Update: What is the current general consensus on carrying a modified handgun?

[Lohman446]

Risk: A lot

Reward: Virtually nothing

I'm going with pass.

 

[DT Guy]

I, personally, shoot better with light triggers. In certain circumstances (weak hand only, extreme ranges), A LOT better. I personally think my ultimate duty is to do everything I can to increase my chances of surviving a lethal encounter while minimizing risk to innocent bystanders, and do what I can to accomplish this.

Not everyone benefits from light triggers, and I realize that. But after years of formal training and competition, I know what works best for me, and it's light triggers, big, bright sights and gripping surfaces so sharp they'll *almost* draw blood.

Will an incremental improvement in shooting ability be the deciding factor in a self-defense encounter? I have no idea-and neither do you. The few times I've come close to having to use a firearm, I know I appreciated knowing that those firearms would allow me to shoot to the very best of my ability.

I want to survive the legal aftermath of a shooting; I NEED to survive the attack itself before that's even a question, though.


Larry

 

[Spats McGee]

Will an incremental improvement in shooting ability be the deciding factor in a self-defense encounter? I have no idea-and neither do you.

You are correct in that I do not know. If you thought I was claiming otherwise, my apologies for being unclear. Deploying force is not my specialty, not by a long shot. The development of policies and practices designed to minimize the legal impact of such deployment is more my speed.

I want to survive the legal aftermath of a shooting; I NEED to survive the attack itself before that's even a question, though.

I agree, but there's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell.

 

[DT Guy]

Spats said:

I agree, but there's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell.

But isn't that what this entire thread is about, essentially? If folks feel that making modifications to their firearm (presumably to allow them to shoot it better) will hurt their chances in a following trial?

Again, I'm not an attorney; my time in the military and police emphasized something more like Clint Smith's viewpoint that, 'if you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck', with strong emphasis on maximizing every single thing that might give me an advantage in surviving an attack.

I'm assuming that my telling you I shoot best with a 2# trigger would, in your experience as an attorney, make you completely nauseous at the prospect of defending a shooting I was involved in; yet if it gave me an advantage, I would take it.

And I appreciate your insight; it's not that I don't care about the aftermath of a potential encounter, I'm just discussing priorities from my experience.

Thanks,

Larry

 

[ShootistPRS]

Spats,
How many of the cases you listed are actually self defense cases? I ask because I don't have an account with West Law search.
When trying a case of self defense the only question is whether lethal force was necessary to stop the threat (which must be considered as dangerous or lethal (basically a felony with intent to do bodily harm)).

There have been many cases where the ammunition used was brought up and questioned but not once in a personal defense case has it ever been argued that I am aware of. In cases of manslaughter / murder it has been argued to be a factor in the severity of the crime but relative lethality has not been argued in a self defense case.

 

[OldMarksman]

.... if [using an extremely light trigger pull to "shoot better"] ....gave me an advantage, I would take it.

That raises the interesting question of whether a trigger that might help one "shoot better" at a target under ideal and controlled conditions would provide any practical advantage at all in a defensive encounter involving close range shooting that requires no real precision whatsoever and that takes place under such stress that the fine motor skills involved in trigger control are likely significantly impaired.

It also brings up the consideration of whether the shooter's performance in such areas as avoiding unintentional discharges under such conditions would be degraded.

The consensus among most of the recognized experts seems to be that the answer to the first question is no, and that the answer to the second question is yes.

... I'm just discussing priorities from my experience.

Does your experience include defending against civil liability claims associated with the use of a handgun?

 

[OldMarksman]

How many of the cases you listed are actually self defense cases?

I won't speak for Spats, but I know that he will agree that when the issue has to do with an alleged "hair trigger", whether or not the defendant had been claiming self defense has nothing to do with the question.

When trying a case of self defense the only question is whether lethal force was necessary to stop the threat (which must be considered as dangerous or lethal (basically a felony with intent to do bodily harm)).

That's part of it. Another issue is whether the "defender" had instigated the confrontation.

And that ignores the possibility of a civil plaintiff arguing that, whatever the defended may have claimed, that the shooting actually resulted from a negligent discharge that might have been attributable at least in part to a trigger modification.

Also, one of the things that those who are charged with deciding whether the use of deadly force had been lawfully justified can be expect to take into account, unless whatever evidence that has been pieced together after the fact convincingly supports a self defense claim, is the state of mind of the shooter. You pays your money for your modification and you takes your chance.

There have been many cases where the ammunition used was brought up and questioned but not once in a personal defense case ...

What a case is about is not important.

