ZeSpectre
Member
And here I thought that "shut up and call your lawyer" WAS the "fits all" answer
Legal ramifications of "worked on" trigger
- Thread starter gilfo
- Start date
- Status
And here I thought that "shut up and call your lawyer" WAS the "fits all" answer
jaysouth
Member
Storm,
Tell us exactly why you will never address these issues.
Thanks
Tell us exactly why you will never address these issues.
Thanks
XDKingslayer
member
Cosmo doesn't need to post a cite. If you do a search on this very subject, which was beaten into the ground once again only last week, you'll find that Mr. Ayoob was kind enough to mention 2 or 3 cases that a light trigger was brought up in "accidental" defense situations.
The guy drew his gun, didn't mean to fire, but the gun "went off" due to a light trigger.
Quote:
answer that seeks to provide a "fits all" answer is foolhardy
And here I thought that "shut up and call your lawyer" WAS the "fits all" answer
Generally, calling your lawyer is about as desirable as calling your proctologist.
As to giving advice, yes, it is conceivable that giving advice could be argued to be seen as representation potentially bringing about malpractice exposure (it's a stretch) but the real problem is offering general legal advice that does not fit the particular jurisdiction of the recipient. Laws and jury results are far too varied between states and even within states. Lawyers know this and are leery of offering advice to an unknown party in an unknown location where they may well be unknowingly giving very bad advice.
I will say this. I leave my self-defense guns 100% original.
[1] I'm a lawyer, And I'm also a shooter and NRA certified instructor.
[2] I don’t use a gun that’s been tinkered with, nor to I use handloads, nor will I disable a safety device on a gun that I might use for self defense purpose.
[3] It's not about the gun or ammunition per se. It's about how certain factors, like tinkering with your gun, using handloaded ammunition, putting "Punisher" grips on your gun, walking around wearing a "Kill Them All and Let God Sort it Our" T-shirt at the mall, or other "gun nut" stuff can be used to attack your character and credibility. This is important because if you're in trial at all, somebody in authority thinks that your claim of self defense is vulnerable, and your testimony might be crucial to establishing that your use of lethal force was justified. If the jury can be convinced by the prosecutor that you're a junior Rambo wannabe, they just might not be inclined to believe your story.
[4] Yes, I know “this doesn’t matter if it’s a good shoot.” And I agree, it doesn’t matter if it’s a good shoot; but who decides if it's a good shoot? Nobody has to take your word for it. Whether or not it's a good shoot can be uncertain. Physical evidence may be lacking. There may be witnesses who tell conflicting stories. In any case, if everyone agrees it's a good shoot, you go home. But if you're on trial, someone in authority doesn't think it's a good shoot. In that case, whether or not it was a good shoot will be decided by a jury; and they may just need to believe your testimony in order to find that it was a good shoot. So anything that can impair your credibility increases your risk of a bad result.
[5] And these choices I have made for myself are based on my overall experience and understanding of how the legal system works and my personal knowledge, based on my experience, of how to impugn someone's character in front of a judge and jury.
[6] Yes, we know that there doesn't appear to be a case documenting this, but this would be a trial court matter, and trial court activities are not well publicized or generally published in the official legal reporters. Only decisions of courts of appeals on matters of law are regularly published. In any case, I suspect that the great majority of private citizens who own guns for self defense, including those with CCWs, are not necessarily enthusiasts. They most like own and carry factory stock guns loaded with ordinary, commercial ammunition. So in fact, it's pretty unlikely that there have been too many cases, if any at all, in which a modified pistol or handloaded ammunition were used.
[7] Of course, if one is unlucky enough to be on trial, whether or not the gun has been modified is only one, perhaps small, factor. But personally, I'd rather avoid any of these sorts of "wild cards" altogether. Even though I may have an explanation, I know from experience that the less I have to explain, the better off I am. I can easily limit what I have to explain without impairing my ability to defend myself. I have several completely reliable and very accurate 1911s that came out of the box with excellent 4.5 pound triggers, and I think good quality, commercial JHP ammunition would be perfectly satisfactory.
[8] This is just what I do and why, based on my training and experience in the legal profession. Each of you may, of course, make his or her own choice.
[2] I don’t use a gun that’s been tinkered with, nor to I use handloads, nor will I disable a safety device on a gun that I might use for self defense purpose.
