Customize defensive firearms?

[Frank Ettin]

....That's why they have voir dire ....

And that tells me that you don't really understand much jury selection.

This is how jury selection works:

• Each side gets a set number of peremptory challenges and can thereby excuse a limited number of prospective jurors without stating a cause.
  
  
  • A lawyer owes an absolute duty of loyalty to his client. He is required to exercise his professional judgment in the best interests of his client.
    
    
  • So he will use his peremptory challenges to exclude those people from the jury who he, in the exercise of his professional judgment, believes will be least receptive to his client, his client's position, the witnesses his client might be offering and/or his client's legal arguments.
    
    
  • At the same time he will need to use his peremptory challenges to exclude those people from the jury who he, in the exercise of his professional judgment, believes will be most receptive to his client's opponent's position, etc.
  
  
• But he has only a limited number of peremptory challenges. And the other side will be doing exactly the same thing.
  
  
• So the result is that if each side has, say, ten peremptory challenges, the lawyer on each side will excuse without cause the ten possible jurors he has decided will be least desirable from his particular perspective. If there are 50 jurors in the jury pool, the jury will then consist of persons from the remaining group of 30, unless one side or the other can convince the judge of actual bias.
  
  
• The result of the process is probably going to be the most impartial jury available out of that jury pool of 50 people. But it won't be either sides ideal jury. The worst choices for either side will have been weeded out, but those remaining will have the usual assortment of prejudices, non-rational beliefs, and emotional quirks commonly found in any random group of people.

 

[Snyper]

... I thought this whole thread was about appearances, though.

And asking jurors in actual cases is not actually a reliable indicator, because all jurors and all cases are different.

I think my approach to it is CYA. I'm not against all modifications to carry guns, all of mine have been modified. But... Can You Articulate the reason for your modification? Does the articulation give anyone an extra excuse to look at you like a nut?

Another valid question I think about trigger modifications would be how exactly your trigger pull becomes an evidence exhibit.

I am just throwing this out here and don't presume to know the answer, but if your trigger work still leaves your pull weight within factory specifications, how would anyone know anything other than "The firearm was in good working condition and within factory specifications"?

No, it's not just about appearance, since the OP poll mentions trigger modifications.

The Meyer article was a simulation with mock trials that focused only on the appearance of the gun along with the genders of both the shooters and jurors.

One of the conclusions reached was simply having a gun could be an aggravating factor.

However, our studies and earlier studies indicate that the simple presence of the weapon can be influential. Attorneys should be cognizant of the gun presence, gender and gun type effects/gender interactions so as to mount an effective defense for their client.

Our findings confirm the general role of gender stereotype in decision-making. Also, weapons priming of negative attributions are extended to specific weapon types. Legal applications are varied. Prosecuting and defense attorneys may want to consider weapons and gender interactions during voir dire and trial. Law enforcement officers and homeowners may want to consider the interaction of weapons appearance and legal risk. This is not to say that effective weapons should not be used, but one would be foolish not to have knowledge of potential problems.

It's all about possibilities.

 

[Kleanbore]

After pulling some of the cited works in the article @Kleanbore linked, I recognized some of the works, but hadn't seen that particular article nor the simulation results. None of the results are surprising - it's purely intuitive once you consider the logic - but I'm glad to copy and save that particular work for my own records and reference.

Agree.

I REALLY want to see this simulation recreated in about 10-15yrs. We've seen a massive boom in AR-15 prevalence in the last decade, and have even seen positive-leaning news stories when AR's have been used in defense - so I'm wondering as the older generation starts washing out of the juror pool, will these results change?

That thought has occurred to me.

Are there any cases where a functional modification, not aesthetic modification, has lead to a bad shoot conviction or civil liability IN A DEFENSIVE SHOOTING which would (most likely - as we can only speculate, right?) should have been considered a good shoot without the modification?

The underlying problem there is that whether or not the shooing did in fact involve lawful self defense is the question that has to be answered. The defendant says it did , and if he or she has been successful in achieving the burden of production, the jury will be allowed to rule on that. The fact that the case has made it to court proves that not everyone yet agrees.

Did you listen to Andrew Branca's statements on the subject in the audio likg that Frank provided?

