[Rob96]

I have read two articles now in which Mas Ayoob states that when used in a shooting it is easier to defen yourself when the gun used is a Glock. How does he get this? I have a G19 and a Colt 1911, both of which I use for carry. He states the court accepts the Glocks DAO trigger, versus the 1911's single action hair trigger. With this guy I think it all depends on which company is paying his fee.

[tiberius]

Unless its an ND, how does trigger action have anything to do with anything?

I'm assuming that the guy in court intentionally shot someone. I'm not a lawyer but it seems that this advice only makes sense in referense to "accidents"

[4v50 Gary]

Glock has a "safe action" and the 1911 a single action? :confused: Perhaps it's the stigma against the 1911? We need more info on why Mas says what he says.

[Jeeper]

I agree with Gary. We need more info. I think this might be in the same "old wives tale" category with the supposed stigma against handloads. Someone did a study and couldnt find a single case where handloaded ammo was even mentioned by the prosecution. I would like to know why he says this though. Any further info would be great.

[CWL]

Could it have something to do with how Glocks are so ubiquitous with police agencies nowadays? Certain people and depts. have always been fearful of how "cocked and locked" looks.

Then again, I personally doubt this story until I see more info.

[braindead0]

Well, if your local PD stopped using SA autos in favor of DAO or 'Safe Action' and said that it was for increased safety...well...

That might be brought up in a court..."Why didn't you use a safer gun". Not that it makes any logical sense, but we are talking about a jury of the only people not smart enough to get out of it.. if you're lucky there will be a couple of people in the Jury who aren't in the first category.

[FPrice]

Can you tell us which articles you are referring to?

[Wanderer]

Mas friggin carries a 1911 some of the time, where does he get this stuff. If the shooting was justifiable it doesn't matter what gun was used.:rolleyes:

[clubsoda22]

Allow me to enlighten.

How would a lawyer bring this up in a court case?

Someone give me a possible quesion a lawyer could ask you on the stand that would bring your use of the 1911 into question. Now, do this without leading or starting the question with the word "why" (if your wondering why not use "why", it's because it leaves the door open for the person on the stand to say whatever he wants.) Then you will know why it is imposible to bring it up in court.

[mainmech48]

IMO, everyone who has made the decision to keep and carry firearms for self defense should read Mr. Ayoob's book "The Truth About Self Protection". Especially Part IV, "Postvention".

Reality Check: If you EVER have to use your weapon against an assailant, no matter how justified it was, you WILL be run through the wringer of the Justice Machine by either your attacker (should he survive) or his various relatives and some contingency fee Bottom Feeder of a lawyer.

The tactic that he's describing has been used, successfully, by plaintiff's attorneys to short circuit an affirmative defense. Briefly, in most jurisdictions one is justified in DELIBERATELY resorting to the use of lethal force under variously defined circumstances. But if said Bottom Feeder can introduce ANY element that will place the slightest implication of negligence or "blood lust" on your part, he can and will try to parlay that into enough reasonable doubt to put your Personal Favorite Butt in serious jeopardy-AGAIN!

That's one reason why many LEAs now require DAO or "safe action" sidearms. It's real, folks and you as a civilian won't have the resources of an entire jurisdiction, financially or emotionally/psycologically, to help you avoid complete personal ruin should it happen to you.

I've never been in a courtroom except for one divorce and a couple of jury calls. My personal experience with how the "system" really works is virtually nil. I pray, fervently, that it'll stay that way.

Mr. Ayoob and others have BTDT on both sides of the equation. I'd rather learn about and prepare for what actually happens in "The Gravest Extreme" from their experience and advice than find myself neck-deep in elephant s--t without knowing that it was coming.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

I didn't think either gun was allowed in court. :D


Anyway, you could make the opposite argument that a gun with an external hammer and manual safety is a more responsible choice. As long as you're not using something that is obviously a target gun only, I don't see how it could come up.

[tiberius]

So someone who uses an antique pistol designed nearly a hundred years ago that their Great-granfather carried in WWI appears more "blood-thirsty" than someone who uses a high-tech, plastic, high-capicity wonder pistol that fires by just pressing trigger because it has no external safeties?

I don't think so............but I am open to "enlightenmment" if someonce can provide citations of this actually causing a conviction or more serious punishment. Real courrt cases only, not conjecture because it just doesn't pass the common sense test.

[Rob96]

Current issue of Combat Handguns has an article from where he is comparing the defensibilty of using a bob-tailed revolver to a cocked and locked 1911. And there is one more mag, might even be a previous issue of the same rag. I know Mas has BTDT but he also seems to go with the advertisment flow of said publications. I mean after all he advocates carrying a Ruger P-90 with the safety on, something that has to be manually flipped off before you can shoot. 1911 you have to fully depress the grip safety and deactivate the thumb safety before it will fire. Glock, point and shoot. I am not choosing gun sides, as I own both a Glock and a 1911. I also use both for carry. He makes statements where he contradicts himself. He also made referrence to the 1911 having a air trigger. Last I knew stock 1911's came with trigger pulls in the 5-7lb range. Stock Glocks come with 5lb. trigger pulls.

