Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 09-24-2017, 5:45 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
A) brevity is the soul of whit.
I've often said that "brevity is not my strong suit," and I see no reason to change at this late date. I'd rather support my argument than pretend to be clever as some do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
B) are you saying that home modifications don’t void manufacture’s warranties?
I've said nothing of the sort. Where are you coming up with this tripe? Please tell us what I said that lead you to make this statement? I'm pretty sure that no one has mentioned "manufacture’s [sic] warranties" in the context of this discussion. But if you think that someone has, please show us those posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
The point is pretty simple and you’ve done your best to make it as convoluted as possible.
Nah, it's still quite simple. YOU FOLKS are the ones who are trying to twist this into something that it's not. YOU FOLKS are the ones who have posted dozens of links in a pathetic effort to get people to accept your opinion. Of course NOT ONE OF THEM was to what has been asked for repeatedly, starting with the very first post, shown here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEFCON ZERO View Post
How much truth is there to Trigger Work being an issue in court (or DA office) in an otherwise Good Shoot by non-LEO?
The OP asked about "trigger work." You folks expanded the conversation to include ANY KIND of modification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
You’re essentially stating a license bonded gunsmith is viewed the same as a guy who watched a YouTube video in a court of law. That’s laughable.
I've said nothing of the sort. Since you have said that I made such an "essential state[ment]," please show us the post I've written that supports your claim. Failing that, it's BS. You're trying to put words into my mouth. I've never said anything of the kind. This is the sort of thing that we see when people realize that they're losing an argument. They resort to one logical fallacy after another. You've spent quite a lot of time in the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, which your links add to, and now, with your question about home mods and warranties, you've gone to the Strawman argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
I’m not going to bother answering questions which are distractions from the point at hand.
ROFL. But you will continue to pervert the discussion onto all kinds of other modifications than the OP wanted to discuss. OK. I'll keep asking questions, just to point out your inability to answer them. And I'll keep a running count at the end of each post drawing attention to it.

In any case, those questions not only shoot holes in your thoughts and statements, they put the lie to your entire argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
But you clearly need more expert advice on the issue...
I'm always willing to be educated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
Well this author agrees WITH ME so I'm wondering why you posted it? Thanks though. Here's what he says, [NOTE: in the following posts that quote the links that Justinoff sent in, the emphases are mine].

Quote:
Your department policy manual trumps pretty much everything. My opinion is just that – an opinion. Take it with a grain of salt, and never do ANYTHING that violates policy or you will likely find yourself in hot water.

External modifications are, just as the name suggests, modifications to the outside of the gun. This includes (but is certainly not limited to) the following:
– Grip modifications
– Sights
– Weapon mounted lights/lasers
– Magazine wells
– Extended magazine floor plates for increased capacity

Grip customization is especially popular (and as a LE Firearms instructor, I find it to sometimes be necessary). Add-on grips provide an easy way to customize the feel of your gun without compromising the structural integrity, and a gun that fits your hand well is one that you will shoot well with.

Night sights are a given – if your duty weapon doesn’t have them, get some.

Weapon lights are another increasingly popular option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
This gentleman ALSO AGREES WITH ME, on at least one point.

Quote:
In short, longstanding advice — from homicide investigators, prosecutors, defense lawyers, gun writers, bloggers, the self-defense firearms community, and those who actually consult and testify as experts in criminal and civil trials — urges (prudently) leaving a defensive handgun factory box stock, to avoid adverse consequences in a legal proceeding. Critics of such advice note (correctly) a near dearth of anecdotal trial reports and published appellate decisions suggesting there are adverse legal ramifications on account of modification to or installation of a non-factory standard replacement part (NFSRP) into a defensive handgun. So, are there legal ramifications or not? Yes, there can be. Are they adverse? Perhaps. Should one then automatically forgo a useful, desirable, and common handgun modification or NFSRP? Probably not.
I completely agree with his comments about modifying triggers.