[3] It's not about the gun or ammunition per se. It's about how certain factors, like tinkering with your gun, using handloaded ammunition, putting "Punisher" grips on your gun, walking around wearing a "Kill Them All and Let God Sort it Our" T-shirt at the mall, or other "gun nut" stuff can be used to attack your character and credibility. This is important because if you're in trial at all, somebody in authority thinks that your claim of self defense is vulnerable, and your testimony might be crucial to establishing that your use of lethal force was justified. If the jury can be convinced by the prosecutor that you're a junior Rambo wannabe, they just might not be inclined to believe your story.
[4] Yes, I know “this doesn’t matter if it’s a good shoot.” And I agree, it doesn’t matter if it’s a good shoot; but who decides if it's a good shoot? Nobody has to take your word for it. Whether or not it's a good shoot can be uncertain. Physical evidence may be lacking. There may be witnesses who tell conflicting stories. In any case, if everyone agrees it's a good shoot, you go home. But if you're on trial, someone in authority doesn't think it's a good shoot. In that case, whether or not it was a good shoot will be decided by a jury; and they may just need to believe your testimony in order to find that it was a good shoot. So anything that can impair your credibility increases your risk of a bad result.
[5] And these choices I have made for myself are based on my overall experience and understanding of how the legal system works and my personal knowledge, based on my experience, of how to impugn someone's character in front of a judge and jury.
[6] Yes, we know that there doesn't appear to be a case documenting this, but this would be a trial court matter, and trial court activities are not well publicized or generally published in the official legal reporters. Only decisions of courts of appeals on matters of law are regularly published. In any case, I suspect that the great majority of private citizens who own guns for self defense, including those with CCWs, are not necessarily enthusiasts. They most like own and carry factory stock guns loaded with ordinary, commercial ammunition. So in fact, it's pretty unlikely that there have been too many cases, if any at all, in which a modified pistol or handloaded ammunition were used.
[7] Of course, if one is unlucky enough to be on trial, whether or not the gun has been modified is only one, perhaps small, factor. But personally, I'd rather avoid any of these sorts of "wild cards" altogether. Even though I may have an explanation, I know from experience that the less I have to explain, the better off I am. I can easily limit what I have to explain without impairing my ability to defend myself. I have several completely reliable and very accurate 1911s that came out of the box with excellent 4.5 pound triggers, and I think good quality, commercial JHP ammunition would be perfectly satisfactory.
[8] This is just what I do and why, based on my training and experience in the legal profession. Each of you may, of course, make his or her own choice.
jaysouth
Member
Fiddletown,
Thanks for your insightful post. I know you spend a lot of time on it.
Thanks for your insightful post. I know you spend a lot of time on it.
Fiddletown summed things up quite nicely. The one additional comment I would make is that if a modification (even a trigger job) will enable a user to more effectively, accurately and safely use a weapon, and the user can reasonably and rationally articulate this point, then there's nothing barring the modification. If anything, such a modification is sensible and worthwhile, and the furthest thing from negligence.
The key is, as with every aspect of a shooting, whether one can convince a trier of fact that the decision (whether the decision involves a modification, choice of bullet, choice of weapon, or the shooting itself) was reasonable and appropriate.
The key is, as with every aspect of a shooting, whether one can convince a trier of fact that the decision (whether the decision involves a modification, choice of bullet, choice of weapon, or the shooting itself) was reasonable and appropriate.
Cosmoline
Member
It won't matter if it's an INTENTIONAL shot. And if you're claiming self defense then there's no issue of intent. You clearly intended to shoot, to use deadly force. It may matter if you claim you did not intend to shoot the person. But if you did not intend to shot, there can be no claim of self defense.
So how do you envision a light trigger coming into a case where the defendant admits right off the bat that he did shoot, and that he intended to shoot?
A light triggger would come more into play in a civil case where the allegation is that you did not intend to shoot but did so negligently, or, potentially in a manslaughter/negligent homicide criminal charge.
BTW, I know a few guys who who actually have an attorney on retainer just in case they ever need them quickly after a shoot, time being of the essence.