 

[ShootistPRS]

It could be argued in court that more lethality was used than was necessary. It isn't brought up though because it has nothing to do with whether lethal force was justified or not. If lethal force is justified then there is no question of greater or lesser lethality. If degrees of lethality or trigger pull weight were brought up and acted upon by the court it would set a defacto defense for using less lethal force or heavier trigger pulls.
The only question in a self defense case is whether lethal force was justified.

Now, when it goes to a civil case do the same rules apply? Is it still a question of was the use of force justifiable? or does it become a matter of all the incidental questions about the amount of force? Wouldn't that depend on what the suit charges? Most often it would be a wrongful death or wrongful maiming of a person. But if it was a legal action how can it be wrongful? If a guy is maimed in an armed robbery by a man defending himself with lawful force can the suit be found in favor of the cause for that force? Unfortunately yes. The jury can decide that there were extenuating circumstances that are worthy of payment by the defender. It is no longer a matter of law but instead becomes a matter of emotion.

 

[ShootistPRS]

Oldmarksman ...And that ignores the possibility of a civil plaintiff arguing that, whatever the defended may have claimed, that the shooting actually resulted from a negligent discharge that might have been attributable at least in part to a trigger modification...

I was discussing a criminal case and you bring in a civil case. The two are quite different and the topics have different evidential boundaries. In the criminal trial, the only question that must be answered is whether lethal force is justified. If the shooter started the the confrontation it ceases to be a case of self defense. If the discharge was negligent it ceases to be a matter of self defense.
Never once that I am aware of has the characteristics of the gun or ammunition ever been considered in a self defense shooting. If you have a circumstance where it has I would love to be proven wrong and read that transcript.

 

[OldMarksman]

It could be argued in court that more lethality was used than was necessary. It isn't brought up though because it has nothing to do with whether lethal force was justified or not. If lethal force is justified then there is no question of greater or lesser lethality. If degrees of lethality or trigger pull weight were brought up and acted upon by the court it would set a defacto defense for using less lethal force or heavier trigger pulls.
The only question in a self defense case is whether lethal force was justified.

You would be better advised, I think, after studying all four parts of MS Lisa Steele's writinngs, linked here:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6321743&postcount=81​

Regarding your contention about "more lethality", I'm not sure what you mean, but this from MS Steele may help: one of the basic elements of a justifiable self defense case is that the client used "no more force than was necessary in all elements of the case".

 

[Nathan]

....sometimes it's a question of the client's actions being so repugnant that the lawyer just cannot properly defend the client.

So I would have to find a lawyer that specializes in that specific detail of the law, huh?

 

[OldMarksman]

If the discharge was negligent it ceases to be a matter of self defense.

True. But a plaintiff may so argue the case as one of negligence (vs willful use of excessive force), to gain an advantage in terms likelihood of recovery of damages, and a prosecutor may so argue should he or she believe that the chances of conviction would be higher.

Never once that I am aware of has the characteristics of the gun or ammunition ever been considered in a self defense shooting.

Why do you seem to want to insist that what a defendant has claimed about justification as self defense would impinge in any way on legal questions relating to the gun or ammunition?

 

[DT Guy]

Old Marksman Said:

That raises the interesting question of whether a trigger that might help one "shoot better" at a target under ideal and controlled conditions would provide any practical advantage at all in a defensive encounter involving close range shooting that requires no real precision whatsoever and that takes place under such stress that the fine motor skills involved in trigger control are likely significantly impaired.

It also brings up the consideration of whether the shooter's performance in such areas as avoiding unintentional discharges under such conditions would be degraded.

The consensus among most of the recognized experts seems to be that the answer to the first question is no, and that the answer to the second question is yes.

Well, I can only go by the experience I've had during FOF exercises, competition and training; no, it doesn't lead to negligent discharges, at least for me. And yes, it DOES improve my shooting under stress of time, distance or critical targets (such as hostage scenarios.) Hundreds (probably thousands, if I ever wanted to add it up) of hours of weapons use in those environments, and the results have been consistent and predictable.

Does your experience include defending against civil liability claims associated with the use of a handgun?

Pretty sure I mentioned (repeatedly) that I'm not an attorney, so it would be odd if I had, wouldn't it? On the other hand, I was the departmental training officer, and had to write policies on use-of-force and other topics which were subject to legal review and challenge.

I realize you WANT me to carry a gun with a 7# trigger if you're an attorney; if you're the person charged with teaching me to win the fight (as I was for a number of years) you want me to do whatever is legal and moral to win. That's, perhaps, an irreconcilable difference in viewpoints between an attorney myself.

Larry

 

[OldMarksman]

Well, I can only go by the experience I've had during FOF exercises, competition and training; no, it doesn't lead to negligent discharges, at least for me. And yes, it DOES improve my shooting under stress of time, distance or critical targets (such as hostage scenarios.) Hundreds (probably thousands, if I ever wanted to add it up) of hours of weapons use in those environments, and the results have been consistent and predictable.

