Ask Ayoob to give you a case where a light trigger, by itself, invited an overzealous prosecutor . . . I can't find one, but he's the expert.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I do not have an actual case, nor a citation....I just want the brick of 22's.

__________________
Not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

I don't have him on speed dial to get a quote on that......but I can give you his opinion on lighter than factory triggers in general as they apply to justifiable self-defense:

Mas Ayoob ~
To me, that means weight is immaterial. If the weight is out of factory spec its not.

__________________
Bob | KM4DEO
Sport | Glock 22

I agree that is his opinion . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I agree, and we all know about opinions...

On the other hand, if I (God forbid) am ever involved in a self-defense shooting, Ayoob or someone like him, that is an "expert" with creds that have been vetted by many courts, is who will be talking to the DA/judge/jury, depending on how far things go.

If I tell my lawyer that, "The guys on the S&W Forum said..." , I'll be looking for a new lawyer.

__________________
Bob | KM4DEO
Sport | Glock 22

[COLOR[/COLOR] I advise any and all dont be a Zimmerman call cops and wait around. When the end is clear just get in the Wind and/or go into hiding, re-locate if deemed necessary. If located offer nothing but fear of your life and aware what Zimmerman had to go thru, all influenced your decisions after the shooting. Lastly fear of the State and Fed. Govt, ":and Sharpton if it plays out that way"

I'm not here to bash Ayoob, and if that's who you think will save your life, live long and prosper. I've reviewed his CV. I'll pick someone else.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

If this happens and Ayoob or one of his disciples decide to finally reveal that top secret case they have been hiding all this time please let him know there will be a brick of 22lr waiting for him.

If you tell your lawyer that, "Ayoob said . . . " and show him this, you may also be looking for a new lawyer.

Shawn Dodson on Massad Ayoob . . . 2006

Not bashing anyone, just pointing you to the opinion of others. Blind affinity is dangerous. Make sure you know what you're getting.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

It was Ms. Du's contention at trial that she did not intend to shoot the shoplifter in the back of the head, did not remember shooting her and had never fired a gun before. If that's an intentional shooting, I'm Raquel Welch. The court's whole point ("hairpin trigger" and all) was that had the trigger not been modified the unintentional discharge would likely not have occurred.

It's a fine argument against keeping a gun you don't know how to use and getting into a knock-down, drag-out with someone a third your age over a bottle of orange juice.

Still waiting for a case that addresses the question of modifications in intentional shootings.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

Yup. Too many have blind veneration to the guy

I was going to cerakote my frame to OD Green. Is this ok? Real question here.

I and others will say "absolutely." Others will say "maybe, but remember that makes it look military, so . . . . "

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I think Ayoob is wrong in this case. If deadly force is justified, the use of a modified gun, a light trigger, handloaded ammo, is moot.

If any of the above ever came up in a court of law, and not just in someone's imagination, we'd all be passing around references to specific court cases to make our point.

Does anyone have a specific court case?

Haha. I didnt even think of it that way, i just like that color. Im guessing pink red or purple could also be used as "the defendent acts like this is a toy" oh the possibilities. I think im going to cerakote it.