Quote:
What about a lightened or more crisp trigger pull, modifications which seem to generate the most debate? Unless the shooting in question was or is alleged to be the result of an unintended discharge, trigger characteristics ought not to matter. But I would nevertheless advise (absent a very good reason to do otherwise) against going any lighter than a bit just north of what expert gunsmiths and trainers familiar with the particular handgun platform believe is appropriate. That implicitly means going with parts which are sold for “defensive carry” or “duty,” and straying away from gunsmith modifications and trigger group parts identified as used for “competition.”
I also agree with his statement about prosecutors or plaintiff's attorneys might do with modifications.

Quote:
I acknowledge (and accept for myself) that a mild level of uncertainty will always persist as to whether a modification or installation of a NFSRP might (undeservedly) contribute to an adverse result in an otherwise “good” officer-involved or self defense shooting. Stated another way, is a prosecutor or civil plaintiff handed a “better” case, even when (as will almost always be the case) the modification/NFSRP is clearly irrelevant to what precipitated the shooting or its outcome, and therefore, its legality. The answer is they might, if the evidence gatekeeper, the judge, foolishly allows such into evidence and then compounds the error by allowing an erroneous, completely subjective opening statement or closing argument about it, which gunnies easily recognize as nonsense, but which a trial jury or an appellate court in review might not.
This is why hiring the right expert witness is essential. He has to overcome this BS and show why such mods made the situation BETTER for all concerned. Most experts are capable of this, it's not all that hard, but they need to briefed that opposing attorneys are going down this road so they can prepare for it.

Quote:
In order to defend against such “evidence,” a countering explanation of the modification or NFSRP’s purpose/function must be tendered ...
I REALLY like his "Executive Takeaway!"

Quote:
Consider the possible arguments — pro and con. Proceed cautiously, but don’t feel pressured not to modify/install what has utilitarian purpose and will be meaningfully helpful to the success of your likely mission, that is, the feared events which compelled you to own/carry the handgun in the first place.
Justinoff did you read ANY of the material in the links that you posted? So far, ALL OF THEM agree with my statements, and oppose yours. The very first lines in this link say this,

Quote:
There are many modifications you can make to your firearm to make shooting and carrying it more efficient and comfortable. One of the most popular is adjustment of the trigger pull weight. But, should you be concerned legally about this modification to your firearm? Maybe yes, but likely no ...

If you have intentionally fired your gun, the trigger pull weight is most likely legally irrelevant ... What if the gun went off and you did not intend to pull the trigger? In a situation of a non-intended discharge, the issue of trigger pull weight could be relevant ...

In the end, the issue of trigger modification should be an informed one. Be sure to consult a gunsmith and/or the firearm manufacturer along with your local laws before making any modifications to your firearm. By adjusting the trigger pull weight, you are making your tool more useful for its intended purpose ...
The video that's at the end of this link is so important to this discussion that I'll embed it. It's less than two minutes long so everyone REALLY should take a look at it. The video is narrated by Kirk Evans, the President of Texas and U.S. Law Shield. The title of the video is Civil Liability of Modifying Your Trigger Pull



https://blog.uslawshield.com/legal-r...-trigger-pull/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
THIS WRITER ALSO AGREES WITH ME! He writes,

Quote:
Mr. Kraut, Esq. breaks down the due process that one will go through post defensive encounter and basically so long as one used their weapon in legal self-defense, one is free to modify their weapon as they see fit.

That said, if one is charged there is the potential that one’s modifications could be used to show the intent of the shooter, but its nearly unheard of (Adam states he’s never heard of one, which as a firearms attorney is a significant statement).

The key is, as always, the totality of the circumstances is the key. A modified firearm, assuming the modification does not cause a negligent discharge, is only a minor issue, if it's an issue at all.
Here's another video that you REALLY should watch. It's called " Carrying a Modified Gun - The Legal Brief!" The narrator says at 0:48 "Anywhere you look on the Internet you can find a variety of keyboard commandos repeating the same old tired line, that carrying a modified gun will result in you being Bubba's new best friend. Of course, they don't provide any examples or other facts to actually prove any of this ... " Hmm, where have we heard that before?

