Glock Talk banner

Are you really worse off if you shoot someone with a customized gun?

12K views 153 replies 50 participants last post by  collim1 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
We've all heard that if you end up using your gun for self defense that it's better legally if your gun is stock. What I'm wondering is whether that's actually true, or if it's one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often that we take it as gospel.

Maybe there are some LEOs here that have actual empirical evidence of someone having a rougher time in court because their gun was hot-rodded. Is there data to support that claim? I certainly don't know one way or the other, but my hunch is it's probably just one of those oft repeated things without much actual evidence.



[Moderator Note: We are reopening this with the hope that readers will weigh the advice given by the qualifications of those giving it. RussP
 
#42 ·
No, but one shot nullifies many objections if the criminal finding was confirmed of your innocence. If the perp is dead it is strictly your one shot to be judged and NOT excessive force. You fired in defense of your Life with deadly force, the cowboys that fire multiple shots will spend their time and money in court.

Get you self an attorney that knows the law in your area.
 
#43 ·
We've all heard that if you end up using your gun for self defense that it's better legally if your gun is stock. What I'm wondering is whether that's actually true, or if it's one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often that we take it as gospel.

Maybe there are some LEOs here that have actual empirical evidence of someone having a rougher time in court because their gun was hot-rodded. Is there data to support that claim? I certainly don't know one way or the other, but my hunch is it's probably just one of those oft repeated things without much actual evidence.
Ask Mas Ayoob in the GATE SD forum. Best advise you'll get around here.
 
#44 ·
And that folks, you really should pay attention to. It's not a simple matter of 'it was justified'...

It will be a matter of can the lawyers convince a (totally unknowledgeable about guns) jury that your 'I just made the trigger better!' modification allowed you to shoot someone that otherwise you may not have been able to do.

Here's an obvious question the lawyers might use (for the jury): "If the modification(s) don't make any difference... then why do them?"

It's an uphill battle, I wouldn't want to fight it.
A recent example - the female police officer in Texas who was run over twice by the poor Travon wannabe. The officer trying to stop him ended up shooting his as he tried to run over them some more. His friends in the car, and his family's lawyer, instantly claimed he was just trying to give up.

You shoot a mugger and his friends start claiming he was just trying to give up and the theme in court (civil or criminal) will be, "he tried to give up and that guy just pulled the trigger" - evidence? "Well his trigger would fire the gun with half the factory weight, so he probably pulled it without meaning to and then claimed he had to to cover it up." To be justified in self-defense, the shooting had to be intentional - if a jury is convinced you "accidentally" pulled the trigger while the guy was giving up, that could mean criminal conviction (probably a lesser charge) or civil liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzItLies
#45 ·
Another example that I've raised was the infamous George Z and Trayvon case. You look at what he went through and the money he spent to keep himself out of jail. Now what would happen if evidence was introduced citing that George used a modified gun to reduce the trigger pull? By itself, no crime. However the prosecution (politically motivated, IMO) was already trying to portray George as someone that was a vigilante who targeted poor Skittles-eating, innocent Trayvon. If they added evidence of a modified gun, would that have swayed the jury to convict? By itself, probably not. However, who knows when something like that gets combined with other "evidence" trying to suggest the shooter was out for blood. When this topic comes up, I always ask - is it really worth it versus practicing and becoming proficient with the stock trigger pull? In my opinion, no...it's not worth it. But hey, to each his/her own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deb W
#47 ·
So pages of people giving real-life examples and logical reasons and you agree with the guy who said "Folklore. I've never heard of it ever happening" without giving any other reason.

What does he do that would cause him to be the most knowledgeable about these things coming up in real life cases? Lawyer" Police officer? Self-defense instructor? Or 8 or 10 Glock Talk posts about guns and he happens to have said the thing you want to be true?
 
#52 ·
Show me a justified self-defense case, that was made "bad" by ANY MODIFICATION done to the firearm.

Do not use a "accidental discharge" case.

:cool:
Luis Alvarez vs State of Florida comes to mind as a case in which a modified trigger played a role if it has not yet been mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spats McGee
#56 ·
Show me a justified self-defense case, that was made "bad" by ANY MODIFICATION done to the firearm.

Do not use a "accidental discharge" case.

:cool:
Nobody ever argued that a "justified" case was "made bad" by modifications. That's exactly what you guys never seem to get (yes, I have had this exact same discussion in several threads). Go back to may post and black and white answers vs. legal reality and "maybe."

