Glock Talk banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
That tripe has been repeated so much people are believing it. Merely changing certain elements of a gun are unlikely to come up in an intentional shooting.
Thanks for leading off with information that clearly indicates that you have no idea what you are writing about, so that we need read no further.
 

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
As always, the blind believers of internet lore make an appearance.

Please provide a case citation where a mechanical change to a gun used in a DGU resulted in a defeated self-defense charge.

Note: Mechanical, not cosmetic.
Thanks again for stressing the difference between mechanical and cosmetic, again you don't know what you are writing about.

You can do a search on this forum to find this information. I, and several others have posted it before.

I know several SMEs/lawyers in the use of force/SD - they all pretty much agree agree that this has been, and will be in the future, an issue for a some plaintiffs in SD cases.

Go take some classes in SD law, then you will understand.

In the first class I took in SD law, one of the first things the the lawyer/instructor said is that "after this class, you will never be able to tolerate a internet self-defense law discussion again".

If you have a very, very clear-cut case of self-defense with several [agreeing] supporting witnesses and no political complications a gun modification [likely] isn't going to be an issue; but there aren't many cases [outside of the home/curtilage] that meet this criteria.

I'm giving this information for your benefit, and others who might believe your opinion, not for my benefit - or to be argumentative. I don't have a dog in the hunt, I've done the research, taken the classes and met/acquired the the [multiple] instructor credentials.

I'm assuming you are an adult - and are therefore free to make your own mistakes; just don't mislead others.

For the others, don't trust my [or certainly not mreed's] statements or opinions - take a class [preferably] or read a book [if you can't afford or get to a class] on the law of self defense.
 

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
When you start with such a baseless assumption you undermine the rest of anything else you had to say.

And have yet to provide a citation to a case where this invalidated a self-defense defense or turned a good shoot bad.
You need a SD law class.

You make a nonsensical argument. You don't get to decide what is a "good shoot" or a "bad shoot" - a lot of other folks get to decide that. Just look to SD cases that were overturned on appeal (where even a laser sight, among other juror perceptions, were an issue) - that is where a "good shoot" was turned to a "bad shoot" then [on appeal] to a "good shoot", resulting in a lot of anguish and expense on the plaintiff's part.

Again ....

I'm giving this information for your benefit, and others who might believe your opinion, not for my benefit - or to be argumentative. I don't have a dog in the hunt, I've done the research, taken the classes and met/acquired the the [multiple] instructor credentials.​

As I said before,

For the others, don't trust my [or certainly not mreed's] statements or opinions - take a class [preferably] or read a book [if you can't afford or get to a class] on the law of self defense.
 

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
I'll ask this again. Which cases? Citations, please.

As of now you're still proffering a baseless argument.
I said, you can do a search on this forum. I and several others have provided cases where mechanical modifications, and other related juror perceptions, were an issue in court. I am not here to do your research.

I see that you are in central Texas - not too far from Little Rock, AR. I'm not the biggest fan of Tom Givins - but he and his wife, Lynn, organize an excellent conference (Tactical Conference) on "all things" about defensive gun use and security threats. The conference was just outside of Little Rock, Arkansas last year, and the 2018 conference is supposed to be in the same location. He usually has several presenters on SD law - if I recall correctly, he had at least four (4) presenters last year maybe five (5) or six (6) - I'd have to review my notes to be for sure - (the excellent - Andrew Branca, Mas Ayoob and Manny Kapelsohn among them). The presentations aren't the same as going to a law class, or the presenters "full" class(es) but it is a good overview and you get to talk to them face-to-face; either publicly or privately.

Don't trust me, trust them - if you chose to - they are the experts in the field.

http://rangemaster.com/2018-tactical-conference/
 

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
Full Version here:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html