[pale horse]

If the shooting is righteous I dont think it would matter what you were/are using. Further more I give little weight to "gun guru professionals" due to them knowing everything and spouting off what they think is gospel truth. If that is what he thinks well ho hum.

[Standing Wolf]

I give little weight to "gun guru professionals" due to them knowing everything and spouting off what they think is gospel truth.

Amen! The gospel truth seems to change about every three issues.

Personally, I carry a revolver almost all the time: the only 100% reliable semi-automatic pistol I've ever owned in a .22 caliber High Standard Trophy: doesn't pack much punch, and isn't the least bit concealable.

[Lone_Gunman]

The type of gun, caliber, ammo type etc, can be better used against you in a civil case than in a criminal case.

Remember in a civil case, the plaintiff will have a lawyer who is motivated by getting your money. They wont care about what is right or wrong, just the money. Thats the whole point of the civil case.

He will make you look as bad as possible, and if he can imply to a jury that the gun you used was a wreckless choice, then he will do it. If the jury has a bad perception of you, they will give the Plaintiff more money.

Sure you can get experts to line up and say there is nothing wrong with your gun choice, but you are on the defensive at that point and the damage has already been done. The question has been raised. That is all the idiots in the jury box will remember.

Now a really smart lawyer can use about any gun choice against you.

"Your 1911 has a hair trigger"

"Your Glock doesnt have a manual safety"

"Your 357 is a magnum, that means it is extra powerful."

"Your Beretta 92 has a 15 round mag, and you can't even buy those anymore"

"Those hollowpoints are designed to cause increased damage"



All that being said, I don't know for sure if any of the arguments have ever been used, and I don't even know if there is any way to find that out. Juries dont usually state why they make the awards they do in civil cases.

In the end though, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. It probably doesnt matter what gun you use, none is going to look good in civil court.

Me, I like the hair trigger on my 1911 pretty good.

[litman252]

Combat Handguns
Sept. 2003
page 8

Ayoob is interviewing A lawyer, and they are making the case for:

Case One, box stock guns, no mods at all.

Case Two, Colt comander ACCIDENTALLY DISCHARGED and killed someone.

Case Three, Every one should use a glock with a 8 pound NY trigger job.
(sorta goes against case one????)

Case Four, Hallow points, and clean guns and brand name ammo only.

In all fairness these don't appear to be Ayoob's opinions, more of the lawyers.

Tony:confused: :rolleyes:

[biere]

I forget where I read it, but someone had a great argument about the problem with handloads or factory loads.

It was along the lines of, who cares what the gun fired I was scared enough I had to use a firearm to protect my life. Simply having to use a firearm is a far bigger window for a lawyer to throw rocks at than this home made brew vs. a factory brew.

Oh, one thing about the factory brews was along the lines of how they were advertised. Should someone use wad cutters or target loads since hollow points expand and are somehow "deadlier"? Many of the high end rounds sold for personal protection advertise as being "deadlier" than others so I think that line of thinking would go along with the home made vs factory made.

As for one having a safety to flick off and another having a safety in the trigger, I agree with all who say mas goes with the flow.

I have some of his books and get a magazine where he writes an article for each issue. The man has been around a bigger block than I have, but I will not blindly follow his advice because at times he will contradict himself a bit. Of course this is over several years so maybe he is just learning, as we all are.

[Lone_Gunman]

I think you guys are focusing too much on the criminal trial, and not the civil trial.

Even if no criminal charges are made against you (ie, DA thinks it is a righteous shooting), there will likely still be a civil trial

If there is a criminal trial, and you are found not guilty, there will still be a civil trial.

The requirements for a civil trial are different than for criminal. It is much easier to be found liable in a civil trial. Remember OJ?

[9x19]

Hand a jury a cocked and unlocked* 1911 and let them try the trigger pull.

Hand a jury a trigger forward Glock and let them try the trigger pull.

If you are trying to make a case for negligent discharge, which would the (non gun-aware) jury be more likely to view as a "hair trigger"?


If you don't know, you probably lack experience with both triggers.

In any case, are you willing to bet the family fortune (present or future) on it?

FWIW

*(Obviously the 1911 safeties were all disengaged, else the pistol would never have fired, eh?)

[Lone_Gunman]

9x19,

I think the jury could not tell the difference. And yes I am very familiar with both triggers, and own multiple glocks and 1911s. All the jury would know is that you just have to pull the trigger and both guns would fire. They don't know enough to be able to distinguish the subtlties of the triggers.