 

[JeffG]

To me a gun is a gun, but the civil litigation area being what it is, I don't do anything to give some attorney the means to win a settlement based on foolishness. You can't make a gun more deadly with slide cuts, and stickers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

No, it's not just about appearance, since the OP poll mentions trigger modifications....

It's not just about appearance, but the OP's poll also included appearance modifications.

....The Meyer article was a simulation with mock trials that focused only on the appearance of the gun along with the genders of both the shooters and jurors....

Well, that's one on the ways that sort of research is done.

....It's all about possibilities.

Well everything is about possibilities -- until something happens. Each possible choice we make has its set of possible consequences. Most people prefer to make choices which will maximize the possibility of positive consequences and minimize the possibility of negative consequences.

 

[Deanimator]

And that tells me that you don't really understand much jury selection.

Just not apparently that you were able to show.

NOTHING you said contradicted ANYTHING I said.

 

[Snyper]

Well- designed and well conducted simulation is an accepted and effective method for planning trial strategies; for air-to-air combat training; for developing and testing procedures for disaster management; for the evaluation of weapon system effectiveness; fours in automotive crash-wordiness evaluation; and for the establishment of performance specifications.

That would be impractical in the extreme. There have been far too many trials, each with far too many variables.

The OP mentioned "visual customization"--appearance.

Dr. Meyer's article addresses that rather well, I think, but if you are referring to someone like the resection of trigger pull weight, do some searching--that has been covered here ad nauseam over the years.

It also mentioned trigger modifications, as do several of the first few posts.
I realize that topic has been done "ad nauseam", but then so have many others that keep being repeated.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just not apparently that you were able to show.

NOTHING you said contradicted ANYTHING I said.

Of course it does. You implied that voir dire eliminates the Suzi Soccermom factor. The point is that it does not.

 

[Snyper]

It's not just about appearance, but the OP's poll also included appearance modifications.

Well, that's one on the ways that sort of research is done.

Well everything is about possibilities -- until something happens. Each possible choice we make has its set of possible consequences. Most people prefer to make choices which will maximize the possibility of positive consequences and minimize the possibility of negative consequences.

So you agree with everything I said.

Sometimes modifications can maximize the possibility of the most positive outcome, which is to survive the shooting situation.

 

[Deanimator]

Of course it does. You implied that voir dire eliminates the Suzi Soccermom factor. The point is that it does not.

I DECLARED that it was A remedy. If I had meant that it was the ONLY remedy, I wouldn't have cited OTHERS.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Sometimes modifications can maximize the possibility of the most positive outcome, which is to survive the shooting situation.

Certainly some people believe that. But I doubt that anyone could show that a set of Punisher grips will help survive a violent encounter.

Some gun modification could be helpful in the incident -- good sights, for example. But it's generally possible to learn to manage a decent, stock trigger quite well.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I DECLARED that it was A remedy. If I had meant that it was the ONLY remedy, I wouldn't have cited OTHERS.

It's really not even a remedy, for the reasons I've outlined. Jury selections only really helps eliminate extreme outliers.

You also mentioned expert witnesses. Well both sides will have their experts, and what do you think your expert will be testifying about? 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 1911 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.

Decorations, embellishments or other appearance modification which might be viewed negatively by a jury don't even have to be mentioned at trial. The gun used will be entered into evidence. It will be shown to the jury when it's introduced into evidence. It will probably be shown to the jury again during the prosecution's closing arguments. The jury will see the gun and whatever decorations or embellishments are there.

 

[Deanimator]

But it's generally possible to learn to manage a decent, stock trigger quite well.

1. Define "manage".
2. Define "stock"

What SHOULD a "stock" trigger pull be and how WELL should someone be able to "manage" it?

If I defensively shoot somebody with an Olympic free pistol with an electronic trigger with a weight of 2 lbs. 3.2 oz. (1000 grams), is that evidence of wrongdoing?

 

[Kleanbore]

If I defensively shoot somebody with an Olympic free pistol with an electronic trigger with a weight of 2 lbs. 3.2 oz. (1000 grams), is that evidence of wrongdoing?