He mentions the Harold Fish case, that we've discussed here, and says that the fact that he used a 10mm and HP bullets were not why the jury convicted him. It was because they didn't believe he acted in self defense.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=xsaI5raGZfA


Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
Pretty simple concept you’re trying to litigate into the ground just do you can be that guy...
It IS a "pretty simple concept." And WITHOUT EXCEPTION EVERY ONE OF THE LINKS YOU JUST POSTED AGREE WITH ME. Thanks for doing my research, I truly appreciate it.

If being "that guy" means the 'guy who's right' in this debate, I'm happy to be him.

Justinoff has now been asked 20 questions, he's answered only two of them.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-24-2017, 5:46 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
I agree 100%. Cleaning and disassembly is much different story than changing the trigger geometry and swapping hammer springs by a internet taught home gunsmith.
Here is this nonsense again. NO ONE IN THIS DISCUSSION has suggested having any work done by an "internet taught home gunsmith. " Can you tell us why you keep bringing this up and pretending that it's part of the discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinoff View Post
On a personal rifle you do what you want but on a service/duty Firearm it’s not only a bad idea but against most departments policy and for good reason.
No one has disagreed with this sentiment.

Justinoff has now been asked 21 questions, he's answered only two of them.
__________________
Why would anyone trust the opinion of a person that can't or won't answer simple, direct, questions without evasion or ignoring them completely?

Last edited by bigger hammer; 09-25-2017 at 5:31 AM.. Reason: To correct spelling
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-25-2017, 5:34 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
.... the burden is on the expert witness to educate the jurors as to why the choices were made, that they were reasonable and that they were in the interests of the safety of the public.


... no matter how "gun friendly" an area may be, there will be individuals who know nothing about guns and have swallowed the BS that the liberals put out about them. An expert witness has to aim for the lowest common denominator and assume that ALL of the jurors are hostile. He has to make sure that they all understand the truth about guns, ammunition, and self defense.


...it's the job of the defense to allay the fears and misconceptions that the jurors have and to educate them as to the realities of firearms, ammunition, and self–defense....
All that is true. It's the job of the defendant's expert witnesses and defense counsel to educate jurors, and even in gun friendly States a juror could have various views antagonistic to the private ownership of guns or the use of force in self defense.

Now you're the defendant on trial for a crime and you're seeking to avoid conviction on the grounds that your intentional act of violence was justified. So your lawyer and your expert witnesses will be trying their best to tell your story in a way that is consistent with your claim of justification and that resonates with the jury.

The thing is that your lawyer and your expert witnesses can only work with what they have. They aren't magicians, and they can't manufacture evidence or facts. Within the universe of facts and evidence they have to work with those elements which the jury is likely to readily appreciate as supporting your story will help. But any discordant elements can make it harder to sell your story to the jury.

And the jury itself will be an unknown quantity to some extent. First, your lawyer will start out working with whatever jury pool is made available. Then he will do the best he can, using his limited number of peremptory challenges, and the rarely granted challenges for cause, to pick a jury likely to be receptive to your story -- while the prosecution will be trying to pick a jury more likely to be receptive to the prosecution's story.

So while it's the job of your lawyer and your expert witnesses to sell your story to the jury, do you really want to do things that could make that sale more difficult. There can be no guarantees.

As always, there are trade-offs:
  • I use quality, JHP ammunition of the sort commonly used by law enforcement agencies. This could be used against me in court, but I have decided that the risk is warranted because of the generally superior terminal performance of such ammunition. Therefore, I am prepared to meet attacks on my use of such ammunition.

  • I have sought out training, and I practice. I recognize that these things can be used against me in court, but I have concluded that by being trained I have a better chance to prevail in an emergency. So I have prepared to deal with attacks on my training.

  • Using a heavily modified gun could be used against me. Furthermore, I have trained and practiced sufficiently to be effective with a generally stock gun. I will consider modifications like improved sights or more durable finishes, but with training and practice I've found no reason to need especially light triggers to shoot well. So I have no good reason to use a heavily modified gun and take any risks on that account.

  • I gain no material advantage in the street using handloaded ammunition instead of good commercial ammunition. Therefore, I see no reason to take any risks, even if remote, by using handloaded ammunition.