Even if they could, though, there would be no situation where a lawyer for either side would want to do that test.

[Hal]

Case Four, Hallow points, and clean guns and brand name ammo only.
hehe, maybe Preacherman can you say a long distance blessing over all our ammo?:D


I'm a long time fan of Mr. Ayoob,,,,,,,,,but he's getting kinda strange (ain't we all?) as time goes by.

[cool45auto]

In all fairness these don't appear to be Ayoob's opinions, more of the lawyers.
That's the way I took it, too. The lawyer was giving his opinions on what he'd run up against in court. I believe every time something like those things came up the were overturned though.

[Mike Irwin]

Sometimes I really think it's easier to defend yourself if you haven't read Mas at all...

[BHPshooter]

When reading things that Ayoob and Cooper say, I find myself liking them less and less.

What is required to fire a loaded Glock? Pull the trigger. Bang.

What is required to fire a 1911, condition 1? Get a proper grip, taking care of the grip safety. Thumb off the thumb safety. Press trigger. Bang.

And a Glock looks better?

No offense to the Glock crowd -- I mean no ill.

I'm just sick of these antigun hoplophobes that won't put the proper blame where it belongs -- on the violent criminal, rather than the poor working sap who's just trying to protect what he's sweat and bled for.

:cuss:

Wes

[Boats]

When Mas Ayoob actually gives a case cite in the proper legal classification notation, showing a civil case wherein a righteous self-defender is held to account on the basis of the weapon he or she has chosen, give me a call and I'll be more impressed with his legal "hyping." Until then, I will take my chances that next to no attorney will take up the civil case of a BG righteously shot, which is the only SD shooting I will ever be involved in. I am an attorney, I know the law, and I follow the legal proceedings in good guy non-police shootings as a hobby and I have never seen or heard of a successful bad guy civil suit in my jurisdiction.

Seriously, anyone can make an argument against any weapon used in self defense to flavor a so-called "legal" article:

"Ladies and gentleman, the defendant used a 36 ounce aluminum bat on my client, specifically chosen because it would not break during his murderously excessive assault on my client. That level of force was unjustifed by the actions of my client."

"The defendant purposely selected the largest kitchen knife he owned to "defend" himself, what does that tell you about his state of mind? He premeditatedly chose the knife most capable of killing my client."

"The .44 Special the defendant used was created specifically for those who thought the .357 Magnum wasn't lethal enough, and the hollowpoints used are specifically advertised, as I have shown, to cause maximum damage to human beings. Even the police in this town use a smaller, less lethal round. What was the defendant thinking? I'll tell you. . ."

"The defendant used a pistol, that as she testified, 'she always keeps loaded and cocked.' She was just waiting for the opportunity to use it on someone and when given that chance she did."

"The defendant used one of those high capacity Glocks, the preferred weapon of gangsters, using high capacity clips, that have been banned for a decade."

"The defendant's folding combat knife has a special hole formed into the blade to give it the speed and lethality of a switchblade. What normal person would call such a weapon 'a tool'?"

"The defendant used a shotgun, all but guaranteeing he would kill the deceased, which he certainly ensured by firing three blasts."

Blah, blah, blah. Mas needs to help sell magazines. I have yet to hear of a civil or criminal non-negligent shooting/use of lethal force, or a righteous one wherein the good guy didn't perform some sort of cover-up, which turned on the type of firearm or other weapon used. If someone could point to even one, I'd appreciate hearing about it with a case cite.

Thanks.

[craigz]

I might think that Ayoob is a small town Barney Fife wannabe whose opinion is for sale to the highest bidder, but he has more experience as an expert witness on firearms than almost anyone. One of the things I've learned about this country is that the primary objective of the legal system is to keep lawyers employed, and as long as that is the case, things are rarely going to make sense. Certainly these arguments are specious to anyone who knows about firearms, but since when has that stopped something from being a successful ploy in court?

[JohnBT]

"In any case, are you willing to bet the family fortune (present or future) on it?"

Yup.

I'll be alive and by the time the appeals are exhausted I'll be ready for the nursing home - at government expense if need be. Your personal circumstances may vary.

Anybody ever won a civil suit against the family of the crook for raising such a rotten human being and not keeping him off the street? Looks like a conspiracy to me. They should have had the crook treated and cured him of his evil ways before his target had to do it for them.

John

[Nero Steptoe]

Ayoob is OBVIOUSLY such a mental lightweight, that I just can't believe that his opinions even merit discussions by rational, intellingent gun owners. He's absolutely f.o.s.!

[Henry Bowman]

The more Ayoob I read, the less of it I believe.

