALL an expert witness is testifying to is his or her opinion.
Aguila Blanca said:...Once accepted as an expert, ALL an expert witness is testifying to is his or her opinions.
There are "experts" who have a reputation for testifying to just about anything. These characters are well known to the bar. If your position is based on his testimony, expect him to get hammered on cross examination. Such "experts" generally aren't well received by juries.
With regard to the trigger weight question, the experts I'm familiar with, like the fellow I mention in post 47 and Massad Ayoob, are more likely to testify in a manner favorable to the opposition.
I thought that was part of the qualification process.Frank Ettin said:And upon what his opinion is based. If the bases of the expert's opinion don't satisfy the applicable standards, his testimony will usually be excluded.
'Tis true that if the circumstances of the shooting make it blatantly obvious that it's self-defense, issues with the firearm probably won't come up at the criminal trial. In fact, there wouldn't even be a criminal trial in a case like that. That wouldn't necessarily preclude the details of a firearm used in a shooting from becoming an issue at a civil trial, however.If it's a good shoot the trigger weight won't matter at all.
It is true that some level of speculation is involved anytime one tries to predict what will happen in advance. It's also true that it's impossible to always accurately predict what will happen in the legal aftermath of a self-defense shooting.This is all just fantasy speculation anyway, so one fantasy as as good as another.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that it's important to understand that the ready availability of drop-in trigger modifications doesn't mean that they're always safe to install.Seems now that most striker-fired pistols have available trigger modifications. It also seems like more and more people on my end of the spectrum are dropping these into their guns.
So with trigger modifications becoming more and more prominent, would you feel more comfortable carrying a modified trigger?
But the trigger weight may well enter into the determination of whether it was a "good shoot".If it's a good shoot the trigger weight won't matter at all.