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.DT Guy said:Will an incremental improvement in shooting ability be the deciding factor in a self-defense encounter? I have no idea-and neither do you.
I agree, but there's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell.DT Guy said: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.
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..... if [using an extremely light trigger pull to "shoot better"] ....gave me an advantage, I would take it.
Does your experience include defending against civil liability claims associated with the use of a handgun?... I'm just discussing priorities from my experience.
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.How many of the cases you listed are actually self defense cases?
That's part of it. Another issue is whether the "defender" had instigated the confrontation.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)).
What a case is about is not important.There have been many cases where the ammunition used was brought up and questioned but not once in a personal defense case ...
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...
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.
....sometimes it's a question of the client's actions being so repugnant that the lawyer just cannot properly defend the client.
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.If the discharge was negligent it ceases to be a matter of self defense.
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?Never once that I am aware of has the characteristics of the gun or ammunition ever been considered in a self defense shooting.
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.
Does your experience include defending against civil liability claims associated with the use of a handgun?
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.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.
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.... 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.
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.ShootistPRS said: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.
And, again, your choice of tool may be used in determining whether the force that you used was necessary.ShootistPRS said: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)).
Harold Fish.ShootistPRS said: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.
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.DT Guy said: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.
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.Nathan said:So I would have to find a lawyer that specializes in that specific detail of the law, huh?Spats said:....sometimes it's a question of the client's actions being so repugnant that the lawyer just cannot properly defend the client.
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.DT Guy said: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?Spats said:I agree, but there's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell.
I love that saying!DT Guy said:.... 'if you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck'
Nauseous? Not a bit. Would it make me pause to consider the additional time and cost involved in defending you? Yes.DT Guy said: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.