Define "wrongdoing".

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I don't use guns in a violent way, so I see no appeal to putting lame aggressive, violent, or childish visual crap on it.

Optimizing a gun to suit you is a good thing. However, there are plenty of stock models out there that will serve effectively as defensive tools. I would much rather carry a gun that has little sentimental value, and only represent a minimal investment for the gun and spare magazines. Not that price defines my choice, only that I don't really invest money beyond the gun and mags. If a gun may get seized due to it's use, I'd rather it be a tool and not an heirloom.

I use factory new carry ammo.

 

[Frank Ettin]

1. Define "manage".
2. Define "stock"

What SHOULD a "stock" trigger pull be and how WELL should someone be able to "manage" it?...

By "stock" I mean the un-modified trigger as it comes from the factory. By "manage" I mean to shoot it accurately enough to pass a reasonable qualification test -- such as the one Massad Ayoob uses for his MAG-40 class. Actually, someone should really be able to do better than that. I know I can -- with my factory Glock, factory H&K and factory S&W Shield triggers.

I've also seen folks do consistently worse with modified triggers. Their problem wasn't the trigger. Their problem was never having learned to shoot.

....If I defensively shoot somebody with an Olympic free pistol with an electronic trigger with a weight of 2 lbs. 3.2 oz. (1000 grams), is that evidence of wrongdoing?

If you used that because in a exigent situation it was what was immediately available, I see no problem. It that's your regular carry gun, any number of folks might question your judgment.

 

[Hanzo581]

Not that long ago, a female cop shot at a [non-poisonous] snake in a tree from a lot closer than that. She missed and hit a young boy a block or two away, killing him.

I don't recall her being indicted, convicted, or serving jail time. I suspect that I would be treated somewhat differently...

I have no idea what this story has to do with anything. An idiot firing a gun in the air at a snake and hitting a bystander proves what? If she had only had a match grade trigger she would have hit it? That's a hefty stretch, not to mention even if she did hit it the bullet still would have traveled through it hitting God knows what.

 

[CraigC]

As usual, these discussions revolve around a lot of opinions and theories and those who form them are viciously defensive of them. Just like with handloads for self defense, very little evidence to support what I consider to be an irrational fear conceived by and perpetuated by seemingly paranoid shooters.

 

[Hanzo581]

As usual, these discussions revolve around a lot of opinions and theories and those who form them are viciously defensive of them. Just like with handloads for self defense, very little evidence to support what I consider to be an irrational fear conceived by and perpetuated by seemingly paranoid shooters.

If we took out threads where opinions and theories were rampant this site would be a ghost town.

 

[Deanimator]

Define "wrongdoing".

Unlawful homicide or wounding.

 

[Deanimator]

I have no idea what this story has to do with anything.

What it has to do with assertions regarding trigger weights and engagement distances. She was a LOT closer the seven yards, shooting at something that couldn't run away, and still missed and killed somebody.

How could a heavy trigger pull make that BETTER?

 

[Deanimator]

By "stock" I mean the un-modified trigger as it comes from the factory.

What if the stock trigger was 1lb.? Ok then?

That sounds arbitrary.

I've also seen folks do consistently worse with modified triggers. Their problem wasn't the trigger. Their problem was never having learned to shoot

How about the ones who did learn to shoot?.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hanzo581]

What it has to do with assertions regarding trigger weights and engagement distances. She was a LOT closer the seven yards, shooting at something that couldn't run away, and still missed and killed somebody.

How could a heavy trigger pull make that BETTER?

Unless this was the snake from the movie Anaconda it has absolutely zero relevance. Unless you are saying the size of the target doesn't matter....

 

[Kleanbore]

Unlawful homicide or wounding.

Someone would decide whether you likely fired deliberately, or may not have.

What if the stock trigger was 1lb.? Ok then?

Let us know what you find out about what trigger pull weights are considered acceptable on defensive firearms, and about what the expert witnesses say about them.

And do listen to Andrew Branca's discussion on the subject.

 

[Deanimator]

Unless this was the snake from the movie Anaconda it has absolutely zero relevance. Unless you are saying the size of the target doesn't matter....

It's obviously a combination of size and distance.