I've chimed in before on this issue taking the side of not modifying the internal actions of carry guns. My concern has not been so much how a jury would react and decide based upon learning I had lightened the trigger pull or using my own homemade defense loads; my concern is with a local prosecutor or someone else in the system early in who has the power or influence as to whether or not I have to go to trial. In Zimmerman, it wasn't the incident or his statements to police that got him charged. It was an edited 911 tape and political pressure that got him thrown into the fire. Taking that theme, imagine a local prosecutor with greater political aspirations. He perks up when he hears a comment about an aftermarket trigger that has dropped the Shield's trigger pull down to five pounds from the original 6.5. He takes other factors that otherwise have no bearing and decides to spin them against the law abiding citizen forced to defend him/herself because the exposure might get him noticed by the local political machune. Then the citizen's ordeal really begins. Fortunately there are good attorneys and expert witnesses like Massad Ayoob who's testimony may likely have a positive effect on your case. But the whole point I'm making is why tempt fate that way in the first place. Especially when experts like Ayoob have warned ahead of time what might happen. I'm not trying to play kill-joy, but as in Zimmerman, there are enough things to worry about. Zimmerman's pistol wasn't at issue, but imagine if his trigger press weight had noticibly need reduced? The press would have had a big score with that tidbit, as well as the prosecution. They were trying to make him out to be a vigilante and a wannabe cop as it was. That might have swung the pendulum the other way. I recall that some members of his jury still felt like the reason of law did not mesh with their Hollywood-Educated hearts even though they sided with the defendent based on the elements presented. Anyway, I understand that most accepted gun modifications are judged by what is considered industry standard, e.g. 4-5lb triggers in 1911s, 5.5s in Glocks, etc. When S&W makes Apex components part of their factory authorized offerings, then that burden may be lifted. Until then, apply judicious amounts of dry fire to your training curriculum so that you master the feel of that 6.5lb factory trigger.

Here is where people contradict themselves. They say most self defense situations happen in a matter of seconds and within 7 yards. Yet they want to lighten the trigger for accuracy.

Maybe im getting on a high horse, but at that range 1.5lbs of trigger pull isnt exactly going to make you anymore accurate as needed for your SD situation. The heart and head are too big at that range to miss.

In case nobody noticed, the link provided in the OP brings you to a discussion in which attorneys Manny Kapelsohn and Jim Fleming discuss several cases relevant to this discussion. One of Manny's is one I also worked on, NY v. Frank Magliato. A search here at this forum will turn up multiple discussions.

For a classic case of "hair trigger" being an issue in an intentional self-defense shooting, look up FL v. Luis Alvarez. The officer intentionally fired when the suspect went for a gun, saving his own and his rookie partner's life, but Janet Reno's office crafted a fantasy case in which he had cocked his gun to hair trigger status and accidentally killed the deceased. It took eight or nine weeks of trial to win a not guilty verdict.

Seems to me that the brick of .22 should go to the original poster, CaptRon956, whose link was there right from the starting gate in Post #1.

Muss Muggins, your link should be taken in context with this:
The Gun Zone -- Mas Ayoob Responds .

In the future, you might want to do a bit of research before throwing mud on fellow forum members.

Pointing out a different opinion is not throwing mud, IMHO. I made no unwarranted accusations, I just linked an article. I appreciate your response, including the link to the Gun Zone article, which I had previously read. I'm sure the forum members will find it valuable. Clearly there are differing views of this issue.

Stay Safe . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

These two cases are misrepresented almost as often as this issue comes up. In both cases the defendants claimed the shootings were unintentional. They both pointed firearms at someone and claimed they unintentionally pulled the trigger when the law said they were not justified in doing so. That is the crux of their problems. This aside from the fact that these were law enforcement officers rather than carry concealed self defense situation.

Is this the best we get?

22lr still available.

Magliato discharged his cocked Detective Special unintentionally (in a moment when I and many others think he should have fired intentionally).

In the second case: It was made abundantly clear in the Alvarez trial that while the officer had blurted "someone bumped my arm and the gun went off" in the moments immediately after the shooting, before even leaving the scene Alvarez explained that he had in fact fired his S&W Model 64 intentionally, and in double action.

I discussed the incident in depth with Magliato and both his lawyers, and Alvarez and both of his attorneys. One of the latter, the legendary Roy Black, devoted much of his autobiography "Black's Law" to the Alvarez case. It's available at most libraries and should be read by anyone seriously interested in the issues in the case.

The officers were the ones who fired the weapons. Both legal teams represented to the courts the shootings were unintentional. There whole legal defenses through the duration of trial were based on unintentional discharges. What anyone else may believe or claimed after the fact is not dispositive.