I have posted case examples before, but they are irrelevant when you demand a "justified" case that was made "unjustified" - you ask for a logical impossibility (if the outcome of the case was that the shooting was found not justified, then there is nothing that says it was ever "justified"). That's half a step less honest that the classic "straw man" argument. I don't know the name for this type of fallacy, but I'm sure it has one.
 
#57 ·
Nobody ever argued that a "justified" case was "made bad" by modifications. That's exactly what you guys never seem to get (yes, I have had this exact same discussion in several threads). Go back to may post and black and white answers vs. legal reality and "maybe."

I have posted case examples before, but they are irrelevant when you demand a "justified" case that was made "unjustified" - you ask for a logical impossibility (if the outcome of the case was that the shooting was found not justified, then there is nothing that says it was ever "justified"). That's half a step less honest that the classic "straw man" argument. I don't know the name for this type of fallacy, but I'm sure it has one.
Thank you for the response. To be clear, I was not demanding, I was asking. I want this to remain a calm, civil discussion.

In my 35 years of firearms, I have heard always heard a strange myth associated with the use of a pistol when it comes to self defense. The myth is, "if the pistol is not bone stock, you will be prosecuted for any mod done to the pistol." I always ask when I hear this is: "What mod would you be prosecuted for?" I have no idea where this myth came from.

Example: I have a TLR-2 Light/Laser. I was shooting in the evening. I did this so I could see the laser better. The guy in the lane next to me asks me if conceal carry my Glock with the laser attached. I told him I had in the past, with a OWB holster covered up. He tells me, that I would go to prison for using a Laser if I had to use the pistol for self defense. After I stopped laughing, I showed him it was a aiming laser, not a Star Wars laser.

:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: WD8T
#58 ·
Even if the mod(s) do not tip the balance against a defensive shooter, any time the prosecutor raises an issue or even asks a question, you have to pay your attorney to deal with it. If the prosecutor goes after you on an issue that needs an expert, you have to hire and pay for your own expert to rebut the prosecutor's claim. Even if you win you case in the end, it was more costly. When it comes to the legal process, it's very easy to end up a loser just by playing.
 
#60 ·
In my 35 years of firearms, I have heard always heard a strange myth associated with the use of a pistol when it comes to self defense. The myth is, "if the pistol is not bone stock, you will be prosecuted for any mod done to the pistol." I always ask when I hear this is: "What mod would you be prosecuted for?" I have no idea where this myth came from.
And, again, you make up your own version of the myth, so you can easily argue against it, same as before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzItLies
#62 ·
It would probably be difficult to get advice as competent with as much specific experience in dealing with firearms issues in a legal setting from one's own attorney. Which is perhaps why some of the best attorneys reach out to guys like these for firearms issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzItLies
#63 ·
A jury of your peers will not be filled with people from this forum. The prosecutor will select the most uneducated about firearms people we can get. The prosecutor attempt to fill the jury with all manner of fiction about the "dangerous ghost gun" you built used.

Do yourself a favor and leave the cool custom bang stick for the range. Besides, you may never get that gun back after the trial, if you win and remain free.
 
#64 ·
TLDR. I customize my weapons to make them more effective for me. If it keeps me on this side of the dirt, I'll take my chances.
 
#66 ·
I interesting ways, the discussion about modified guns are like the discussions about modified cars. It is very much a guy thing. Guys are going to trick out their cars with this cool thing-of-a-bob, or that kick ass what-not. Hearing the discussions, the same seems to apply to hand guns. Sure, we justify the choices with ideas of efficiency, and functionality in the same way that a bigger exhaust manifold is better than the stock manifold. But a firearm is a different animal. With lock, we may never have to use it. But if we do, all those cool thing-of-a-bob, or that kick ass what-nots could be the difference between freedom and Bubba the lovable cell mate. Keep your EDC firearm stock and eliminate it as a tool of the prosecutor against you.

But, that's just me.
 
#67 ·
The Prosecutor would have to prove that 1. The gun was modified and 2. You're the one who modified the gun. If you want mods on your carry gun it might be best to have a gunsmith do them.

Would it be reasonable to assume that there are some after-market parts in your car? Why not your gun?
 