THE LIGHT TRIGGER PULL ISSUE

By Massad Ayoob




Common Misconceptions
When this topic is discussed in gun forums, certain themes predictably arise. Let’s discuss them now.
“They won’t know I had a light trigger.” MISCONCEPTION. Of course they ‘ll know. It is routine procedure for every firearm recovered after a shooting to be sent to the crime lab, where it will be intensively examined by a professional Firearms and Toolmark Examiner who is likely to be currently certified as an armorer with most common handguns. Trigger pulls are routinely weighed and cross-checked with manufacturer specifications to determine if they are within spec. All safety devices are checked. (The reason, among others, is to preclude a criminal from claiming that a murder weapon was defective and went off by itself.)
“I’ll just say I shot him intentionally, and that will be that.” MISCONCEPTION. News flash: if everyone was accepting what you say, even if you speak the truth, you wouldn’t be in court. I would expect the opposing counsel’s opening statement to include something like, “The defendant is so reckless and arrogant he can’t admit he made a deadly mistake. He’ll probably tell you something like ‘I, like Inspector Clouseau, meant to do that.’”
“That’s only a concern if you shot someone by accident.” MISCONCEPTION. 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. Yes, he was ultimately acquitted…after a fourteen-month ordeal that included an eight-to-nine-week trial. A detailed account of this case can be found in the autobiography of one of his attorneys, Roy Black, titled “Black’s Law.”
“I always keep my booger hooker off the bang switch, so this will never be an issue for me.” MISCONCEPTION. First, even if you HAVE kept your finger off the trigger until you intentionally fired, remember the point made earlier: you can’t count on what you SAY in court automatically being BELIEVED in court. Second, a seasoned cross-examiner would simply reply, “We all know you’re supposed to keep your finger off the trigger until you’re in the act of intentionally firing…AND WE’RE SAYING THAT YOU DIDN’T! WE CONTEND THAT YOU MADE A MISTAKE! Are you telling this jury that you’re an absolutely perfect human being who is INCAPABLE of making a mistake?”
Tell us how you’re going to answer that, without sounding like the personification of reckless arrogance the cross-examiner is portraying you to be?
Second, you can expect opposing counsel to discover the European study found HERE Force Science News #3: Can You Really Prevent Unintentional Discharges? in which it was discovered that even well-trained cops did not realize their fingers were touching their triggers in high-stress simulated danger situations. It’s called “trigger affirmation” by training expert Tom Aveni, and also “trigger confirmation” or “trigger verification.” And it can happen even with the most highly trained personnel.
“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. Sent to prison originally for Depraved Murder, the appellate court reduced the conviction only to Manslaughter, with the majority opinion holding that it was reckless and negligent to aim a gun with such a light trigger pull at a man one obviously did not intend to shoot at that moment. (The minority opinion held that doing so did indeed constitute Depraved Murder under NY law.) 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.
“I’ll just tell the Court that I had the light trigger so I wouldn’t miss and hit an innocent bystander.” MISCONCEPTION. Whether you say that in a gun forum discussion or in court, you can expect the opposing side to say, “So, you ADMIT your competence with a gun was so poor that you realized EVEN BEFOREHAND that you were likely to hit an innocent bystander instead of your intended target if you didn’t have your special ‘orthopedic trigger’? Why weren’t you honest enough to admit that you weren’t ready to be carrying or even keeping a loaded gun for self defense in public yet?” That argument HELPS anyone trying to paint you as incompetent and negligent.

Having been involved personally in several cases involving lighter-than-factory-spec triggers presented as “hair trigger cases,” including the Alvarez, Gossett, and Magliato cases mentioned above, I think that the collective law enforcement experience in countless such cases speaks to the wisdom of keeping “factory ‘duty spec’ trigger pulls” on any firearmone is likely to use for self-defense purposes.
Not mentioned in the article, (IIRC) other issues in the Alvarez case was that his revolver didn't have factory stocks (grips) and that a amateur "kitchen table gunsmith" had made the modifications to the firearm. These issues were addressed by expert witnesses, but added time and expense to Alvarez's trial.

Also, like the Zimmerman case, there was political pressure to prosecute Alvarez by the State Attorney, Janet Reno.
 

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
I was also advised to say that you are having chest pains and are in need of immediate medical attention. This get's you an immediate ambulance ride out of there and several hours to get your ducks in a row with counsel.
Probably not good advice, don't lie about anything, don't do anything to diminish your credibility, honesty is the best policy.

You can honestly say that you've been through a traumatic event and you want to cooperate fully with after you have met with your attorney.
 

· Scottish Member
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
Well I've actually been involved in a defensive shooting. Requesting medical attention stopped the NOPD officer from taking me to jail for the weekend. Which was procedure when the corrupt Harry Connick was DA.
Glad it worked out for you.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
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