As stated before these cases are also law enforcement officers, and not concealed carry self defense shootings as brought up by the OP. I still stand by my statement there is no case where a modified trigger on carry concealed weapon intentionally fired under a justified self defense situation became legally relevant.

The brick of 22lr eagerly awaits a case site showing otherwise.

I haven't weighed in on this because I didn't think I had anything to add that had not already been said, but I have to concur with "southcoast." I'm not a firearms expert, but I am a lawyer with Westlaw access, and I can't find a case where a modified trigger was an issue in a shooting involving a civilian lawfully carrying a concealed handgun. Disappointing, because I really wanted a brick of .22.

As a refresher . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I'm afraid you haven't done your homework. Magliato was an armed citizen carrying on a permit, not a police officer. Anyone who wants to bother finding the facts will quickly discover that attorneys Roy Black and Mark Seiden not only represented to the Court that Alvarez fired intentionally, double action, in defense of himself and his partner, but Alvarez testified to the same, and the jury (which, unlike you, heard the evidence) totally acquitted him.

Passed by in most of this thread, and not addressed in the above quote, is something that may (likely is?) have happened in any number of cases but is not provable....

That thefact that a weapon has been modified in some way, like a lightened trigger, was the, or one of the,reasons a prosecutor due to any number of reasons like being anti-gun, wanting scalps to help him win the next election, etc, made the decision to seek a warrant or take the case to a grand jury, in part, because he/she thought said "tampering with the gun to make it have a hair trigger" (in his mind) would help him, the prosecutor, make his case...yet never used it at trial...so no cites would exist.

Do I believe this has happened? I have no way of knowing. Do I think it could happen? Damn right.

If I ever have to use my gun to defend myself or others, I want it to end there...before a decision is made to file charges, before the case is ever seen by a judge or grand jury, before anything else happens, period.

I want to be told, "Bob, it sucke that you had to shoot someone, but you did everything right, considering the whole situation, and you did nothing wrong. Go home to your family."

I want to give a prosecutor absolutely nothing...nothing...that might make him think otherwise, even for a second.

Can I hand a prosecutor a perfectly clean case if it ever happens? Doubtful...but the things I can control, like this, I will.

Crisp trigger with a clean break? Yes. Lightened trigger? No.

__________________
Bob | KM4DEO
Sport | Glock 22

Then I have one word for you:

SUBMIT

ANY resistance of ANY kind that harms the aggressor in ANY way could be used by a clone of Mike Nifong.

If you're more concerned about being prosecuted for legitimate self-defense than you are about being maimed or murdered then you should just throw yourself on the "mercy" of the person threatening, indeed TRYING to kill you. In that way you will occupy the "moral high ground"... even if it's indicated by a headstone with your name on it...

The officer fired, not the citizen. The point of this thread is whether or not a private citizen has been prosecuted due to, in part, a hair trigger/trigger/firearm modification. Officers enjoy protections that citizens do not. The fact that the victim was a CCW holder is irrelevant.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Do you dispute Magliato's defense claimed at trial the weapon fired accidentally? Magliato never claimed intentional discharge. He stated he drew his weapon to scare the victim, and it accidently fired. Do you dispute this? His folly was pointing a weapon he never intended to fire. Basic gun rule violation.

If you have a single case that meets all the previously stated criteria please give an actual case citation rather than second hand references that conflict with actual court records.

Mr. Ayoob, I have a great deal of respect for you as a firearms expert and writer, but I think you are missing the point. Both of the cases you mentioned involved double action revolvers, and the issue was whether the guns were cocked. In Alvarez, the prosecutor argued that it was, and in Magliato, the defendant admitted that he did so. Neither of those cases involved deliberate modification of the trigger mechanism. There may be a case where one of the issues was the deliberate modification of the trigger where the defendant was a civilian CCW holder, but I haven't found it.

That's a little hard to follow. In Magliato, the citizen did fire, albeit unintentionally...Officer Alvarez didn't enjoy any protections that citizens do not, on the contrary, he was tried for manslaughter...and I'm not sure what "victim (who) was a CCW holder" you are talking about.