Last edited:
If memory serves, in a couple cases (one in a store and another at a home), the first shot was intentional but the subsequent multiple rounds were due to the light trigger of a S&W 3rd Gen. The allegation was that the subsequent rounds showed an intent to kill, not just to stop. The defendants prevailed by showing the light trigger was due to the weapon's design, rather than his one.
Perhaps Mas can fill us in as he was involved in at least one of them.
wuchak
Member
No competent gunsmith will put a "hair trigger" on a gun for liability reasons. A good gunsmith will polish up every contact surface so they look like mirrors and the trigger pull becomes smooooth. The trigger pull will feel a little lighter as a result of the loss of friction in the lockwork. You may also want to have the gunsmith install a set of lighter springs but that's not required. In a DA revolver dropping the springs down 2-4 lbs will still give a heavy enough trigger to be safe but one that will aid in accuracy.
If you have as reputable local gunsmith smooth your action and replace the factory springs with the first step down from them in weight from Wolff, the trigger pull will be demonstratively miles from one that could be considered "hair". This type of action job is a must for a lightweight revolver, especially a J frame as accuracy will be greatly increased.
If you have as reputable local gunsmith smooth your action and replace the factory springs with the first step down from them in weight from Wolff, the trigger pull will be demonstratively miles from one that could be considered "hair". This type of action job is a must for a lightweight revolver, especially a J frame as accuracy will be greatly increased.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
BAH...this is not something to worry about unless you're a worry wart. In that case, you're going to worry about the paint on the walls at the site of the event. This is really a non-issue compared to the dead or maimed goblin and some overzealous prosecuter.
Focus on proficiency with your gear and tactics, understand how to manage the police, and have a good attorney onhand for any and all questioning.
Focus on proficiency with your gear and tactics, understand how to manage the police, and have a good attorney onhand for any and all questioning.
Loosedhorse
member
Massad Ayoob has written extensively on this...
To summarize: a worked-on trigger will allow either a prosecutor or a plaintiff's attorney to claim that the gun went off accidentally, because of a hair-trigger. This contention, if "proven," would immediately negate the self-defense claim--you can't accidently kill someone in self-defense, by law. So, if successful, this strategy puts the defender at risk of a manslaughter (negligent homicide) charge and wrongful death settlement.
The keys to defeating (or even better, preventing) this charge are documentation, ability to articulate that your trigger was safe and why, and, if needed, expert witnesses. You need to document, if you get a trigger job, that you requested a "smoother" trigger, not a lighter one, if that was the case. Ayoob recommends no trigger pull below about 4.5 lbs (single action) on a defensive gun--he feels that experts (including himself) can confortably testify if needed that such a trigger pull is not too light for defensive use. So, if you do request a ligher pull, specify between 4.5-5 lb for any defensive gun.
For the DIY-types, you might want to document the trigger pull you end up with after you're done 'smithing.
Previous threads (with Capt. Ayoob's participation) on the subject:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=168825
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=387133
IANAL
To summarize: a worked-on trigger will allow either a prosecutor or a plaintiff's attorney to claim that the gun went off accidentally, because of a hair-trigger. This contention, if "proven," would immediately negate the self-defense claim--you can't accidently kill someone in self-defense, by law. So, if successful, this strategy puts the defender at risk of a manslaughter (negligent homicide) charge and wrongful death settlement.
The keys to defeating (or even better, preventing) this charge are documentation, ability to articulate that your trigger was safe and why, and, if needed, expert witnesses. You need to document, if you get a trigger job, that you requested a "smoother" trigger, not a lighter one, if that was the case. Ayoob recommends no trigger pull below about 4.5 lbs (single action) on a defensive gun--he feels that experts (including himself) can confortably testify if needed that such a trigger pull is not too light for defensive use. So, if you do request a ligher pull, specify between 4.5-5 lb for any defensive gun.
For the DIY-types, you might want to document the trigger pull you end up with after you're done 'smithing.
Previous threads (with Capt. Ayoob's participation) on the subject:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=168825
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=387133
IANAL
If you are claiming self defense or actually a justified use of deadly force, you have already admitted to intentionally shooting the BG, so the trigger pull and "accidental" has no bearing on the case. The only facts in question would be if the elements of self defense where present. Those are an imediate rational fear of personal injury or death from an adversary acting illegally that had the capability and perceived intent to inflict that injury or death. If not you will be found guilty of murder or a felony assault with a deadly weapon since you admitted to it.
