Recent Massad Ayoob post re modified trigger pull

[potguts]

Apologies if this has already been posted, I ran a search and didn't see it.

This issue seems to pop up pretty regularly. I think anyone who claims "show me one case," or otherwise denies the potential significance of a modified/lightened trigger, just hasn't had enough real exposure to litigation. Ayoob's arguments are even stronger with the typical California jury pool.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concealed-carry-self-defense/419191-facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html

[camvoncrosshair]

This was an absolutely fantastic read. He states his case well, and backs it up with real experience and insight. It is tough to argue with much of what Ayoob says on just about any facet of armed self defense.

Anybody interested in more Ayoob wisdom related to CCW, check out Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry. He offers up tons of info like this post and more, and really gives a person a lot to think about when it comes to CCW.

[bsg]

tagged.

[Citadelgrad87]

I've handled jury trials for 25 years. I have plenty of exposure to litigation and juries.

It's late, and I skimmed it, but both of his examples of convictions with light pulls involve unintentional shootings. That's different than a righteous shoot with a light trigger.

[ljnowell]

I've handled jury trials for 25 years. I have plenty of exposure to litigation and juries.



It's late, and I skimmed it, but both of his examples of convictions with light pulls involve unintentional shootings. That's different than a righteous shoot with a light trigger.

Which, as you noted, proves nothing. As is typical with these types of articles there are no cases that can be cited to prove the point.

I like Mas Ayoob, he is a good guy, but he isn't the final word on any of this. He makes his living writing these articles and rewriting them every few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[potguts]

I think all can agree that citations of actual convictions are slim.

But here are the thoughts I always come back to:

1- Just because there isn't a published opinion or a highly publicized case on point, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's a big country and cases go to trial every day.

2- Do you want to be the first case? And even if you're not convicted, how much ammo do you want to give the other side that you have to deal with in your defense?

3- Ayoob is a well regarded expert witness. Heaven forbid you ever need an expert witness, well, you know where he stands on this issue.

4- Many CA counties are so new to the CCW game, they have yet to have any real newsworthy incidents. All it takes is one newspaper article with a few questions about a modified trigger to do some real damage in the public relations dept, even if the CCW holder is ultimately exonerated.

Anyway, in the end, I'm not trying to be preachy here. Just posting these to spur some hopefully intelligent debate.

[CessnaDriver]

Wonder what he thinks on magazine disconnects?

[Librarian]

I think all can agree that citations of actual convictions are slim.

But here are the thoughts I always come back to:

1- Just because there isn't a published opinion or a highly publicized case on point, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's a big country and cases go to trial every day.

It does mean, however, that it does not happen very often, and the concern about it is probably overblown.

I'm all for accepting a small amount of risk, when I know the odds. The odds here are evidently quite close to zero.

[camvoncrosshair]

I've handled jury trials for 25 years. I have plenty of exposure to litigation and juries.

It's late, and I skimmed it, but both of his examples of convictions with light pulls involve unintentional shootings. That's different than a righteous shoot with a light trigger.

This is very true, they were unintentional incidents. But I think one of the points he was trying to make was that prosecution could claim that it was accidental due to a light trigger. Even if it was a righteous shoot, based upon the statements of the shooter, prosecution can/will claim that the shooter would of course say that no matter what.

No matter what, this should give us food for thought as to whether or not we want to accept the additional risk of these sorts of possibilities.

[boopiejones]

i think if you follow all the rules of shooting a gun, this shouldn't be an issue. primarily, don't put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot, and don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.

if someone is coming after me or my family and i feel we are in grave danger, my intention is to stop the threat. end of story. my intention is not to point my gun at them and hope they change their mind and walk away. opposing counsel can try to convince the jury that it was an accident, but they can't have their cake and eat it too. either it was an accident or intentional, but it can't be both...

putting myself in the shoes of a juror, if there was a family man on the stand with three children and a wife and he shot an intruder in his own home at 2am, he is 100% innocent and there is no convincing me otherwise. i don't care if he shot the guy with a hair triggered rocket launcher or what the expert witnesses say. he's innocent.

[Dvrjon]

I have nothing against Mas Ayoob, other than he is a one-trick pony on this issue. He started making these pronouncements over 20 years ago, and has only been able to present two situations which were not intentional shooting.

How old is this song? First, the Maglioto case comes from New York, and deals with a 1983 killing and a 1985 appellate court ruling.

Here's Ayoob defending his positions against a previous commentator. (See: http://www.thegunzone.com/ayoob/magliato-ayoob.html)

The date was Sep 9, 2005. Yup. TEN YEARS AGO.