Unlike regular citizens police officers commonly encounter situations that allow them to draw their weapon, without a further need to fire. Weapons are routinely drawn upon arrests etc. Citizens are not allowed to merely draw unless firing would be justified.

I thought it was apparent by the direction of this thread that we are talking about what happens if you do shoot someone in self defense. I'm sorry if you weren't able to discern that.

So, for anyone who is unable to figure out exactly what the progress of this thread is, I will rephrase:

There...perhaps that is more understandable for some.

__________________
Bob | KM4DEO
Sport | Glock 22

[QUOTE=bhayles;138389598]Passed by in most of this thread, and not addressed in the above quote, is something that may (likely is?) have happened in any number of cases but is not provable....

That thefact that a weapon has been modified in some way, like a lightened trigger, was the, or one of the,reasons a prosecutor due to any number of reasons like being anti-gun, wanting scalps to help him win the next election, etc, made the decision to seek a warrant or take the case to a grand jury, in part, because he/she thought said "tampering with the gun to make it have a hair trigger" (in his mind) would help him, the prosecutor, make his case...yet never used it at trial...so no cites would exist.

Do I believe this has happened? I have no way of knowing. Do I think it could happen? Damn right.

If I ever have to use my gun to defend myself or others, I want it to end there...before a decision is made to file charges, before the case is ever seen by a judge or grand jury, before anything else happens, period.

I want to be told, "Bob, it sucke that you had to shoot someone, but you did everything right, considering the whole situation, and you did nothing wrong. Go home to your family."

I want to give a prosecutor absolutely nothing...nothing...that might make him think otherwise, even for a second.

Can I hand a prosecutor a perfectly clean case if it ever happens? Doubtful...but the things I can control, like this, I will.

Crisp trigger with a clean break? Yes. Lightened trigger? No.[QUOTE]

You may be right, and I'm not taking a position one way or the other regarding whether trigger modification is (legally) a good idea or not. I think it would depend on the facts of the specific case. But the limited question is whether there has been a case where a civilian CCW holder has been involved in a shooting and a trigger modification was an issue. As stated above, I haven't found one.

In your earlier post, you wrote, ""As stated before these cases are also law enforcement officers, and not concealed carry self defense shootings as brought up by the OP." You apparently did not read any of the "actual court records" you refer to, or you would have known that Magliato was an armed citizen. If you had read the records, you would have known he drew the gun to ward off a junkie who was coming at him with a club...hardly a "basic gun rule violation."

[QUOTE But the limited question is whether there has been a case where a civilian CCW holder has been involved in a shooting and a trigger modification was an issue. As stated above, I haven't found one.[/QUOTE]

I'm speaking of so-called "hair trigger" issues in general, which can take the form of a modified gun, OR a cocked revolver, OR a very light-trigger target pistol used in self-defense. The same dynamics will be in play in any of those, in terms of opposing counsel's attack.

I'm speaking of so-called "hair trigger" issues in general, which can take the form of a modified gun, OR a cocked revolver, OR a very light-trigger target pistol used in self-defense. The same dynamics will be in play in any of those, in terms of opposing counsel's attack.[/QUOTE]

Magliato sought his victim out . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Magliato would have been perceived as the victim in his case, had he not confronted the assaulter.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

As you've seen earlier in this thread I do consider you a legit expert in your field. Your association with the ACLDN is one of the main reasons that induced me to join.

With that said, the above quote directly contradicts another quote of yours I posted earlier in the thread.

I don't remember the exact comment number where I posted it, but you basically said that the weight itself was not important...that whatever weight a manufacturer producing the gun said was OK was OK. You said that it was the end user's modification outside of spec that was the problem.

Now you say that even a spec gun can be a problem:

So...what controls? Manufacturer spec or user modification?

__________________
Bob | KM4DEO
Sport | Glock 22

ALONG WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF FORUM MEMBERS, I AGREE. OF COURSE, I DOUBT IF ANY OF US WILL BE ON THE JURY…..

