Can a trigger job result in added liability in a deliberate shooting?

[Gottahaveone]

I realize that this is an all around bad incident, but what possible relation does the trigger job have to do with the negligent (and inappropriate) use of the firearm?

If this were a case of it having gone off unintentionally I could see the relationship. But if this was a prank being played as is apparently suspected, would it matter if it had a 10lb pull or a 5lb pull? While the trigger pull issue is a smoke screen, for once I can agree with a lawsuit. There is no way that the school officials should have ever allowed a situation to exist where this could occur.

"The gun had been "altered from its factory specifications to give it a 'hair trigger.' reducing by half the amount of force required to pull the trigger," Thayer says. "The modifications of the gun caused it to sometimes jam when the double action trigger pull was used to fire the gun."

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/25/31322.htm

 

[CoRoMo]

Your title doesn't match the article, so I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I assume you are asking about having trigger work done to a defense/carry weapon.

As for the incident, it does not appear to be a deliberate shooting, but the trigger job didn't cause this death. Unsafe gun handling and inferior instruction/supervision were to blame. There was a similar death on a movie set once. An unsupervised actor (Jon-Erik Hexum) placed a gun to his temple and fired a blank, killing himself.

But as far as a legal question here, if you had a trigger job done on your defense/carry weapon, it should not be a liability if you use that weapon to legally defend yourself. Barring an odd state law prohibiting the modification of a weapon, or a corrupt prosecutor in the jurisdiction, I don't buy it. It is like the old fear of carrying hollow points, or handloads, or +P ammo, etc.

 

[M-Cameron]

how many times do we need to say it before it finally sinks in.....

TREAT ALL GUNS AS IF THEY ARE LOADED !!!!!.....especially if they actually are loaded.....


sounds to me as though they were donkey-ing off and someone(or himself) held the gun to his head and pulled the trigger....thinking it would be funny......

because the gun must have been pretty close (if not point blank) for a blank cartridge to kill him......

i mean...if you need a gun for a play.....do everyone a favor and spend the $50-200 and buy an actual prop gun.......

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

IMO a trigger job is equal to putting better sights on, or adding a laser. These kind of things are stuff that a lawyer that is looking to try and win a lawsuit by labeling the homeowner that shot his client as a assassin just waiting for someone to come into his home.

Only time a trigger job would definatly result in a lawsuit is if it was WAAAAAAAY too light such as able to fire by the triggers own weight.

 

[bk42261]

This would seem like more of a reason for both parents and schools to educate children on the uses and dangers of firearms: ie there IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED FIREARM. If more people would educate themselves about proper firearms use instead of the crap they see on the tube and the news, the less problems we all would have.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Things wrong: 1) No adult supervision, or the supervisor was reckless in that regard 2) Use of a real gun 3) Use of a real gun by those not familiar with it 4) Use of blanks with no or inadequate experience with the use of blanks 5) violating safe gun handing rules (what was the gun doing aimed and in close proximity of the head?) 6) Hair trigger or not, a finger was on the trigger 7) School policy - firearms allowed on campus? I would think that the modification was about the LAST thing anyone should be looking at as far as culpability or blame, and then you could go to the guy that requested and PAID for that modification (and probably brought or loaned the gun to the schoold for the production), or the owner of the gun, etc.....not the guy that did the trigger job

 

[WardenWolf]

Wow. Stupid all around. As for the trigger job, no, it won't factor in this case. However, in certain cases it can, such as those involving an accidental discharge resulting in death or injury. Say a person drew their weapon because a person was being threatening to them in a disparity of force situation (the aggressor was bigger, stronger, etc.). The attacker stops advancing, but due to nervousness or what have you, the guy inadvertently shoots. In this case, if the gun had a trigger job, absolutely it would factor in. It would be considered to be recklessly modified into an unsafe condition.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It would be considered to be recklessly modified into an unsafe condition.

Have to disagree with the opinion, and I live in a state where they love to sue folks..., it could, not "would" be considered to be recklessly modified into an unsafe condition. How is lessening the trigger pull unsafe, for it is done on thousands of firearms each year with no ill effects? We don't know the factory average trigger pull for that handgun, but they are often 8 - 12 lbs., but even if it were only 6 pounds, that would give the gun a 3 pound trigger. Not "hair" at all.