Yet today, Ayoob recycles the same opinion without additional supportive facts. He's still citing the guy with the re-worked .38, cocked to single action and accidentally pulling the hair trigger. What if the guy had left the gun in double action and intentionally fired from there? In 2005, Ayoob told us:

Ironically, Magliato had accidentally shot the deceased with a gun cocked to single-action at a moment in which he would have been perfectly and provably justified in deliberately shooting him with a double action pull of the trigger.

Then, Ayoob explains a bit of detail:

(Another poster) has already explained it for you. He nailed it when he said, If Magliato had not accidentally discharged his weapon when he did, one of two things would have happened immediately.

A. He would have been clubbed into jelly with the 24-inch police baton Giani was attacking him with.
B. He would have intentionally fired double action, in which case any good lawyer and any competent team of experts could show that the did exactly the right thing.

The appellate court never considered or addressed either of these outcomes.

The appellate court addressed one very narrow issue in a complicated case, the only issue the appellate lawyers brought before it. It was addressing an accidental shooting.

So, we now see a regurgitation of the same old story he's been telling for two decades. Why? It keeps him in the discussion. It broadcasts his image and enhances the mythos of the entity he has created.

He has made a living of this for a couple of decades, using an example from a 1983 incident. But regardless of his vast network in law enforcement and legal communities, he has apparently not been able to find one situation in the past 30 years to update and support his age-old claims.

///////////////////////
Having said all that, Mas Ayoob is not in charge of your daily actions...you are. Carrying a firearm is part of risk analysis. We've decided the risk of not carrying is greater than the risk of carrying. Now that we've made that leap, each of us must make other risk analyses based on what we believe is acceptable risk in our carrying: External safety or none; 1911 cocked and locked or striker fired; .380 or .45 ACP; lightened trigger or factory specs. The final answer to what is the best risk plan based on your cost/benefit analysis as an individual. is solely up to you. Only you can make that decision. Just be ready to live with it.

[titan2]

I think all can agree that citations of actual convictions are slim.

But here are the thoughts I always come back to:

1- Just because there isn't a published opinion or a highly publicized case on point, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's a big country and cases go to trial every day.
Ans: Do a Lexis Nexis search...
2- Do you want to be the first case? And even if you're not convicted, how much ammo do you want to give the other side that you have to deal with in your defense?

3- Ayoob is a well regarded expert witness. Heaven forbid you ever need an expert witness, well, you know where he stands on this issue.

4- Many CA counties are so new to the CCW game, they have yet to have any real newsworthy incidents. All it takes is one newspaper article with a few questions about a modified trigger to do some real damage in the public relations dept, even if the CCW holder is ultimately exonerated.

Anyway, in the end, I'm not trying to be preachy here. Just posting these to spur some hopefully intelligent debate.

See added red above...

[the donald]

I've handled jury trials for 25 years. I have plenty of exposure to litigation and juries.

It's late, and I skimmed it, but both of his examples of convictions with light pulls involve unintentional shootings. That's different than a righteous shoot with a light trigger.

yes, but what he was saying is it gives the prosecution ammo to say you did not mean to shoot, and then ask why do you have the light trigger?
and i think the lawsuit would be the bigger risk.

i think the basics of what the post said is it could just open you up to a higher risk.


also he didn't seem to say anything about modified triggers, just "hair triggers." he mentioned a few where the pull weight was down to 4lbs stock.


but i agree with librarian, it is risk assessment, and it is one i think is almost a non issue

[marcusrn]

When you're dumping adrenaline a light trigger will not be to anyone's advantage.

Most competition shooters have play guns and carry guns. You don't carry a competition gun.

Non the less people always think they're special. That's what short buses are for.

[L84CABO]

I think all can agree that citations of actual convictions are slim.

But here are the thoughts I always come back to:

1- Just because there isn't a published opinion or a highly publicized case on point, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's a big country and cases go to trial every day.

2- Do you want to be the first case? And even if you're not convicted, how much ammo do you want to give the other side that you have to deal with in your defense?

3- Ayoob is a well regarded expert witness. Heaven forbid you ever need an expert witness, well, you know where he stands on this issue.

4- Many CA counties are so new to the CCW game, they have yet to have any real newsworthy incidents. All it takes is one newspaper article with a few questions about a modified trigger to do some real damage in the public relations dept, even if the CCW holder is ultimately exonerated.

Anyway, in the end, I'm not trying to be preachy here. Just posting these to spur some hopefully intelligent debate.

I want to be alive to make it to court. To that end, I want every advantage I can get to make sure I am alive once the dust settles. That includes a decent trigger. I'll worry about court when I get there.