  • Embellishing my gun with vigilante logos or bravado won't help me on the street and also won't help me in court. So I refrain.

To get back to the OP, no, a bad legal result from a modified gun is not automatic. If the evidence is sufficiently strong and obvious that your intentional act of violence was justified, things won't be going any further.

But you can't be sure that your case will play out like that. If the question of justification is in dispute, things like modifications to the gun might or might not hurt you in court; but they definitely won't help.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by fiddletown; 09-26-2017 at 7:41 AM.. Reason: correct typo
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-26-2017, 8:41 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

It's good to see you come back to the center. Welcome home! I agree with just about everything you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
As always, there are trade-offs: I use quality, JHP ammunition of the sort commonly used by law enforcement agencies. This could be used against me in court, but I have decided that the risk is warranted because of the generally superior terminal performance of such ammunition. Therefore, I am prepared to meet attacks on my use of such ammunition.
Me too. I started carrying when I became a LEO in the mid 1970's. I followed the controversy over LE transitioning to JHP ammunition with interest. My HD gun was loaded with JHPs shortly after they became available. My first agency used them when I came on. LAPD was still using 158 grain, RN lead bullets in their .38's. It took years for them to make the transition, lagging behind most every other LEA in the county. BUT STILL, to this day, nearly three decades later, there are ignorant people around who oppose their use. The defense expert in the Harold Fish case, didn't do a good job of educating that jury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I have sought out training, and I practice. I recognize that these things can be used against me in court, but I have concluded that by being trained I have a better chance to prevail in an emergency. So I have prepared to deal with attacks on my training.
Me too. I've been retired for over ten years now, I still dry fire several times a week. I still train with instructors. I realize that since I don't go looking for criminals any more, there's far less chance that I'll be involved in a deadly force situation. But I also realize that if it finds me, I no longer am wearing a bullet resistant vest, I no longer have a radio to call for backup, I no longer have a baton, or the various other tools of the trade. So I still carry, a firearm and I carry two spare magazines. I'd carry three, if I wasn't able to carry standard capacity mags. A disturbing and disgusting situation that the legislature has set up where I'm able to, due to my retired status, but the average civilian is not, but that's another discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Using a heavily modified gun could be used against me.
If the prosecution is going against you for using a gun at all, the fact that it's "heavily modified" is just going to be a little bit more "cream in the coffee" just a little more "noise" than if it wasn't modified at all. And, if you have the right expert witness, it might even be reversed and show up in your favor. Most such modifications increase your speed, accuracy and general efficiency. Of course if you've got mods that only look cool or display an attitude (such as the etching on one LEOs rifle, that's been discussed) the odds are better that it will be used against you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Furthermore, I have trained and practiced sufficiently to be effective with a generally stock gun.
Efficiency in a gun fight has little specific meaning. The term is quite vague. At the highest levels of competition, for example, improvements in efficiency are measured in hundredths of seconds, and would require a timer to be sure. But at the level where most of us live, increased efficiency may be measure in seconds or even in several of them. Two or three seconds when bullets are flying will feel like a lifetime and may make the difference between surviving and not surviving. I was running a class for a group of LEOs from a local agency and we were doing multiple target engagement. Few of them were being "efficient." They'd fire, come back onto that target and then transition to the next. I showed them a technique stolen from the competition world and their times dropped by 50%. In the real world, that might mean the difference between engaging the last opponent and having him get off a round that hits.

In terms of modifications to guns, efficiency means, for example getting back into the fight after a reload. Here an external magazine well or an internal magazine bevel will help. The difference, particularly for a fumbled reload, might be measured in several seconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I will consider modifications like improved sights or more durable finishes, but with training and practice I've found no reason to need especially light triggers to shoot well. So I have no good reason to use a heavily modified gun and take any risks on that account.
If you've modified your gun and have a prosecutor who will make that a major focus of his case, how many mods you've done is not of great significance. ANY mod will be pointed out and capitalized upon. The fact that you've only done a few will not be of much importance.

