Trigger Work on a HD Weapon?

[Citizen_B]

What I remember, is that he said that it is one more thing that will have to be handled in court. I do not recall him ever saying that a light trigger means killer.
The point is that the less that has to be handled in court the better.

The point that you are making is that it is ok to do anything you want and it is ok.
From the informative post that was made earlier by something with experience is that it will not be an issue as long as the trigger is in the normal trigger weight (as in factory specification) no matter how smooth the trigger is.
By pushing your point, I have found people that want to buy a firearm for SD but know that it will need a trigger job that they will do themselves which will included reducing the trigger weight below factory specification.
Is this the point you are making as there will be no issue?
My future brother-in-law was under this impression.
He shoots a XDS and was planning on doing a trigger job.
I stopped him from doing it and now shoots it very well (small groups) with the factory trigger.
This is one case I know of. It makes me wonder how many people concur with your idea. Luckily, very few will ever have to put into the situation where they need to defend themselves and then having to defend their actions in court.

Perhaps it would be easier if we discussed it this way. Suppose the defendant was charged with homicide. Defendant's defense is it was justifiable for self-defense. The mountain of evidence comes out clearly pointing to justifiable homicide. The defendant states he had every intention to shoot and stop the perpetrator who forcibly broke into his house and was in the act of stabbing his wife. All 3 rounds hit the perp. You are the prosecutor and bring up the fact the defendant's gun was purple, fired 9mm, and had a lightened trigger.

What is the point you are trying to convey with bringing up the gun facts that have anything to do with whether this was a justifiable homicide or not?

Remember, this is the crux of the case. It's not an accidental shooting. The defendant had every intent to shoot/stop the perp and did so.

[Lead Waster]

People like to point at Alvarez as a case where a SA/DA revolver and a clipped spring almost put a police officer away, but that was really ancillary. The things that almost tripped up Alvarez were:

1. Alvarez said "Someone pushed me and a shot went off." over the radio when he called in the shooting.

2. Det. Buhrmaster testified that Alvarez said he did not intentionally shoot Nevell Johnson, but that Johnson bumped into him "and his gun discharged."

The only reason there was even a trial was because of the 1980 riots and Janet Reno's decision to "make an example" of Alvarez.

==========================


The Four Rules

1) All guns are always loaded. (Treat them so!)
2) Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
4) Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

==========================

Pointing a gun at a person's head with your finger on the trigger violates 2 and 3 UNLESS you actually intended to shoot the guy in the head.


If I shoot a home invader, they can examine the gun all they want, but the bottom line will be "I meant to shoot that guy because he was threatening my family". If the DA says "Well, this gun has a hair trigger and fancy fiber optic sights and etc, etc" my response will be "Yes, so that it's easier for me to shoot that guy who was threatening my family."

[ChuckDizzle]

What? How on earth? A DA pull will pull the trigger back and then release it. An SA trigger pull just starts from the fully cocked position.... how can you tell if both hammers are released from the fully cocked sear position?

They have a slightly different force of impact on the primer. Enough that there are microscopic differences in the imprint. If you look closely at most DA revolvers you will notice that the hammer fall is slightly farther when pulled into single action than where it will begin to fall from double action.

[Erion929]

Good read in post #137, AFTII.

Thanks

[bwhited]

On the criminal side, I see no issue.
The civil side is where things can go sideways.
I have been observer, witness, victim, and Juror for both criminal and civil cases.
I was a juror on a medical malpractice case where the facts were clear to me that the doctor did as much as he could for the patient but he still died. The family was seeking a 7 digit settlement.
The jury's first vote was the doctor needed to pay. I was a key reason why the jury ended up saying the doctor was not responsible but we would have never had all jurors on board. Being a civil case, not all jurors need to agree.

My experience shows that even if you did everything right, you may end up being liable. This is the reason I choose and recommend a factory firearm with factory ammo. Why make it easier to be held liable?

You all keep demanding court cases. Case law has nothing to do with my statement.

Perhaps it would be easier if we discussed it this way. Suppose the defendant was charged with homicide. Defendant's defense is it was justifiable for self-defense. The mountain of evidence comes out clearly pointing to justifiable homicide. The defendant states he had every intention to shoot and stop the perpetrator who forcibly broke into his house and was in the act of stabbing his wife. All 3 rounds hit the perp. You are the prosecutor and bring up the fact the defendant's gun was purple, fired 9mm, and had a lightened trigger.

What is the point you are trying to convey with bringing up the gun facts that have anything to do with whether this was a justifiable homicide or not?

Remember, this is the crux of the case. It's not an accidental shooting. The defendant had every intent to shoot/stop the perp and did so.

[ChuckDizzle]

On the criminal side, I see no issue.
The civil side is where things can go sideways.
I have been observer, witness, victim, and Juror for both criminal and civil cases.
I was a juror on a medical malpractice case where the facts were clear to me that the doctor did as much as he could for the patient but he still died. The family was seeking a 7 digit settlement.
The jury's first vote was the doctor needed to pay. I was a key reason why the jury ended up saying the doctor was not responsible but we would have never had all jurors on board. Being a civil case, not all jurors need to agree.

My experience shows that even if you did everything right, you may end up being liable. This is the reason I choose and recommend a factory firearm with factory ammo. Why make it easier to be held liable?

You all keep demanding court cases. Case law has nothing to do with my statement.

Why would something concrete like case law be needed when we have such reliable information from an anecdote anonymously posted on an internet forum?

[Mayor McRifle]

My experience shows that even if you did everything right, you may end up being liable. This is the reason I choose and recommend a factory firearm with factory ammo. Why make it easier to be held liable?

How would installing, for example, an SRT trigger on a SIG P226 make it easier for you to be held liable? What legal liability theory do you have in mind here?

