Hair triggers legal problems?

[The Drew]

Shortly before the big change-over in law enforcement circles from revolvers to pistols, a number of major police departments either had their present guns modified to double-action only, or bought new ones that came that way. The principal reason was to have an answer to the "hair trigger went off when it wasn't supposed to" argument. In more recent times, many departments that use Glock pistols have ordered them with heavier trigger pulls.

Somehow I think there must be a reason behing all of this...??

Yeah, Cops aren't gun people... most don't even shoot their weapon except to qualify (there are exceptions, so please, all you LEO's don't take offense). And many are influenced by hollywood just like the rest of the world. I.E. Cocking the revolver or pistol in anticipation of "needing" to shoot, and leaving a finger on the trigger...

The reality is that there are many LEO's who couldn't care less about their guns, and never learn how to handle them properly. In this case a "management" decision is made to change equipment to solve a people problem...

As I work in technology I have plenty of experience of management thinking a change of equipment or software can fix people problems... It can't. It's basically a spineless move where the REAL solution is to get rid of the problem people...

 

[meef]

My Taurus MilPro PT-145 does not have a "hair trigger", or anything vaguely resembling one. When it discharges, it is a very deliberate act - not subject to interpretation or speculation.

And it has discharged every single time I have pulled the trigger (providing it was loaded, of course).

If I ever (god forbid) have to defend myself in court, my defense will NOT be I didn't mean for it to go off.

 

[Curare]

Shortly before the big change-over in law enforcement circles from revolvers to pistols, a number of major police departments either had their present guns modified to double-action only, or bought new ones that came that way. The principal reason was to have an answer to the "hair trigger went off when it wasn't supposed to" argument. In more recent times, many departments that use Glock pistols have ordered them with heavier trigger pulls.

Somehow I think there must be a reason behing all of this...??

The reason is not the light trigger. The heavier triggers are a vain attempt to make up for poor training and the inability to keep their bugger hooks off the bang button until they're ready to shoot.

 

[bogie]

But why give them ammo then?

Why lighten your trigger?

You know a lawyer will use that against you.

I mean the NYPD went to a 12 pound trigger pull.

And the "police" triggers have caused problems... Joe Ossifer and his partner are searching a suspect. They're nervous enough that Joe's got his weapon out, and his finger on the trigger. Since Joe's unconsciously used to the ungodly trigger pull, he's unconsciously taking up slack... The suspect (who was only walking home from work and was passed by the real mope) sneezes, and Joe twitches...

Oops.

 

[rudolf]

I believe the main reason for hard trigger pulls by manufacturers is so the people don't have AD's and then sue the manufacturer. I also believe police have the same reasoning to reduce AD's while guns are handled at the police station.

Ayoobs arguments goes around the other side turning your shooting into an accident. If you (or your attorny) stay firm on you intended to shoot the guy, and your gun was configured to let YOU hit what you intend to hit, you should be ok. And being able to hit is important, as you DO NOT want to accidently shoot a bystander.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't see a lightened trigger as a major issue in a criminal case unless you did in fact shoot someone you didn't intend to shoot (or someone else shoots someone accidentally with your gun). You would have to have a seriously anti-gun, anti-self defense prosecutor before that issue could get in front of a grand jury, let alone a trial jury.

I think the main issue with a lightened trigger is civil liability. Homeowner's insurance doesn't pay out on intentional battery and insurance companies are where the money and settlements are for lawyers. In order to bring a self-defense shooting into the area where the insurance company will pay off, the lawyer is going to want to make it look like an unintentional shooting and he will be using any fact he can to make that case because he can collect more money from the insurance company than he can from you in most cases (plus the insurance company is more likely to pay the dane-geld just to settle the case).

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Find a better source.

Read the entire thread. I was stating his opinion, not my support/belief in it.

 

[carebear]

"Did I mean to shoot him?"

"Hell yes I meant to shoot him. I'd of hit him with my car if I'd had it handy."

 

[SMMAssociates]

Find a better source. Ayoob makes that stuff up, probably while in a drunken stupor.

Rockstar:

Ayoob is a pessimist.... I'm told that he likes to have a good time (I know a guy who's been out partying with him), but avoids the drunken stupors due to the bulge on his belt.

IAC, as we've said, in some states you're wide open for civil suits regardless of the criminal aspects of a shooting, and while Mas is indeed an alarmist, it's not a good idea to give anybody an opening, and it's fairly simple to avoid it if you keep your wits about you during an incident, and do some thinking beforehand.

So, only mods that improve safety and control. NEVER remove a manufacturer's safety device from a carry gun. Not even those fun S&W locks....

I wasn't here, I didn't say this, but if you're tempted to have a local smith or a friend remove something and not tell you, don't pick a feature you can't easily test.