The definition of "heavily modified gun" will vary considerably. For many years I carried my duty gun both on, and off duty. It was a custom 1911 worked on by a top tier gunsmith with most of the mods of that day. They included the mods that I mentioned on a client's gun in post#75 and more. Then I went to a custom Officer's Model with most of the same mods, the work done by another top tier smith. I'd call them "heavily modified guns," both internal and external. My agency did not have any restrictions on privately owned firearms, or off–duty guns, it just had to be approved for carry by the Chief, and he was quite liberal on what he approved. Generally anything was OK except for one brand. And so I developed a similar attitude. We had more than our share of shootings, with several officers involved in them carrying "heavily modified guns" and never, were the modifications an issue.

I was involved in an off–duty shooting, in the highly anti gun city of Los Angeles, with a highly modified gun and using very controversial ammunition. The DA was "persuaded" (his word) that I acted appropriately and neither the firearm, nor the ammo came into play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Embellishing my gun with vigilante logos or bravado won't help me on the street and also won't help me in court. So I refrain.
Me too. Some things should be common sense. The officer who had the etching on his dust cover, didn't use his.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
To get back to the OP, no, a bad legal result from a modified gun is not automatic. If the evidence is sufficiently strong and obvious that your intentional act of violence was justified, things won't be going any further.
It's good to see you making this statement. I've been saying it from the start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
But you can't be sure that your case will play out like that. If the question of justification is in dispute, things like modifications to the gun might or might not hurt you in court; but they definitely won't help.
I think, if you have the right expert witness there's a very good chance that they WILL help. Reasonable mods, done by trained personnel, to a self–defense or duty firearms (one member keeps talking about home gunsmithing and "hair triggers" but no one else is) are done to make the firearm shoot better and to make it easier to shoot more accurately. I think that those things WILL help. Rather than the idiocy proposed by the antis, that those mods show that you were a 'crazed killer, eagerly awaiting the opportunity,' that instead, you care about them and keeping them safe.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-26-2017, 11:53 AM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 202
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This thread didn't disappoint. Watching Bigger Hammer and Fiddletown at work is always interesting!
__________________
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt

“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-26-2017, 5:28 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
...if you have the right expert witness there's a very good chance that they WILL help. Reasonable mods, done by trained personnel, to a self–defense or duty firearms (one member keeps talking about home gunsmithing and "hair triggers" but no one else is)....
And an expert witness is not magic nor is one a foregone conclusion.
  1. What are the modifications and what kind of textimony do you need from the expert witness.

  2. All expert witnesses are not equal. Who is yours? What is his background? What sort of an appearance and image does he present? Is his appearance and the way he carries and presents himself such that a jury or lay persons unfamiliar with, and perhaps somewhat frightened of, guns likely to take his opinions seriously.

  3. What are the modifications? You might find someone who could qualify as an expert witness who would testify that a 2.5 pound competition trigger is just fine on a carry gun, but I strongly suspect that his bearing and credentials aren't likely to positively impress a jury.

  4. Your expert witness will be subject to cross examination by the prosecution. In cross examination the prosecution can probe your expert's opinion and his bases for it and probe his qualifications. For example, a jury will often discount the opinion of an "expert" who makes most of his money testifying for one side or the other.

  5. And don't forget that the prosecution will have its expert(s) too. In a battle of experts subjective appearances can mean a lot, and the side whose expert comes closest to reinforcing the existing notions of a juror will generally be better received.

  6. So the more you need from you expert and the further your expert needs to drag the jury into unfamiliar territory, the less sure you can be of you result.

