RetiredUSNChief
Member
Thanks Frank (and Mas)!
Perhaps it will come up, perhaps it won't. It's probably not terribly likely to be an issue in the criminal trial....isn't the sort of thing that is likely to come up in almost any defensive shooting investigation.
And he pointed out a couple of reasons:HexHead said:So, in 35 years as an expert witness, he's seen it come up once against an individual.
massad ayoob said:...most shootings involve factory stock guns in factory stock condition....
massad ayoob said:...the great majority of police departments do not authorize their personnel to remove or deactivate safety devices from department issue OR privately owned/department approved duty weapons, and many expressly forbid it. ...
Yep!And he pointed out a couple of reasons:
Originally Posted by massad ayoob
and:...most shootings involve factory stock guns in factory stock condition....
Originally Posted by massad ayoob
So perhaps the biggest factor in the removal of a safety device not being an issue is that the safety device was not removed. That's pretty simple. If you don't want it to be an issue, don't do it. But that's not the same thing as saying that if you do it, it's not likely to be an issue....the great majority of police departments do not authorize their personnel to remove or deactivate safety devices from department issue OR privately owned/department approved duty weapons, and many expressly forbid it. ...
Glocks, Beretta 92s, 1911s, and of course revolvers don't have magazine disconnects . . . what commonly-issued LEO firearms do? SIG? Ruger? Maybe some S&W autos?Originally Posted by massad ayoob
...the great majority of police departments do not authorize their personnel to remove or deactivate safety devices from department issue OR privately owned/department approved duty weapons, and many expressly forbid it. ...
Nothing in the quoted comment you are responding to makes any reference to Glocks, Beretta 92s, 1911 or revolvers nor to magazine disconnects.Glocks, Beretta 92s, 1911s, and of course revolvers don't have magazine disconnects . . . what commonly-issued LEO firearms do? SIG? Ruger? Maybe some S&W autos?
Bingo! That is exactly the point.RetiredUSNChief said:I think the point isn't a direct comparison of one gun platform to the next. It's about altering whatever factory settings are on a GIVEN platform, period.
The fact that any other platform may or may not have an analogous safety to the one that was altered does not come into play in this.
So, just what constitutes a safety?
There is at least one exception to that: if your carry gun is a double action revolver, it might well behoove you to have it modified so that it can be fired double action only.You want your carry gun to be free of modifications.
Just got Ayoobs deadly Force book. Ch 13 is about hardware. "The second thing I'd avoid is deactivating the safet". He goes into more detail specifically 1911s. Then talks about do you want to give the prosecutor the argument "this person is so reckless with firearms THAT He DEACTIVATES THE SAFETY DEVICES ON LETHAL WEAPONS." Ayoob used the all caps.Cool! Can you find those for us so we can find out what the issues were they were sued over?
Hard to know what lessons to take without understanding the details of the cases.
That's an interesting question!So, just what constitutes a safety?
You do not want the subject to come up.For example, the classic 1911 had plenty of original safety features -- the thumb and grip safeties, the disconnector, the inertia firing pin -- and then the Series 80 firing pin block was added as an afterthought, to solve a nonexistent problem. .... It seems to me that if an owner removes the new features and returns the gun to the original tried-and-true design, that's quite a different situation than if he removes one of the original safety features.
Frank is absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about civil or criminal litigation. Everything that has to be explained is a wild card. There are a great many things, such as pistol modifications, which an SD shooter *might* be able to explain if given the chance. Suzy Soccermom might not really understand, though, and she might not care if it makes the trigger better. And it's one more issue that I (as a lawyer) might have to prep for in getting ready for trial, might have to hire an expert witness for (at SD Shooter's expense), might have to convince a jury that "no, removing a safety designed by the gun company's engineers really wasn't reckless . . . "Frank Ettin said:Everything that has to be explained is a wild card.