"Reckless" is a pretty specific word in law, and means careless to the point to be heedless of the consequences. For the "trigger job" to do that..., an attorney would need to introduce evidence that the modification allowed the gun to go off without using the trigger (modified into an unsafe condition), and that the gun was not malfunctioning, and that the gun was known to go off without use of the trigger being pulled. Otherwise, there is nothing unsafe about that trigger job.

As was pointed out..., somebody pulled the trigger, and since one is not supposed to point the gun at an unintended target, and not supposed to touch the trigger until ready to fire..., there is no recklessness, let alone gross negligence, in the modification of the mechanism.

The lack of adult supervision, improper storage, the fact the gun sometimes malfunctioned with the owner's prior knowledge of this condition, coupled with the lack of proper safety instruction, are where the case will win or lose. The term "hair trigger" is simply inflamatory rhetoric being used by the plaintiff, or by the reporter.

LD

 

[Gottahaveone]

Your title doesn't match the article, so I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I assume you are asking about having trigger work done to a defense/carry weapon.

My title matches the part of the article I quoted. I am aware of all the other mistakes that were made that lead up to this situation occurring. And I am aware that a trigger that has been tweaked to a 1-2 pound pull resulting in a discharge occurring when you didn't intend it to is negligent and liable. My question is, assuming that you take a stock pistol with a very heavy trigger and have a competent smith reduce that pull down to a safe level (my personal floor is 4lbs on the 1911's I've had done) and then use that pistol in a situation where you make a deliberate choice to fire, does that trigger job come into play?

I personally despise any form of internal lock and even though it has no bearing on the safety of the weapon in question, I won't deactivate one just to keep from getting accused of creating an "unsafe" firearm should I ever be forced to use it. I would hate to find out that cleaning up a bad trigger can have the same consequence...

 

[Shadow 7D]

This is the same as putting custom features
using premium ammo
using reloads
etc.

If it goes to court and a prosecutor tries to go down this path, a decent lawyer should be able to cut him off at the knees, as what gun you used (as long as it is legal) should not be a question, rather is would be HOW it was used.

A good lawyer would ask: How do these questions reflect anything on what happened,

or you can counter by asking the lawyer what type of car he drives then attack his character for not loving the planet, etc.

If the questions are allowed by the defense, there is VERY little they can add to your case, and much to take a way, as they are a way to 'vilify' you for defending yourself against a poor innocent criminal who was just doing his part to break the law.... or what ever happened, they are attacking you for having the gun.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Some modifications, like better sights, probably wouldn't be a problem. But a super light trigger job (say a 2.5 pound trigger on a 1911) could be used to by a prosecutor to make the defendant appear reckless to a jury of non-gun type folks. And that my cause the jury to question the defendant's judgment about his decision that he had to shoot in self defense. And if I were prosecuting the case, I know at least one certified police armorer I could call as an expert witness and who would testify that in his expert opinion a single action trigger breaking at less than 4 pounds is unsuitable and reckless in a service pistol.

And let's get over the "a good shoot is a good shoot" business. If everybody agrees it was a good shoot, you wouldn't be on trial. If you're on trial, someone who matters doesn't think it was a good shoot. Now it's not a good shoot unless the jury decides it was.

Will a hair trigger guarantee a conviction? Of course not. But it won't help matters any. It becomes a wild card, and wouldn't have been an issue at all if you hadn't had the trigger job done. It's always been my experience that the less you have to explain, the better off you'll be.

I won't use a gun with a super light trigger for a self defense gun. I can do fine with my 1911s with a 4.5 to 5 pound trigger. But if you want a super light trigger, it's your choice. It won't be my problem.

 

[ironhead7544]

A lot of people think that blanks are harmless. They are not. The pressure is very high at the end of the barrel. In the fifties fast draw with blanks was popular and holsters were made with metal liners to prevent injuries. I heard of more than one incident where the gun fired as it was being drawn. The blanks blew a hole in the metal liner. BTW, all my carry guns have box stock triggers.

