OldMarksman
Staff
There is sound rationale for that decision.
Update: What is the current general consensus on carrying a modified handgun?
- Thread starter Tactical Jackalope
- Start date
- Status
There is sound rationale for that decision.
Spats McGee
Administrator
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:
Let's get our terminology straight. Generally, one does not get "prosecuted or sued civilly for having an aftermarket trigger.* " Since having an aftermarket trigger, in and of itself, is neither illegal nor a violation of any established duty to our fellow citizens, that's not the reason that one gets prosecuted or sued. That said, that aftermarket trigger may sway a prosecutor, attorney or jury.
*= Unless, of course, that trigger makes your gun go full-auto, but that's a different problem.
". . . . 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:
--
Examples:
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.
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.
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.
--
The jury perception problem mentioned above is a very real one. As a litigator of almost 15 years, I can tell you that being technically right won't always carry the day. If there are disputed facts, the jury has to find for one side and against the other. And yeah, a jury might well be swayed against someone who had death's head grips, a "wait for flash" engraving, or even used an AR for HD.
http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6896
The above article sums up the way I feel about modifying a defensive handgun. When I'm dry firing a pistol I'm interested in at an LGS or if I'm trying out a pistol I'm interested in at the LGR, my interest ends if I don't like the trigger, I don't think about modifying that trigger so I like it
The above article sums up the way I feel about modifying a defensive handgun. When I'm dry firing a pistol I'm interested in at an LGS or if I'm trying out a pistol I'm interested in at the LGR, my interest ends if I don't like the trigger, I don't think about modifying that trigger so I like it
Loosedhorse
Moderator
I don't. Neither do police, for that matter.stephen426 said:
I carry rounds that are more likely to stop an attacker quickly, with the LEAST number of shots fired; and rounds that are more likely to stop inside the attacker, not over-penetrate and endanger others beyond the target.
So the ammo I use makes thing safer for me, safer for bystanders...and safer for the person being shot, since I am less likely to have to shoot him many times before he stops.
I would NEVER choose to use a round based on its being "more lethal".* So, ammo labeled things like DRT, or RIP, or Terminator, etc.? No how, no way.
*I thought that lethality, like uniqueness, is a dichotomous quality: things are either lethal or they aren't. I thought terms like "more lethal" were the propaganda of anti-gunners, as in: "That assault weapon is way more lethal than my duck-gun, and so it should be banned."
I never would. I would shoot to stop.
If I'm shooting to stop, and the guy falls, throws away his gun and puts his hands up, I get to stop. If I'm shooting to kill, well, he's still alive, so I have to keep shooting him even though he surrendered.
No way, no how would I shoot to kill. Ever.
Spats McGee
Administrator
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:
JohnKSa said:
Very good distillation!
JohnKSa said:
It is not just lack of mechanical safety that will be brought up. A three-year old posting on FaceBook about "killing 'em all" or a Molon Labe bumper sticker will make it easier for that person -- whose profession is making people look guilty -- to make it look like you have been stalking the streets with murderous intensions.
When I attended a civilian police academy for my upscale suburb, they showed actual footage of a raid on a meth lab. In this incident there were no shots fired; there was no resistance; it was just a bunch of heavily armed police overwhelming a few mopes in seconds. Two of the women (in a class of 12) objected to, what they deemed to be, an uncalled for use of force.
The police officer/instructor told them that they had a warrant that authorized the raid, and that such force is necessary because they never know what they are going to encounter on the other side of the door. Both of the women said that such excuses didn't justify that use of force.
I saw that video and thought, "well done."
They saw lots of scary police armed with scary black rifles -- and they are the ones who are going to be on the jury when that person -- whose profession is making people look guilty -- says your four and half pound pull is a "hair trigger".
We live in a society where the evening news reporters gasp when they report on someone in possession of 500 rounds of deadly magnum ammunition.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Spats, OldMarksman, and JohnKSa have covered the ground very well. I'll just add this:
I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who would qualify as 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 to be reckless.
I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who would qualify as 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 to be reckless.
Spats McGee
Administrator
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:
The State has firearms experts at the State Crime Lab. They're on salary and the State has an almost unlimited budget compared to me. I generally try to avoid getting into "battles of the expert witnesses" with any entity whose budget dwarfs mine.
Spats, you are obviously an accomplished attorney, and you view and argue from that experience. I am (quite obviously) not; my experience is in tactics and deploying force. Let me add my perspective to your examples, below:
Yes, hyperbolic, but to a purpose; if you find a trigger you can shoot better than a stock trigger (I have) you increase your chances of survival, and of not injuring an innocent, by using it. Some would argue that not doing everything within your power to increase the accuracy with which you can deploy a defensive sidearm is nearly negligent, although, again, I am not an attorney.
Larry
Yes, hyperbolic, but to a purpose; if you find a trigger you can shoot better than a stock trigger (I have) you increase your chances of survival, and of not injuring an innocent, by using it. Some would argue that not doing everything within your power to increase the accuracy with which you can deploy a defensive sidearm is nearly negligent, although, again, I am not an attorney.
Larry
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.