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

It's either a justified shooting or not.
Some slip and fall type lawyer can always try to make an issue out of everything from your NRA membership to your ammo choice.

bhayles, you asked "What controls: Manufacturer spec or user modification?"

Basically, it's manufacturer spec for a "duty weapon." With double action revolvers, it has long been understood that cocking the hammer when holding someone at gunpoint is a no-no, and that of course became an issue in the Magliato trial. Both the false allegation of the cocked hammer and the fact that two coils had been removed from the trigger return spring on Alvarez' revolver were issues in his case. Using a very light trigger target pistol for high-stress use could certainly be construable as negligence. When a police department orders Glock 34/35 Practical-Tactical models, Glock ships them with 5.5 pound connectors instead of the usual 4.5 of those models, as a matter of policy. It's why long ago, LAPD modified its target grade service revolvers, 4" and 6" K-38 series, to double action only for duty use.

Essentially, the negligence element the other side is trying to establish is "too light for high stress self-defense situations." Modifying the gun is merely one avenue toward falling into that trap.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

Muss Muggins, far from hunting down his "victim," Magliato was on his way to a police station to report the previous attack on him when he spotted the perps' car, asked his companion to call the police, and stood on the sidewalk waiting for the police to show up. That's where he was when he was attacked by the club-wielding "victim."

There is an aspect to this discussion that has gotten lost and that is the crux of the OP. Put in simple terms, will a person be put in prison because they used a modified gun for self-defense?

I believe I was the first to ask if anyone can show us a case where that happened. So far, there have been a couple of cases presented where a modified gun was used and was significant to the trial. However, in none of those cases was the shooter put in prison. In one the sentence was suspended and in the other the shooting was ruled justified. Please correct me if I've misunderstood.

So the question remains, is there a case where a modified gun, regardless of modification, was significant in sending someone to prison for what otherwise would have been a justified self-defense shooting?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

" . . . Magliato pulled over, told his companion to call 911, and approached the vehicle (emphasis added) in hopes of waving down the first patrol car he saw . . . "

The Gun Zone - The Magliato Case

The phrase "stood on the sidewalk" doesn't appear in the above article.

Which is it?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

It's both.

Magliato spent several years in prison. Alvarez spent fourteen months with the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. Implying that because he was ultimately acquitted means his ordeal didn't count is a little like telling a cancer survivor, "Well, you're still alive, so cancer is nothing to worry about."

Wow. I don't buy that. It can't be both. Did he do one, then the other? According to your Gun Zone article, when he approached, he was attacked. Was he attacked just waiting on the sidewalk? Or when he approached? Or was he attacked twice? There's a huge tactical and factual difference between waiting on a sidewalk and approaching a vehicle. Which one did he do?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

A qualified...sorta.

IF a person is sent to prison for what is seemingly a justified shooting, and IF the prosecutor's decision to prosecute was based, at least in part, on the modification to the trigger, then yes, a modification did play a part.

What I can't understand about this conversation is, "Why take the chance?" Given the huge adrenelin dump that will occur in a life threatening situation, a 50 lb trigger pull would probably not be noticeable, and 99.9% of self-defense shootings will occur at such close range that the improved accuracy is completely unnecessary. Barring mass civil unrest if you shoot someone at a distance the trigger pull made an accuracy difference that mattered its not self defense...its wanting to shoot someone.

For some, shooting a pistol is sport AND self defense and such a person might not be able to afford both a good self defense pistol AND a target pistol. In that one, single example I MIGHT be able to see a light trigger on a self defense weapon.

For me, sport shooting is either hunting or range plinking with my AR. My G22 is a tool...a tool for one purpose, to defend myself or family. No light trigger needed for it to do its job.

__________________
Bob | KM4DEO
Sport | Glock 22

Your stance was clarified in an earlier post, which I had overlooked. Thus my reply was inappropriate. I apologize and will move on.