 

[lambertiana]

I have heard of instances where an overeager DA tried to make the case that a modification to a lighter trigger indicates that the shooter was eager or anxious to shoot someone and wanted to modify the pistol to make that easier to do. I don't know if the DA was successful, but it's something to think about.

For someone who is not used to it, a light trigger is not a very safe option. Last week I tried out someone's GP100, and the trigger couldn't have been more than 1lb in SA. I had several shots go before I was fully ready when fired in SA (the first one took me completely by surprise, he did not warn me about the trigger). I had a hard time adjusting to that light trigger, and I have a lot of shooting experience. If I had been handling it carelessly and pointing it in an unsafe direction with my finger on the trigger, it would have been very easy to have a ND.

 

[Shadow 7D]

A lot of people think that blanks are harmless.

Just like those 1200FPS pellet guns that kill a kid or two every year, it's the 'misuse may result DEATH' part that seems to escape people, what ever happened to responsibility.

On a side note, a trained person, who had a good working knowledge of firearms and ammunition, including blanks, most likely could have prevented this tragedy. To bad his dad never taught him the 4 golden rules of firearm handling.....

 

[Jim K]

This is a civil suit, so the rules are not as tight as in a criminal case and grandstanding by attorneys and everyone else is common. The "blowback" wound idea is nonsense. Of course, brain matter would be blown back out the wound, but it is the result of the wound, not the cause of it.

Unfortunately, many folks have the idea that blank cartridges just make noise and can't harm anyone. Even when actors die as a result of damage from blanks, it just doesn't seem to register, and incidents like this happen. Did the light trigger play a role in the death? Maybe not, if the shot was deliberate. But the plaintiff's attorney will use it to show an attitude of recklessness and lack of concern for safety on the part of the gun owner so as to include him in the suit in a way that just loaning the gun might not. And he may be wealthy.

Remember always in a civil suit, the idea is to sue as many people, companies and political jurisdictions as possible to get the maximum amount of money (for the attorney, no one really cares about the person(s) actually harmed). That is why the kid who fired the shot wasn't sued - he has no money.

Jim

 

[JohnKSa]

If this were a case of it having gone off unintentionally I could see the relationship.

I have read of at least one case where a prosecuting attorney tried to prove that the defendant shot accidentally. The point of that would be that if he could prove the shot was fired accidentally then he could invalidate the claim of self-defense.

You can't claim self-defense if you shot someone accidentally. It's one of those catch-22s. The first step in claiming self-defense is admitting that you shot the person on purpose. The second step is showing that you were legally justified in using deadly force.

If you didn't shoot the person on purpose then your justification under the deadly force laws doesn't exist. You have to reasonably believe that shooting is your only option as defined by the law, and if you didn't shoot on purpose then clearly you didn't have that belief or you WOULD have shot on purpose.

 

[orionengnr]

Someone refresh my memory...
Didn't Shakespeare have something to say something about lawyers?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Didn't Shakespeare have something to say something about lawyers?...

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (Henry VI, Part 2 Act 4, Scene 2)

Of course, that's not going to happen. And if you ever need to use your gun in self defense, you may very well be grateful to have a good lawyer zealously protecting your interests.

 

[withdrawn34]

Depends on whether your state has civil immunity clauses or not. Make sure you only shoot in clean shoot situations, and you should be fine.

Lawyers, doctors, prostitutes, and politicians have been around since the beginning of human civilization; they're not going away anytime soon.

 

[Bubba613]

It's nonsense. If a shoot is good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. If the shooter says "I didnt mean to shoot him and the gun went off anyway" someone is going to jail or paying out a settlement. Alteration doesn't have much to do with it, except when it comes to suing a gunsmith or manufacturer for liability.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Can a trigger job result in added liability in a deliberate shooting?

I realize that this is an all around bad incident, but what possible relation does the trigger job have to do with the negligent (and inappropriate) use of the firearm?