No prosecutor or lawyer in their right mind would try to overturn a self defense or justifiable homicide defense and argue that "Yes the defendant says he intended to shoot the victim and had every legal right to do so in self defense but the state believes the defendant is lying about their intent and the shooting was accidental and caused by negligence. It would be a completely unprovable position and a no win situation.
If, on the other hand, you claim the "gun went off accidentally" or "I didn't mean to shoot" then the a hair trigger that you either knew about or modified yourself could implicate you in liability for negligently discharging the weapon.
I do agree that "you can't accidentally kill someone in self-defense, by law" which proves my point.
You simply can't be that categorical. If you're on trial at all, it means that the grand jury and/or the DA didn't buy the self defense story. The grand jury and/or the DA decided that there was probable cause to conclude that a crime had been committed and that you did it. Exactly what crime of crimes you'll be charged with, and the prosecutor will try to prove at trial, will depend on exactly what the circumstances were and exactly what evidence may be available. Depending on exactly what the evidence is, and the law in the particular jurisdiction, in a homicide case you might be charged with everything from murder to reckless endangerment, and you could be charged, in the alternative, with various crimes between those two extremes.Steve C said:
So let's say the police have just arrived at the scene, and there you are with a smoking gun in your hand and a dead body at your feet. You are, of course, under extreme stress and haven't properly prepared mentally for that moment. Or for whatever other reason, you forget all that you have been counseled about making statements to the police. As soon as you see the first cop, you immediately blurt out, "My God! I didn't want to shoot him" or "I didn't mean to kill him" or "I didn't mean to shoot him" or something along those lines. No question but if you intentionally shot in self defense, saying something like that would be dumb. But people do say dump things under extreme stress, and just because it was a dumb thing to say doesn't necessarily mean someone could not reasonably believe it to have been the truth.
The officer makes a note of your spontaneous exclamation, and it will now be part of the evidence that will be presented at trial. You have, from your own mouth, carelessly provided evidence that will be the foundation of a charge of negligent homicide (or whatever the proper term is in the particular jurisdiction), and given the prosecutor the gift of a basis upon which to argue that your subsequent claim that you intentionally shot the decedent in self defense is all eye wash to avoid the negligent homicide charge.
Of course, if you can hold your tongue, you can avoid this particular scenario. But "the devil is in the details", and depending on the details, you may still be vulnerable to a negligent homicide charge even if you have admitted to intentionally shooting in self defense.
Last edited:
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
"Huh? Trigger work? What trigger work? I bought it used and it was like that when I bought it. Never noticed any trigger work... 
"
"What kind of lawyer, what kind of cases, ever been involved in a criminal trial trying to defend against claims of intent by the prosecutor? Being a lawyer does not necessarily make someone suddenly an expert on whether or not something like this would be a moot point in court.
Yes Glenn, I'm not a criminal lawyer. But I have enough experience with choosing and impugning witnesses in front of juries, and have participated in enough post verdict juror interviews, to have some idea of how jurors can be turned against witnesses or parties.
In any case, you do what you want. It's not my problem. I've only outlined what I do and why.
In any case, you do what you want. It's not my problem. I've only outlined what I do and why.
GZOh_Jr
Member
There is more than a bit of irony in Mr. Bartley's post, in that this entire thread is fueled by the FUD of laymen trying to play lawyer. Fiddletown and Storm have generously volunteered more details than I am comfortable providing--my advice is that you should all graciously take their words to heart, rather than second guessing them with FUD piled on top of FUD.
Really--why even think about things like this, when you can be reading threads on the merits of 9mm vs. .40 S&W ammo, or CZ vs. BHP?
Really--why even think about things like this, when you can be reading threads on the merits of 9mm vs. .40 S&W ammo, or CZ vs. BHP?
Loosedhorse
member
Hey, I resemble that remark!
As a layman trying to play layman, it was for a moment difficult to see this remark as the well-intentioned praise it clearly is, instead of as a belittling, elitist, laughingly arrogant snark that would simply reinforce unfair lawyer stereotypes.
I, too, thank all three lawyers for their remarks (not advice--what advice?) here. And agree that (lay) gunowners striving to inform themselves on, and prepare themselves for, the legal dangers that might attend a self-defense shooting (and not just rehashing ammo and arms) represents care and precaution--the antidote for FUD.