#68 ·
Folklore. I've never heard of it ever happening.
I tend to agree. I've practiced law as a state gov't attorney for 26 years, and never encountered anything even remotely supportive of this claim. With 330M people in America, though, its possible to find an example or two of just about anything. Like an Asian granny sodomizing a kangaroo. [Btw, do not Google that like I just did]. The real question is whether it is even remotely possible that my customized firearm - if I had one - could persuade a prosecutor to charge me with a more severe crime, or a jury to so convict. Possible? Sure. And that Asian ******** granny might be on the jury too. But probably not.

There are many better things to concern ourselves with when it comes to a defensive scenario, like situational awareness, avoidance, de-escalation and shoot-no shoot. While I think that I have a cool head, I know that I am much more likely to face perdition from losing my temper and blasting some sucker than I am because my gun looks scary to a jury.

So is it possible for something like a customized gun to come back and bite you? Sure. Maybe. Theoretically. Anything is possible. But its number 28,017 on the list of things for us to worry about. Don't lose your cool and blast some poor, innocent sucker, and you won't have to worry about what your gun looks like.

This is not legal advice.
 
#69 ·
The issue is not that there are modifications to the firearm, It is now those things can and likely will be used against you if you are involved in a shooting. I am also saying the urge to mod a firearm is similar to the urge to trick-out that cool car. It is what we guys tend to do. I am also saying that one should resist the firearm mod in order to provide fewer targets for a prosecutor. Look, I know just how unpopular this idea is. I am talking against those who modify their firearm toy. You only have to ask what folks have done to their EDC (Every Day Carry) firearm and you will hear a list of mods that rival that of a hot rod car modifications.

This idea is not mine. Mr. Ayoob, a recognized expert in the field and contributor to this forum has convinced me to be smart on this topic and leave that EDC firearm stock. It will do what it was designed to do with amazing effectiveness.

As with all things, to each his own.
 
#70 · (Edited)
The main problem, IMHO, with the idea that "a good shoot is a good shoot" is that it oversimplifies the whole process of determining when it's a good shoot to begin with. We'd all like to think that we wear white hats and that we'd never, ever, ever get into a questionable shooting. That said, the good guys don't get to pick when and where confrontations happen. If they did, they'd be called "assailants." Once a shooting has happened, it's up to a whole bunch of other people (police, grand jurors, judges, lawyers, juries, etc.) to determine whether the shooting was in fact "a good shoot." Can they consider weapon mods? Sure, they can.

To ask for a "justified shooting turned bad by weapon mods" is to stack the deck in your own favor. If it's a justified shooting, the question of weapon mods has already been answered. If weapon mods were an issue, you can claim "it wasn't a justified shooting" to begin with. The problem isn't that weapon mods "will turn a good shoot bad," but that they can be used to complicate the issue of whether it a shooting is justified.
 
#71 ·
Search for Massed Ayoob And his research. He has given many actual court cases
Please post at least one of these actual court cases where a customized firearm was a factor in a Self Defense case.

It would be helpful to post the actual case link as well so we can all read it.
 
#73 ·
We've all heard that if you end up using your gun for self defense that it's better legally if your gun is stock. What I'm wondering is whether that's actually true, or if it's one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often that we take it as gospel.

Maybe there are some LEOs here that have actual empirical evidence of someone having a rougher time in court because their gun was hot-rodded. Is there data to support that claim? I certainly don't know one way or the other, but my hunch is it's probably just one of those oft repeated things without much actual evidence.
It all depends in what city and state you live in and how much those who are in charge love criminals and hate people who own guns to defend against all the recidivist criminals that the liberals have managed to repeatedly turn loose.

I live in a state that is a "Shall Issue " state and everyone has guns and whenever there's a self-defense shooting, as long as it's justified, the local media never focuses on what kind of gun it was or what kind of ammo is used, but in some places where Liberals are in charge of the city government and the news media and you're involved in a self defense shooting, they'll try to screw you any way they can, no matter WHAT kind of gun you use.

It's the same thing with using reloaded ammo. There's documented cases where that's been a problem. Massad Ayoob has written about it extensively and he's served as an expert witness in many self defense trials, but many of those trials were in Liberal states on the Eastern seaboard and I think that it's probably also happened in California. So it has happened, and it can happen but it depends on where you live, Red state, Blue state, urban or rural.
 