Regards,

 

[magsnubby]

Ayoob cites a few cases in which a prosecutor tried to allege that the gun fired accidentally, instead of a deliberate self-defense shooting, and used the fact that the gun had a light trigger pull to argue that it was an accidental discharge, hence the verdict should be manslaughter instead of justifiable self-defense. I think things turned out OK in the case that comes to mind, but with a different jury things could conceivably have been different.

I remember reading some of his articles where he made that type of statements. You could ask him. He post on Glock Talk.

 

[magsnubby]

Find a better source. Ayoob makes that stuff up, probably while in a drunken stupor.

Have any proof of that? He smoked a guy's ass on Glock Talk for making that type of statement. The guy claimed "thousands" of people had saw Ayoob drunk at competions. Ayoob challenged his claim. The guy finally claimed a "biker" had saw him drunk at a competion. He "couldn't" reveal his source.

 

[bogie]

Here's an interesting tape of an AD...

http://www.break.com/articles/womancop.html

Vid's okay for work, site probably isn't.

Let's not get into the captioning or the sex of the officer, okay? A guy coulda done it too... Adrenaline dump, inadequate training, pointing the thing around, finger on the trigger, taking up the slack on the ugly trigger pull...

 

[Ryder]

It'd be difficult to prove an unintentional shot after you've emptied your magazine into the guy. I don't train for one shot stops and I don't expect them. Even the state certified instructor in my recent CCW refresher course had us shooting two in the chest and one in the head.

The reason for not having a heavy trigger is that improves accuracy. Greatly in some cases. This means less danger to innocent bystanders. It's a safety thang.

 

[magsnubby]

It'd be difficult to prove an unintentional shot after you've emptied your magazine into the guy.

"But honest officer, it just went off 13 times all by it's self".

 

[MechAg94]

For me, I don't need a light trigger just a consistent pull. I like my Kahr P9 that has a double action pull but the pull is not too heavy and it is pretty consistent.

 

[gwalchmai]

A lot of things can be argued in a civil court. It doesn't mean they will be believed or influence the outcome of the suit. Ayoob makes a lot of legal claims in this sort of arena that don't seem to come true either. You would thing that with more than a quarter century of publishing articles, he would have a few cases to support the contention of how a light trigger was the cause for the winning of a civil suit for a gun intentionally fired at another, but he has never presented such information about which I am aware.

He has also claimed that it could be a problem in criminal court, but that has yet to materialize.

Strangely, Ayoob seems to discuss the matter almost exclusively in regard to pistols. There are a lot of folks with light triggered hunting long guns and those long guns get used in self defense, but apparently lightening a long gun trigger for hunting and just happening to use that long gun in self defense is perfectly fine. I can't recall Ayoob ever talking about the horrors of a light triggered leverl gun.

The sad thing about Ayoob's teachings are apparent in this thread. You have a bunch of folks in fear from his legal mumbo jumbo (and note that Ayoob is neither a lawyer or a judge) paranoia and making self defense decisions not based on actual threats to themselves, families, homes, or work, but instead based on what might potentially happen in court after the person has been successful in negating the threat. His paranoid fears are bantered around like fact and the bottom line is that they are not fact and not necessarily in the best interest of gun owners.

This is one of the more lucid posts regarding this matter I have seen.

 

[pcf]

I took a class once, taught by one of the best-paid criminal defense lawyers in the country, on what NOT to say when on the stand. He gave us example after example of how you could innocently do or say the wrong thing... and give "The Wolf" an opening to use

Ceetee, any criminal defense lawyer that gives advice about testimony you should give is an idiot.

The golden rule to staying out of prison, is to shut up and not speak to ANYONE, other than your lawyer.

Hair triggers might get you trouble, testfying in your own criminal trial WILL get you in trouble.

If your a good shot a lawyer will use it against, if your a bad shot a lawyer will use it against you. Many police departments are switching to pass/fail shooting quals to avoid this. According to lawyers nothing has ever been done right, that's the way that they are.

Regardless of what you do in life and how you do it, rest assured that a lawyer will be more than happy to tell you how wrong you were.

 

[goosegunner]

Don't you have anything better to worry about, almost anything can be made to look bad:
9mm FMJ => 'He used military killer bullets'
expanding/fragmenting (Soft point or other) => 'Super lethal bullets that are so bad not even the military use them'
Realoded ammunition => 'He made his own super deadly killer bullets'

 

[ceetee]

Ceetee, any criminal defense lawyer that gives advice about testimony you should give is an idiot.

Actually, the class was on how to best testify against people, in order to get a good conviction. The guy was honest about what he does. He studied law for the money. He became a defense attorney... for the money. His main goal is to get paid. HIs work ethic is to make sure that if his client goes to prison, it's because the police, and prosecutors did their jobs 100% correctly.

When he's not defending whatever scumbag that can meet his rates, he's working for battered spouses and such, for free. And teaching soon-to-be cops what NOT to say on the stand.

If your a good shot a lawyer will use it against, if your a bad shot a lawyer will use it against you.