[Citizen_B]

I think there are a number of issues that is clouding the discussion here.

1) Trainers, cops, lawyers, experts on self-defense etc. all have a vested interest in giving conservative advice. It makes perfect sense. Why would they give any advice that has any remote possibility of a minutiae of liability? They wouldn't.

2) Most of these experts giving advise about not modifying the gun have been witnesses or involved in cases where evidence is not clear cut whether it was justifiable or not. Remember, if the facts clearly pointed to justifiable homicide from the beginning, the DA would likely choose not to prosecute in the first place. In cases where evidence of justifiability is weak/missing, the prosecution may choose to use a gun modification to paint character or 'true' intent should it help their case. In cases where the defendant claims the shooting was accidental ("the gun just went off", "I didn't mean to shoot", etc.) any gun modifications will be critical to the case and a lightened trigger will obviously be a central issue.

3) There seems to be a general fear of doing anything that may bring liability onto themselves with an unfounded probability of that occurring. If this is the case, I suggest not doing any gun modifications. In fact I suggest just selling your guns. Anything you do has potential liability involved and the fact of just owning a gun brings it's fair share with it in CA. Gun mods do bring a level of additional liability in certain legal situations and bring no relevance to other legal situations.

4) I suspect most (excluding those who have a strong conservative view of liability exposure) of those supporting no gun mods don't have a lot of practical shooting training/experience. Please don't see this as an insult, that's not my intent. My point is I see a lot of arguments that imply the mods have little to no value. For example, "When the **** hits the fan, you could be shooting a gun with a 20 pound trigger, and you'll never know the difference. Trust me." This clearly missed the understanding that while you may not know the difference, shooting a 20# trigger does effect shooting accuracy in reality. Certain gun mods do bring a variable level of increased shooting proficiency that's realized in practical training/experience. On the flip side, I do agree with Ayoob's point that mods start to have diminishing value as training increases.

I think the most important aspect to this debate that's been glossed over is to try extremely hard to not get into a situation where justifiability is questionable. This takes training. Second, make sure you are putting your rounds where you intent them to go. This takes training. If you do those two things very well, the odds of your gun mods increasing your liability are very small, on an already very small probability event. With all the time and energy invested in these debates, we should instead spend them on practical training/competing.

[Mayor McRifle]

Your points are well-taken, Citizen B. Good post.

[357manny]

I just wanted to know if it's okay to install an LEM trigger on either my HK45 or P30, both guns of which I am using for HD.

[bwhited]

That is a question that only you can answer.
My suggestion is that if the LEM trigger was available from the factory then it is ok. If it was not and you decide to change the trigger, you may be increasing potential liability if you have to use it in a HD situation.

I just wanted to know if it's okay to install an LEM trigger on either my HK45 or P30, both guns of which I am using for HD.

[Citadelgrad87]

That is a question that only you can answer.
My suggestion is that if the LEM trigger was available from the factory then it is ok. If it was not and you decide to change the trigger, you may be increasing potential liability if you have to use it in a HD situation.

Again, though, ONLY in a situation where it can be alleged that you fired accidentally. If you fire three times, the trigger will not come into play. The only question, if it is claim you intentionally fired in self defense, will be was it reasonable to do so, with a tuned race gun, a da only revolver, or a golf club.

[bwhited]

Yes they are good points.
Hi states that the DA will not file in a justifiable shooting.
Yes, that is good for the criminal trial, which is what I have said all along.
The civil trial is where financial liability may be applied even in a justifiable shooting.

Even OJ was not criminally convicted for the murder but was held accountable in the civil trial.

Your points are well-taken, Citizen B. Good post.

[Citizen_B]

On the criminal side, I see no issue.
The civil side is where things can go sideways.

My experience shows that even if you did everything right, you may end up being liable. This is the reason I choose and recommend a factory firearm with factory ammo. Why make it easier to be held liable?

Ok. Let's assume that hypothetical scenario played out just like that. Defendant found not guilty because it was justifiable. Civil case starts. Replace "procecutor" with "plaintiff's attorney" which will be your role. Same question. What is the point of bringing up details on the gun? I assume your answer is to paint the defendant as reckless/negligent/etc. The defendant's attorney will point out the shooting as legally justified from criminal case and details on the weapon hold no relevance because intent was clear and justified. Now it's up to a majority of jurors to decide whether they have more sympathy for the family of a felon criminal who broke into a random house in the middle of the night, in the act of stabbing an innocent citizen in an attempt to kill her, verses the defendant who morally and legally stopped the attack.

I understand your point that anything can happen. A piano can fall out of the sky today and kill me. I don't worry looking up all day because I assess the probability as low. Everyone has their own assessment.

You all keep demanding court cases. Case law has nothing to do with my statement.

The reason people are requesting case law is for a few reasons. 1) Case law sets precedent which is helpful in determining what an attorney may use for legal justification of a position/point. 2) It gives some historical data points of what had actually happened in real (not hypothetical) cases with issues we're trying to understand. 3) Without case law, anyone can say anything can happen. However, if someone makes the claim there is legal liability for a specific issue, it sure is helpful to know if this is a realistic possibility given history. As I pointed out, there are thousands of gun related homicides in the US every month. It makes an inherent point that there isn't a case that involves the specifics we're discussing here. I could be wrong and/or there could be a future case, but as of now there seems to be lacking evidence to the validity of the claim.

[Citizen_B]

Even OJ was not criminally convicted for the murder but was held accountable in the civil trial.

The OJ case is not a good example. The criminal case was contested and hotly debated in/out of the courtroom. The majority of America still believes OJ did it, contrary to the criminal case, in line with the civil case. OJ had arguably the best defense team possible who gamed every aspect of the trail. It's not a good comparison to equate that all star team with a typical prosecuting team.

Sure, anything can happen.