#74 ·
Borg Warner, one case cited here (Alvarez) happened in pro-gun Florida. In pro-gun Arizona there's a case going where the accusers are making a big deal out of a slogan on the dust cover of the shooter's AR15. I've also seen it become an issue in pro-gun Texas (Santibanes v. Tomball) and pro-gun Louisiana (Galmon v. Phebus).

It's kinda like violent crime: you may encounter more of it in urban areas, but rural areas are not immune.
 
#75 ·
..., the local media never focuses on what kind of gun it was or what kind of ammo is used, ....l.
I would not worry about what the news media concentrates on for its four paragraph article or 90 second story, but rather what is contained in the couple thousand pages detailing the evidence, statements, diagrams, photos, lab reports including reports from a firearms examiner etc.
 
#76 · (Edited)
But when the media starts talking about what kind of gun it was or what kind of ammo was used they like to quote things from reports from a firearms examiner and whatever evidence there is that has a bearing on the case, and especially if it has anything to do with the guy being negligent for having a "specially modified gun" they're all over it like sharks smelling blood in the water.

There was a shooting here in 2014* that I followed very closely and neither the police or the prosecution or the lawyers for the young man with a criminal record who was shot focused on the type of firearm or ammunition that was used and I have never heard of a case locally where they've done anything like that and I've lived her for over 15 years and my brother has lived here ever since he got out of high school in 1969 and I know this area very well.

* http://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-233ae4f8-82f3-545c-acab-4facb1520825.html

However, I live in Eastern Washington State, which is more rural, and over there on the Left coast anywhere around Seattle things may be different because that is NOT the "gun-friendly' part of the state and their local police departments and prosecuting attorneys may very well do things differently relative to this discussion.

But I stand by my original point that anywhere that Liberals are in charge, the greater the likelyhood that you're going to have to worry about gun modifications and/or what kind of ammo you use, and my best advice for people living in those jurisdictions who modify their guns in any way is to make a point of sticking to the story that the gun was modified for Target Shooting and not for defensive, or worst of all, "tactical" reasons.

Attached are examples of modifications that you should NOT make to your gun if you live in a Liberal jurisdiction and ever have to use your gun for self-preservation.
 
#77 · (Edited)
K
It is good to hear that gun modifications in shootings are never mentioned there. Out of curiosity are there a lot of shootings there and if so any idea how many are with stock guns and how many with modified guns?
 
#78 ·
K
It is good to hear that gun modificstions in shootings are never mentioned there. Out of curiosity are there a lot of shootings there and if so any idea how many are with stock guns and how many with modified guns?
There are actually quite a few shootings for a city the size of Spokane (population 208,916) for two reasons; one, like many semi- rural areas, we have had a meth problem here, and not enough jobs. And two, other parts of the state where the prisons are like to send their parolees here, from the state penitentiary in Walla Walla in the South and our own Airway heights Correction Center locally.

So yes there are plenty of shootings but the type of guns used are rarely mentioned in the news coverage, either at the time when the incident is reported or if a trial comes up following the shootings, and this is much different from when I lived in Los Angeles and news coverage of shootings always made a point of saying whether of not a gun was a "semi-automatic nine millimeter handgun" or an "assault rifle"

The last self-defense case I remember hearing about here in any great detail was a case where a woman's ex-boyfriend came to where she was living with either her new boyfriend or husband, with the intent to kill them both and arrived with both a shotgun and a handgun and kicked down the front door and began shooting up the place. The couple were upstairs and the man got a gun an went prone at the top of the stairs and shot the dirtbag from that position, killing him. There were no charges against him and no extensive police investigation and no mention of what kind of gun he used or if it was modified in any way.

The news stories on TV and in the media went into detail about how many shotgun blasts did damage to the walls of the house and how close it came to hitting the home defender at the top of the stairs (not very close because he went prone) but said nothing about what kind of handgun the home defender used. The case was especially interesting to me because of how well-trained the home defender apparently was. I follow a lot of these stories and I'm always interested in what kind of gun might have been used but it hardly is ever mentioned and that tells me that it isn't something the police or the courts are interested in.

Even in the High profile Gail Gerlach case the only mention of the gun in the many news stories that I followed was that it was a semi-automatic handgun.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/10/tk/
 
#80 ·
You will find several cases named here: http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html . They'll be easy for you to look up.
Thanks for the link.