As a layman trying to play layman, it was for a moment difficult to see this remark as the well-intentioned praise it clearly is, instead of as a belittling, elitist, laughingly arrogant snark that would simply reinforce unfair lawyer stereotypes.
I, too, thank all three lawyers for their remarks (not advice--what advice?) here. And agree that (lay) gunowners striving to inform themselves on, and prepare themselves for, the legal dangers that might attend a self-defense shooting (and not just rehashing ammo and arms) represents care and precaution--the antidote for FUD.
Last edited:
I don't own any guns with "hair triggers".
I DO own several firearms that have had reliability jobs done to them to insure safe and proper function. The more reliable my firearms are, the more safe I feel as to how they will function.
The fact that I sought out competent gunsmiths who regularly perform reliability jobs on firearms for members of the Law Enforcement and Military communities should be an indicator of how I go out of the way to responsibly make sure that my firearms will operate safely and in the manner that they were designed to.
My firearms will not "just go off" like is often reported in cases of accidental discharges.
I DO own several firearms that have had reliability jobs done to them to insure safe and proper function. The more reliable my firearms are, the more safe I feel as to how they will function.
The fact that I sought out competent gunsmiths who regularly perform reliability jobs on firearms for members of the Law Enforcement and Military communities should be an indicator of how I go out of the way to responsibly make sure that my firearms will operate safely and in the manner that they were designed to.
My firearms will not "just go off" like is often reported in cases of accidental discharges.
Exmasonite
Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Messages
- 561
the more i think about this issue, couple of things come to mind:
1) When it comes down to it, does the fact that you altered the trigger really affect your intent? I mean, you own a gun in the first place.
2) I would imagine the people to REALLY ask about this aren't lawyers (there are a lot of lawyers out there). The people to ask would be the after-market manufacturers or gunsmiths. I'd be interested to hear what Canyon Creek or Springer Precision has to say about the issue. If these issues come up, i'd imagine the defense would subpoena the corporations to give an understanding of just how common an occurence a trigger job is. On the flip side, i'm sure they're apt to downplay such incidents but they'd have no reason to lie about it.
1) When it comes down to it, does the fact that you altered the trigger really affect your intent? I mean, you own a gun in the first place.
2) I would imagine the people to REALLY ask about this aren't lawyers (there are a lot of lawyers out there). The people to ask would be the after-market manufacturers or gunsmiths. I'd be interested to hear what Canyon Creek or Springer Precision has to say about the issue. If these issues come up, i'd imagine the defense would subpoena the corporations to give an understanding of just how common an occurence a trigger job is. On the flip side, i'm sure they're apt to downplay such incidents but they'd have no reason to lie about it.
I agree that claiming a gun went off "accidentally" is inconsistent with a claim of self-defense. You can only claim self-defense if you intended to pull the trigger. However, the shooter can give an inconsistent statement. In one statement, he says the gun just went off and it turns out the gun has a "hair trigger." In the second statement, the shooter claims self-defense.
The shooter might be prosecuted for a higher degree of homicide like murder under the theory he meant to kill the guy but it wasn't self-defense. The judge would also instruct the jury on a "lesser" offense like manslaughter, reckless homicide, etc. under the theory the defendant acted wantonly or recklessly by pointing the gun at the victim and the "hair trigger" would contribute to the wanton or reckless behavior. A jury could find him not guilty because of self-defense, guilty of murder, or guilty of a lesser homicide.
And don't ever believe police and a prosecutor are just going to take a person's word it was self-defense if there are other facts to the contrary. People, especially killers, lie.
The shooter might be prosecuted for a higher degree of homicide like murder under the theory he meant to kill the guy but it wasn't self-defense. The judge would also instruct the jury on a "lesser" offense like manslaughter, reckless homicide, etc. under the theory the defendant acted wantonly or recklessly by pointing the gun at the victim and the "hair trigger" would contribute to the wanton or reckless behavior. A jury could find him not guilty because of self-defense, guilty of murder, or guilty of a lesser homicide.
And don't ever believe police and a prosecutor are just going to take a person's word it was self-defense if there are other facts to the contrary. People, especially killers, lie.
- Status