[Stealthfixr]

It amazes me how people can rationalize and deny almost anything, against the facts. If you read Ayoob's interview with this lawyer (also a former cop), who is a very successful one at defending justified shootings, they explain their recommendations in gun choice. It is a good read for anyone who may use a firearm for self-defense of any kind. They do not attack the 1911 design, but in fact state that it was a carry choice of theirs at a point in time (again, read the article)--it was not an attack on anyone's sacred cow.

That said, I would much rather be involved in a justified shooting with a gun that was more legally defensible--like a DA/SA CZ or Sig, or a DAO Glock. You do not have to like it, agree with it, or change your own habits because of it. A really good tip in the article was that it makes sense to carry the gun AND ammo that your local law enforcement officials carry--much easier to defend in a local court. However you take this, it is our legal REALITY--deny it or accept it--your choice.
:banghead:

[TamThompson]

Disclaimer: I've never had to shoot anyone, nor have I been involved in any court proceedings outside of traffic tickets.

From what I've heard, it doesn't seem to matter much if you're shooting a Glock or a 1911, so long as it is a common-variety caliber and a common gun and a common ammo that lots of other people, particularly your local LE, carry. I carry a Glock 30 loaded with Hydrashox. That's a very popular gun, & very popular ammo. Therefore, I'd guess my chances of being successfully painted as a "gun-crazed psycho who was just itching to try out her toys" don't amount to much as long as I haven't done anything terribly stupid.

If, on the other hand, I were to carry a Desert Eagle .50 loaded with some exotic ammo that is currently illegal, and dress up the gun with a tac light and hi-cap mag and perhaps a nice scope, then they'd probably be more inclined to view me as a "gun nut."

I'm not saying don't own or shoot exotic guns and exotic ammo--just that I'd limit them to the range and ranch, and for my self-defense (CARRY) gun I'd take care to choose a common model and caliber between .38 and .45 (including the .357's, of course.)

[Boats]

However you take this, it is our legal REALITY--deny it or accept it--your choice.

Except it is not the legal reality or these guys would be able to point out some easily found leading cases from at least one jurisdiction. After all, what wrongly convicted/found liable self-defense shooter would not appeal an adverse decision like the nightmares these yahoos repeatedly describe that would at least provide us with one opinion from anywhere from a Court of Appeals?

:rolleyes:

[txgolfer45]

If the shoot was justified, it shouldn't come to what kind of weapon you used!!!

Scott

[clubsoda22]

I believe the only option is to shoot to kill. A dead perp can't sue.

Now we have to change the laws so we can then shoot to kill his money grabbing family that wants nothing more than to profit from the death of the son who they haven't seen since he stole and pawned their television to buy crack 4 years ago.

Then we have to change the laws so we can shoot to kill any lawyer who would think of supporting the above civil action.

I see the lawsuit mentality all the time in the field as an EMT. It gets real hard to show professional respect to someone who has a 1/2" cut on their finger and is trying to draw workmans comp, or someone who got into a fender bender/slip and fall and is obviously faking a neck injury. Trust me, you can tell when they're faking, like when you pull out a long spine board and suddenly it's not that bad and the immobilization device won't be neccecary. I make sure to document such occurances in my reports in professional but blatantly obvious fasion to make sure they get screwed when they get to court.

"Paitent presented in considerable pain localized in her neck. Spinal precautions were taken, however pt refused use of spinal immobilization devices stating "It's not all that bad" and that she just wants a ride to the hospital to be checked out for 'insurance reasons, if you know what i mean.' Left eyelid spasm noted."

Nothing you say is a secret, actually had the last one happen to me several times. People actually flat out tell me that they're trying to draw workmans comp or get some money out of a lawsuit in the back of the ambulance. Morons don't think i'll make a note of it.

[TamThompson]

ClubSoda22,
Yeah, I worked part-time in a law firm a few years ago (when I thought I wanted to go to law school), and one day a guy called. He sounded casual and curious, in no obvious distress, and said, "Hey, um, I just opened this can of soup, and there's a dead roach in it. Would that be, um...WORTH anything?"

I believe the word you're looking for (for these type of folks) is "opportunistic." (And that's being very polite.)

[Smoke]

I have yet to see a case where ammo used was an issue.

I suspect choice of weapon is the same.

Point me to specific facts where choice of weapon or ammo was a major point of argument, criminal or civil.

I beleive these stories are over blown.

S.M.O.B.M.

[dsk]

If you fear being sued more than being killed, don't own a gun. It's that simple. If you use any sort of physical force to repel an aggressor you'll likely face legal action. The perp has nothing to lose, as it's your tax money he and his attorney will take you to court with anyway.

In all my training and competition I've only used a 1911. I am by far the most familiar and competent with this particular type of weapon. Using any other type would expose me to the accusation that I used an unfamiliar weapon, and that it led to an "accident". In other words, Boats is right. They WILL try any angle, no matter what gun you used.