With all due repspect, might I suggest that the "stress of time, distance, or critical targets" in benign environments such as training is far less likely to impair fine motor skills than that experienced in an actual defensive encounter.

I have been involved in four defensive gun use incidents over the years, and for me, the effects were far more serious than i had ever imagined.

... if you're the person charged with teaching me to win the fight (as I was for a number of years) you want me to do whatever is legal and moral to win.

All of the training officers and other senior police officers whom I have known were equally concerned about the post-shooting phase, and about reducing the risk of unintentional discharge.

Two of them spent a lot of time in civil trials in which subordinates or other departmental personnel were defendants. They take the subject very seriously indeed.

All are retired, and all place personal liability issues at the top of the "priorities from their experience"--especially now that departmental indemnification is not part of the picture.

None would carry, or recommend that anyone else carry, a firearm optimized for competitive shooting.

None are attorneys.

Seven pounds? That's a bit heavier than I like.

 

[Spats McGee]

Spats,
How many of the cases you listed are actually self defense cases? I ask because I don't have an account with West Law search.

Few, if any. I didn't go through all 1300+ cases that came up during my search, only the first 50 or so results. On cursory review, most of them looked like criminal cases. Perhaps the defendant claimed that the shooting was accidental and wanted to put on some kind of "hair trigger defense." The point is that the trigger can become an issue at trial.

What makes you think it's important for it to be a self-defense case? And how do you define an SD case? One where the shooter claims SD? Or one in which the jury has determined that it was SD?

When trying a case of self defense the only question is whether lethal force was necessary to stop the threat (which must be considered as dangerous or lethal (basically a felony with intent to do bodily harm)).

And, again, your choice of tool may be used in determining whether the force that you used was necessary.

There have been many cases where the ammunition used was brought up and questioned but not once in a personal defense case has it ever been argued that I am aware of. In cases of manslaughter / murder it has been argued to be a factor in the severity of the crime but relative lethality has not been argued in a self defense case.

Harold Fish.

 

[Spats McGee]

I realize you WANT me to carry a gun with a 7# trigger if you're an attorney; if you're the person charged with teaching me to win the fight (as I was for a number of years) you want me to do whatever is legal and moral to win. That's, perhaps, an irreconcilable difference in viewpoints between an attorney myself.

Now let's be fair. I've not told you to carry a gun with a 7# trigger. I have no desire for you to do so. I just want you to understand the legal pitfalls of carrying one so far below normal, accepted factory standards.

 

[Spats McGee]

....sometimes it's a question of the client's actions being so repugnant that the lawyer just cannot properly defend the client.

So I would have to find a lawyer that specializes in that specific detail of the law, huh?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but let me give you an example of what I mean. Perhaps that will clarify things. Let's say I were in private practice and Hansel Horrendous comes in one day. He's been charged with killing his 13-year-old daughter by stoning her to death. The State's case is rock solid, complete with videos and confessions. He wants me to argue, not that he's innocent, but that his religion requires honor killings and he is therefore immune to prosecution under the First Amendment's religion clause. There's no way I could square my own beliefs with his defense well enough to defend him. I'd have to send him down the road.

 

[Spats McGee]

I agree, but there's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell.

But isn't that what this entire thread is about, essentially? If folks feel that making modifications to their firearm (presumably to allow them to shoot it better) will hurt their chances in a following trial?

Sort of. I don't think any of us is saying, "absolutely, positively, under no circumstances should you ever carry a modified firearm." We're saying weigh the risks and rewards.

I'm fortunate in that I'm satisfied with my factory Glock. It has factory night sights, but even if they weren't factory, I'm confident in my ability to articulate to a jury why I feel those necessary. I'm happy with the 5.5# factory trigger. To be honest, I'm not sure lightening the trigger to 2# would make enough of a difference for me to be able to justify it to a jury. If it makes enough of a difference in your shooting that you can justify it under cross-examination, that's your call. That may well mean, though, that the other side can parade a handful of experts through the courtroom that will say that 2# is too light.

Also consider that the danger in the light trigger is not necessarily how well you shoot, but how well you stop shooting if the threat ends.

.... 'if you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck'

I love that saying!

I'm assuming that my telling you I shoot best with a 2# trigger would, in your experience as an attorney, make you completely nauseous at the prospect of defending a shooting I was involved in; yet if it gave me an advantage, I would take it.

Nauseous? Not a bit. Would it make me pause to consider the additional time and cost involved in defending you? Yes.

 

[CDR_Glock]

Interesting points made through this post.


http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[acelaw]

I'm wondering how often they'd even test the trigger weight unless it's a drastic departure from the norm. Count me in the "not worried about it" crowd