Trigger Work on a HD Weapon?

[AFTII]

"Not guilty" is not the same as "proven innocent" nor does it mean "justifiable homicide."

Yes. It does.

"505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: . . .."

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_2016_edition.pdf

You keep mixing legal concepts and that's what is causing confusion. You are correct that "Not guilty does not equal "innocent." But, you are incorrect when you say "not guilty" does not equal justified. You cannot be found to be not guilty if the shooting was not justified self-defense.

To be found not guilty, the shooting must have been found to be justified.

[AFTII]

Aren't transcripts of trial testimony, by definition, statements that were made under oath and subject to cross examination? Isn't that the concern with out of court statements? A depo transcript from a totally unrelated matter can be used to impeach a witness, at least, that's what I've done with them.

No and yes. As for your first question, the statement has to be made under oath during the current proceeding to fall outside the hearsay rule.

A good definition of the hearsay rule is "an out of this court statement made in this court and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." There are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule. You could still use the statements as admissions, to impeach, to show state of mind without running afoul of the hearsay rule.

When you offer a statement to impeach someone, it is not offered for the truth, only to show the witness is unreliable. So, your second statement, i.e., that the statements can be used to impeach is correct.

[AFTII]

[T]here is a great deal of FUD surrounding the subject of gun modifications as they pertain to the intentional use of deadly force in legitimate acts of self-defense (as opposed to negligent or otherwise unintended discharges, where a gun's condition could actually be a contributing and/or relevant factor). I just hope that all this discussion doesn't further cloud people's understanding of the genuine issues. FUD hurts us all as gun owners. Let's all do our best to stamp it out.

Amen brother.