  7. I know someone who is a police officer, a firearms instructor and armorer and who would qualify as an expert witness. He makes comes across very well. His agency will authorize carrying a 1911 if the office qualifies, and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds on a service 1911. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound to be reckless.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-26-2017, 9:47 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And an expert witness is not magic nor is one a foregone conclusion.
Yes, that's correct. But one doesn’t need "magic," just a competent, well trained, experienced person who presents well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
All expert witnesses are not equal.
That's true. There's a well known plaintiff's expert who testifies on the use of force, who is from a city in Orange County. He's spent his entire career on a department that has been often ranked as one of the safest cities in the country. Fact is he has LITTLE experience with the use of force. His "expertise" comes from having written lots of article for various LE publications, NOT from having used force himself or having investigated uses of force. He's pretty easy to discredit, yet he gets hired quite frequently. He says whatever the plaintiff's attorney wants him to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What is his background? What sort of an appearance and image does he present? Is his appearance and the way he carries and presents himself such that a jury or lay persons unfamiliar with, and perhaps somewhat frightened of, guns likely to take his opinions seriously.
If a defendant retains someone who does not have the appropriate background, appearance, and presentation, he's liable to be unsuccessful. There are plenty of expert witnesses out there. Some are much better than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What are the modifications? You might find someone who could qualify as an expert witness who would testify that a 2.5 pound competition trigger is just fine on a carry gun, but I strongly suspect that his bearing and credentials aren't likely to positively impress a jury.
Anyone who puts a something that is sold as a "competition trigger" on a carry gun, has made a mistake. Anyone who testifies that's OK to do so, is probably going to have a problem. Even the name of the trigger says it has another purpose than self defense. I don't see a connection between expressing this opinion and his "bearing and credentials." The first two may be impressive, but he might have a wild opinion that's outside the mainstream.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Your expert witness will be subject to cross examination by the prosecution. In cross examination the prosecution can probe your expert's opinion and his bases for it and probe his qualifications. For example, a jury will often discount the opinion of an "expert" who makes most of his money testifying for one side or the other.
That's true of expert witnesses from both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And don't forget that the prosecution will have its expert(s) too. In a battle of experts subjective appearances can mean a lot, and the side whose expert comes closest to reinforcing the existing notions of a juror will generally be better received.
I've seen many trials that were "battles of the experts." But I disagree about "reinforcing the existing notions of a juror." I've turned some around completely and have seen other experts do the same thing. Most often it's on something where the juror has relied on common sense to come to a conclusion, and they have not closely examined the facts or the reality. One example that immediately comes to mind is how close someone with an edged weapon can approach an armed person before they present a lethal threat. Commonly people think, and I've even seen it here, where people are much more 'weapons savvy' than the general public, that some think that letting them approach within 10' is still safe. In reality, the 'safe distance' is more than double that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
So the more you need from you expert and the further your expert needs to drag the jury into unfamiliar territory, the less sure you can be of you result.
I think this is too general a statement. It depends on what territory we're talking about. For example, lots of people think they understand how a LE K−9 works or thinks. In reality, they're usually very wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I know someone who is a police officer, a firearms instructor and armorer and who would qualify as an expert witness. He makes comes across very well. His agency will authorize carrying a 1911 if the office qualifies, and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds on a service 1911. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound to be reckless.
I was with him until he said that a 3lb trigger was "reckless." I think it depends on the skill, the training and the experience of the officer involved. For the average LEO, yes, I'd agree. Few of them are gun guys. Few of them practice beyond the minimum that the LEA requires. Few of them spend their own money on ammunition. But OTOH, I know an officer who is a world class competitor, who fires thousands of rounds every month, and who can easily handle a 3 pound trigger. I think that such hard 'lines in the sand' are sometimes inappropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-26-2017, 11:45 PM
squeeze squeeze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Usually when I view this sort of cut/paste dialogue I quickly hit the "back" button. But this time I read all 87 posts and even went back and signed in so I could say "Well done"
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-27-2017, 6:04 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,867
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I was with him until he said that a 3lb trigger was "reckless." I think it depends on the skill, the training and the experience of the officer involved. For the average LEO, yes, I'd agree. Few of them are gun guys. Few of them practice beyond the minimum that the LEA requires. Few of them spend their own money on ammunition. But OTOH, I know an officer who is a world class competitor, who fires thousands of rounds every month, and who can easily handle a 3 pound trigger. I think that such hard 'lines in the sand' are sometimes inappropriate.
What's the pull weight on the 92FS in SA mode (2nd and subsequent shots)?
That was the standard issue cop gun between the old .38's and Glocks. LAPD MTA cops still use them.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:18 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.