2. If a person truly can't find a gun with an unmodified trigger that they can manage, then making it lighter might be the only option. I suppose in some areas where gun choices are very restricted this could be realistic. In that kind of a gun-unfriendly area, the modification will likely be the least of your worries if you have to shoot someone. Anyway, that aside, it might complicate one's defense but, as you say, being on trial is better than being dead--or at least it is depending on how your prison sentence plays out if you are convicted. I suppose being dead isn't the worst possible thing that could happen to a person.
3. The moving, bobbing, headshot only, don't have time to call SWAT, target holding the child at 20+ yards is a good example of what it takes to try to justify lightening a trigger on a quality self-defense handgun with a typical trigger. What's ironic is that the same people who will argue that the chances of a modified trigger being used against someone in court are remote have no problem using very unlikely scenarios to justify modifying triggers. Besides, from what I see at the ranges, if Sally is like the typical shooter, she can't reliably make body hits at 20+ yards on stationary targets--even with the best gun and nicest trigger on the market. Which means that blaming her failure on a bad trigger might not really be getting at the heart of the problem.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The title of the thread uses the word "consensus," and it rather appears that there isn't going to be one.
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.
OldMarksman
Staff
Not so fast! There are rules of evidence that govern the admissibility of expert testimony.
They vary among jurisdictions, and within jurisdictions, they many differ for criminal trials and civil trials.
First, the witness has to have some credentials attesting to his or her expertise. Then his or her testimony, or more accurately, the basis for his or her opinions, must meet certain criteria.
No, if the recognized experts testify that a four pound pull for thereabouts is a prudent minimum, that's what the jury is going to hear.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Frank or Spats may jump in to correct me, but as a licensed professional who has testified in court as a qualified expert multiple times, my understanding is that once the court has accepted my qualifications, what I am testifying to is my opinion as an expert. The opposing side may produce their own qualified experts, whose expert opinions may differ from mine.
An expert witness is different from a fact witness. Once accepted as an expert, ALL an expert witness is testifying to is his or her opinions.
An expert witness is different from a fact witness. Once accepted as an expert, ALL an expert witness is testifying to is his or her opinions.
OldMarksman
Staff
Not exactly. This is an area in which I worked in a prior life.
For the expert testimony to be admissible, the judge--the gatekeeper--must determine that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that the expert has applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
That, to my way of thinking, involves a lot more than "opinion".
Again, there are variations among jurisdictions and sometimes, between civil and criminal court rules.
As we speak, there an effort ongoing to change the rules of evidence concerning expert testimony in my state, at least for civil trials.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Aguila Blanca 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.
- 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.
- And you need a witness who (1) can qualify as an expert; (2) is credible and not unduly vulnerable on cross examination; and (3) has an opinion that supports your position. Depending on your position, such an expert might be tough to find. 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.
There are lots of qualified "experts" that will offer differing opinions and they all can be valid.
A good defense lawyer is going to hammer all the witnesses he needs to.
If it's a good shoot the trigger weight won't matter at all.
This is all just fantasy speculation anyway, so one fantasy as as good as another.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I thought that was part of the qualification process.Frank Ettin said:
For example, I'm an architect with a fair amount of experience in diagnosing building problems such as leaky roofs and cracked masonry. If I'm testifying about a leaky roof, before I'm asked my opinion of why it leaked I expect to be questioned about my experience in diagnosing leaky roofs. My opinions regarding the roof du jour are based on the experience that qualified me as an expert.
On the other hand, I have never designed a hospital. Regardless of what my opinion might be on a hospital design dispute, regardless of whether my opinions are spot on or way out in left field -- I would never be qualified as an expert in a hospital design case, despite more than 40 years in practice. So my opinions would never be heard.
'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.
There's a good example of this in the news right now. The man who shot the three teens in OK with an AR-15 when they broke into his house stated on the 911 call that he didn't shoot the third burglar. The one found dead in the driveway. Although it's unlikely that he will even be charged from a criminal perspective, his statement that he didn't shoot one of the criminals may be seen as evidence that particular shot was unintentional which creates a prime opportunity for a civil suit since insurance companies cover damages resulting from unintentional acts.
And, of course, not every shooting is such that the circumstances make it blatantly obvious that it was self-defense. If every self-defense shooting was obviously self-defense there would never be any trials involving self-defense shootings. Since there obviously are trials involving self-defense shootings, we can easily see that it's not always blatantly obvious that a shooting is self-defense. Given that reality, we can either prepare for that possibility or ignore it.
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.
It's not true that all speculation on the topic is "fantasy". It is true that a person who has no experience or knowledge of real-world courtroom proceedings would likely provide predictions/opinions that qualify as "fantasy".
The idea that all opinions/predictions have equal weight isn't realistic at all. Not in this case and not in general. People who are experienced/knowledgeable about a particular topic will be able to provide opinions/predictions that have far more value than those who are providing opinions/predictions based on little or no real-world experience and/or factual knowledge on the topic.
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.
The link is a video which demonstrates how some drop-in triggers can actually deactivate/nullify internal passive safeties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJRXZwslXoE
OldMarksman
Staff
But the trigger weight may well enter into the determination of whether it was a "good shoot".
- Status