Actually proof of legal action because of mods?

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by skelt11, Jul 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gents,

    Its been about 5 years since I owned a Glock and I recently picked up a 23. Had some work done on it and it caused me to think about the repercussions of carrying it. I'm staying about a mile away from a prominent Glock store and was looking at the Glocks some of their employees were carrying. Several retired LEOs themselves. They all had mod'd their triggers and/or other components. Now, I'm not trying to start another debate of whether or not carrying a weapon where the weapon has been modified is a good idea and I'm not going to get into what I had done. But reading a post I came across this post:

    "My thinking is that the plaintiffs attorney will have a field day with the defendant (you) in wrongful death or injury case.
    Ask yourself how all those mods will sound in court."

    My question here is has anyone actually seen or have proof of a situation where a person has been found guilty or been punished in a situation where they had modified their weapon and had to use it in a legal self defense situation. I understand what can be said by a defense attorney, but has there been any situations to back these concerns up?

    Again, I'm not trying to start the debate over again. I'm just looking to see what has happened in the past to make a sound personal decision.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. mrsurfboard

    mrsurfboard The Anti-Glock

    The only way a modification could go against you is if the said modification made the weapon unsafe and because of that unsafe condition, someone got hurt or killed. If you are justified in using deadly force, then you are justified.

  3. FireForged

    FireForged Millenium #3936
    Millennium Member

    I have a short trigger installed on my Sig. It helps me keep things on target when firing the first shot (one handed). If someone wants to call me evil for it, they can go ahead.
  4. Merkavaboy

    Merkavaboy Code-7A KUZ769

    With all due respects, there are dozens and dozens of pages on this topic just here on GT. Your questions are no different than any of the other numerous questions already asked before. A quick re-hash of what has been said before:

    People are not arrested, prosecuted and convicted (or not, as we saw with the Casey Anthony case) of a homicide based on just one single act, such as modifying a trigger on a firearm used in a SD shooting. Modification(s), if brought up as evidence, are just single "slices" of a whole pie, which is a prosecutor's/plaintiff's attorney's case against the accused.

    The best example that I can think of is the Harold Fish case. (If you're not familiar with the case, google it and read about it). Fish was convicted of a homicide. The killing weapon was a Glock 10MM using JHPs. The fact that Fish used a "powerful 10MM" caliber pistol and deadly "Jacketed Hollow Point" bullets were just two "slices" of that prosecutor's pie (case) that led to Fish's conviction. But those two "slices" were important enough to play a major role in the jury's finding of guilt, as some of those jury members pointed out when they were interviewed for a national TV show about the Fish case.

    As one of my instructors continues to point out to his students and anyone who will listen: Know thy guns and know thy ammo. Know how to defend in court your choices of equipment and know how to defend any mods that you make to your gun(s). To do otherwise, IMO, is just plain foolishness.

  5. Beat me to the punch. This was discussed as recently as 3 weeks ago, and nothing new was added to that thread, which was a repeat of a thread 2 months old.

    Russ has a bunch of great stickies up here. Take a look at em.


  6. Sorry guys! I didn't see that sticky. I did browse quite a bit and did not find any of the previous post though. Just a thought I was having and thought I would pose the question.
  7. +1

    I have seen trigger pull weight brought up in cases. There are pretty good odds that an avid shooter who owns several guns will never be on one of these juries and I wasn't on that jury. So, I can't honestly tell you how much of a factor it had in the case.

    I can tell you that it took up at least two hours at $350/hr for your lawyer's time.

    Now a better one to bring up is how much impact is your crazy bumper sticker going to have in the case.
    #8 Pardoner, Jul 7, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011

  8. No sweat. :cool: It's one of the most discussed topics here. If you check that link out, Mas Ayoob chimes in on the discussion, as well as some of our other bright (and if you include me, not so bright...:rofl:) legal minds.

  9. The single greatest problem with any of these questions is the concept of a "good shoot". IF it is as a factual matter a good shoot then you're more likely to die reading this from being skewered by a unicorn than any mod being an issue. The problem is the assumption of it being a good shooting. Not only do you not get to make that decision but there are others (possibly the shootees friends or even the shootee himself) who will be throwing you under the bus at every opportunity.

    Look at it this way; if your trigger pull becomes an issue you've already got problems. If that weren't the case it almost certainly wouldn't have come up. Now that it has, and people are asking unwanted questions, how could the mod do anything BUT hurt?

    I've spun around a little with some of the guys on here that, IMO, may overrepresent the actual likelihood of some common performance mods becoming a legal liability. That's not the same thing as saying "It can't happen.". Beyond that it's up to the individual.*

    *Though some may have taken some of my observations here and in previous posts to think otherwise all my carry weapons are stock.
  10. Some very good info in that thread. Sorry I didn't see it sooner. Sorry again about the redundant post.
  11. Don't sweat it skelt11. You're not the won't be the last. We've all beat a few dead horses at one time or another...your's truely included.

  12. Not quite.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page