All they have to do is ALLEGE that you fired by accident due to the hair trigger effect. A classic example is Florida v. Luis Alvarez, where the cornerstone of the state’s case against the officer was that he had (A) cocked the hammer of his Smith & Wesson, which (B) had two coils removed from the trigger return spring.
Can't find the actual court documents, can you provide a link. All I can find is opinions and so called news articles.

“There has never been a conviction resulting from the hair trigger allegation!” MISCONCEPTION. Here are two, just from my personal experience. NY v. Magliato, where Frank Magliato unintentionally discharged the cocked revolver he had pointed at his assailant, killing him.
Really?
This is not a Justified self defense case. It was a "road rage" incident and you know it. Not only was the shoot (being a road rage incident) not justified, it was the Defense that raised the issue of "Hair trigger". Knowing it was not justified under the law, the defense tried to call it "accidental" instead of justified, based on the trigger pull.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1985376110AD2d266_1333/PEOPLE v. MAGLIATO

Magliato drove back to where the Schneider vehicle was parked and stopped across the street, near a phone booth. While Klaris called 911, defendant left his car and started toward the station wagon, again shouting profanities. Giani emerged from the station wagon, holding the nightstick in a threatening position. According to the prosecution, the two men faced each other across a distance of some 45 feet. Suddenly, defendant cocked his weapon and assumed a firing position, crouching with both feet planted apart and arms outstretched. The gun in his hand, he took deliberate aim and fired at Giani striking him in the forehead and causing such massive brain damage that he died two days later.

The defense version differs somewhat. Defendant did not dispute that he drew his weapon and cocked it. However, he contended that his weapon could fire under the slightest pressure and that immediately prior to the firing of the weapon, a car passed close to Giani, brushing him back. This incident so unnerved defendant that he accidentally exerted pressure on the trigger sufficient to discharge the weapon.
And in Canada there was Crown v. Gossett, a criminal trial involving a cop whose service revolver probably was cocked when it unintentionally discharged, killing an unarmed suspect. Gossett was convicted of Manslaughter in his first trial, but thankfully, acquitted in his second trial.
Again this is not a case of a Justified Self Defense situation where a "hair trigger" played a factor.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1040/index.do

he accused chased after him, taking his gun out of its holster as he ran. He yelled "Stop or I'll shoot", and then pointed the gun at the suspect with his finger on the trigger. A shot went off, fatally striking the suspect in the head. The accused was charged with manslaughter. Under s. 222(5)(a) of the Criminal Code , a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being by means of an unlawful act. The Crown contended that the accused's careless use of a firearm contrary to s. 86(2) constituted the unlawful act. At trial the accused acknowledged that the gun must have been cocked at the time he pointed it at the suspect. He further indicated that he never intended to shoot and that the gun went off accidentally.
Again, the accused claimed accidental discharge, not SD and not in possession of a modified trigger.

So, what I can gather from your listed court cases there are no actual cases where a modified trigger was a factor in a SD case, only the shooter being accused or self proclaiming accidental-negligent discharge.

Do you have any links to "actual" court cases where a Justified shooting was ruled unjustified based on Firearm Modifications?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockdude1
#81 ·
I think some miss the point. Some shootings are clearly justified or clearly criminal. But a fair number are more in the middle with some aggravating circumstances and some mitigating circumstances. And a fair number of those are close enough that different prosecutors regularly disagree on whether or not to proceed with the case. It is in those cases where elements such as a modified trigger may be one of a bunch of aggravating factors.

I think a couple of the guys here have said many times that a modified trigger will not matter in a shooting that is clearly justified. But that is certainly not the same as saying a modified trigger will never be an issue brought up in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spats McGee
#82 ·
I think some miss the point. Some shootings are clearly justified or clearly criminal. But a fair number are more in the middle with some aggravating circumstances and some mitigating circumstances. And a fair number of those are close enough that different prosecutors regularly disagree on whether or not to proceed with the case. It is in those cases where elements such as a modified trigger may be one of a bunch of aggravating factors.

I think a couple of the guys here have said many times that a modified trigger will not matter in a shooting that is clearly justified. But that is certainly not the same as saying a modified trigger will never be an issue brought up in court.
OK, nobody else can, your turn.

Can you post any "Actual" Self Defense Case where a Modified Firearm was a factor?

The cases posted by Mas, were either not SD cases, no modified firearm used, accidental Discharge claimed by the defense, or unsafe handling of a firearm by a trained LEO.

None of which are relevant to the OP's question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockdude1
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top