Don't you have anything better to worry about, almost anything can be made to look bad:
9mm FMJ => 'He used military killer bullets'
expanding/fragmenting (Soft point or other) => 'Super lethal bullets that are so bad not even the military use them'
Realoded ammunition => 'He made his own super deadly killer bullets'

That's my point. You can either make it easier for them, or harder. It's up to you. My carry weapons have every factory installed, lawyer motivated safety gimmick still in place. They have triggers that are polished as smooth as they can be, but that's all. I shoot readily available JHP's, NOT reloads. Everything I have says that I'm just another ordinary guy... not somebody lookin' to be another Rambo.

 

[beerslurpy]

If police could be trained to only operate within the constraints of the constitution and the law regarding criminal procedure, it might prevent a lot of bad cases from getting presented.

On the other hand, if you are merely telling them what not to say, it is likely they will continue to break the rules and just become better liars.

I'm not sure I approve of this. And not just because drug cases and questionable searches have become the rule rather than the exception.

 

[ctdonath]

Rockstar,
Take the High Road. Stop flinging libelous accusations. You're making that baseless accusation rather often lately on multiple threads.

All,
I've personally talked to Mas about such issues (to wit: doing X increases legal risks). He acknowledges that it might not have been a problem yet, but as someone spending much time in court and much time reading legalese, his professional opinion is that X could become an issue in court, and that in making various equipment decisions one should take that under advisement - and it is entirely up to the individual to decide what course to take.

Ayoob is just saying "think about it". It's a professional opinion, not fact worth bashing him over.

 

[ceetee]

If police could be trained to only operate within the constraints of the constitution and the law regarding criminal procedure, it might prevent a lot of bad cases from getting presented.

On the other hand, if you are merely telling them what not to say, it is likely they will continue to break the rules and just become better liars.

I'm not sure I approve of this. And not just because drug cases and questionable searches have become the rule rather than the exception.

You may be missing the idea, or I may be presenting it poorly. Nobody is being encouraged to lie, or taught how. He comes right out and says, "Look, my job as a defense attorney is to keep cops honest."

What he also says, though, is "If you say this, or that, then here's how I'll attack it. So don't say that. And make sure your stories all match. If you don't remember something, say so. Don't just make something up on the spot. 'Cause if you do, you just let 'Wolfie' in the door..."

 

[psyopspec]

Hair triggers legal problems?

Only if the gel you're using is illegally imported.

 

[gremlin_bros]

hair trigger

well lets look at it like this throught the tennants of gun safety. One of these simply states you do not put your finger on the trigger untill you are ready to shoot. In otherwords the instant you feel you have no other option you move your finger from alongside the frame to the trigger ans squeeze. this also will help to prevent the "accidental" shooting or other ploy a lawyer might use.


mister smith when did you pull the trigger.
when there was no other choice left to me other than defend my life
mr. smith isnt it true you hand gun had a hair trigger
no the trigger on my hand gun requires a light pull but it makes no diffrence
mr. smith could you have accidently shot mr.bg
no due to my training
and what training is that mr. smith
i do not move my finger to the trigger untill i am fireing my weapon and that is in a case of self defense when i have no other choice or option left to me

any thoughts i would like to hear

 

[SMMAssociates]

Gremlin_Bros:

Good explanation....

From a practical standpoint you also have to do with the "startle factor", which is enhanced a bit by the "pucker factor"....

In English, it means that if you put your finger on the trigger, and anything happens that is out of the ordinary, even if you might have chosen not to shoot, there's a fair chance that you will anyway. A light-equipped firearm, for example, used to sweep an area (I don't recommend people do this, but it is easier to find the flashlight this way), and you hear and see the BG. Finger goes to trigger 'cause you're going to shoot. The light hits the subject and it's a broom handle in his hand. You still might fire....

A heavier trigger makes that a touch less likely.

Not much, but....

And the attorneys can still come after you. Besides, the things are less safe to carry - a light trigger is a light trigger, and subject to mechanical issues. (Certain classes of guns have multiple safety devices, so that could be an oversimplification.) My own view is that a four or five pound trigger is going to resist enough to avoid problems that a lighter trigger might cause.... (The simple "connector" mod to a Glock that takes it to about 3# probably is safe enough, IMHO, although I'm not experienced with them.)

Again, mods that increase control, safety, etc., are fine. Grips, beavertails, pretty triggers, etc., in 1911's, for example. Once you start tampering with the manufacturer's supplied safety systems, though, it's risky. Triggers are a special case - the average jury won't understand that a 5# trigger is safe but a 2# trigger isn't. All they're going to retain is "Hair Trigger" from TV or movies, and if the "standard" is 10#, somebody'll call your 5# trigger a "Hair Trigger", too.... (An expert witness may be able to sway a jury on this, but you can get witnesses at K-Mart for either side....)

Regards,