Are you talking about a deliberate shooting or an accidental shooting(negligence). If you do something intentionally it is not negligent it is intentional. It's one or the other. I would imagine that trigger jobs only come up in accidental shootings - i.e. "I'd not mean to shoot him,"" I didn't mean to squeeze the trigger,"" The light trigger must have activated when a gust of wind caught it." etc. If you intentionally take a shot, then the weight of the trigger really does not matter.

The only argument I can see someone making in regards to trigger weight in an intentional shooting is with children. I.e. the gun should have had a 40lb trigger pull so that children do not have the strength to fire the weapon. Off the wall, but that's the only way I see it matters.

 

[Old Fuff]

About the time police departments and other law enforcement agencies were changing from revolvers to pistols some very sleazy members of the tort bar devised a way to make some quick (and big) bucks. It went this way:

1. Officer good-guy shoots a bad-guy with complete justification, and we’ll say for argument that the officer is cleared after an investigation. No criminal charges are filed.

2. Afterwards, an attorney, representing the late (but hardly lamented) bad-guy’s survivors, brings a civil suit against officer good-guy and the department he works for, and maybe the gun manufacturer as well – charging wrongful death.

3. The story put forward by the petitioner’s attorney is that officer good-guy didn’t intend to shoot bad-guy, but while he was covering bad-guy he cocked his revolver and then accidentally touch its “hair trigger” – and in so doing caused a wrongful death for which his survivors should we well compensated with a ton of tax-money – most of which the lawyer will get for him or her self.

Now this whole story is complete bull-droppings, but juries – especially in urban areas – are not often very knowledgeable about guns, or for that matter very bright at all; but while the lawyer on bad-guy’s side of this case can’t prove his story is true, the attorney on the other side probably couldn’t prove it wasn’t. So it’s up to whichever side the jury believed.

When the dust settled these lawyers won so many humongous judgments that some of the largest police departments in the country (not to mention federal agencies) had their revolvers altered to double-action only – which eliminated the “hair-trigger” issue.

This is not to say that one can’t have a trigger pull worked over on a defensive handgun, but in doing so it’s not wise to give someone’s attorney any openings he or she might exploit, and from this perspective there isn’t such a thing as a “good shoot” so far as a legal defense is concerned.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Make sure you only shoot in clean shoot situations,...

That's of course the idea. But people have shot when they thought they really had to, and nonetheless found themselves on trial.

It's nonsense. If a shoot is good, it's good....

So you thought it was a good shoot, but the DA or grand jury disagreed? That has happen more than once. Now it wasn't a good shoot unless your trial jury decides it was.

So now the prosecutor puts on an expert witness who testifies that it is foolish and reckless to have a trigger as light as yours on a gun intended to be used for self defense. Do you think that will affect the way a jury evaluates your claim that you are a reasonable and prudent person and acted as a reasonable and prudent person in concluding that lethal force was necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent?

Maybe the jury will still buy your story. But the light trigger isn't going to help you any. Personally, I'd prefer to avoid the wild card.

Your choice. Good luck.

 

[JohnKSa]

I would imagine that trigger jobs only come up in accidental shootings - i.e. "I'd not mean to shoot him,"" I didn't mean to squeeze the trigger,"" The light trigger must have activated when a gust of wind caught it." etc. If you intentionally take a shot, then the weight of the trigger really does not matter.

OR they can come up if the prosecutor (or civil court lawyer) decides to try to prove that you didn't shoot on purpose but rather shot by accident and then tried to claim self-defense to cover your error.

 

[Bubba613]

So you thought it was a good shoot, but the DA or grand jury disagreed? That has happen more than once. Now it wasn't a good shoot unless your trial jury decides it was.

So now the prosecutor puts on an expert witness who testifies that it is foolish and reckless to have a trigger as light as yours on a gun intended to be used for self defense. Do you think that will affect the way a jury evaluates your claim that you are a reasonable and prudent person and acted as a reasonable and prudent person in concluding that lethal force was necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent?

Maybe the jury will still buy your story. But the light trigger isn't going to help you any. Personally, I'd prefer to avoid the wild card.

If the grand jury doesn't think you acted right a light trigger will be the least of your worries.