I would love to know how one would determine single action was used to fire a round from a sa/da revolver absent some video, audio, eyewitness, or other external evidence.
Another "I" don't get it...
- Thread starter jem102
- Start date
I would love to know how one would determine single action was used to fire a round from a sa/da revolver absent some video, audio, eyewitness, or other external evidence.
Somewhere in all this I've come to believe it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,345
- Reaction score
- 5,560
Considering the jury pool, just barely better....
I always thought that if you were guilty and trying to get off, the jury is the logical choice.
If you're innocent, I think I have a better chance with one judge than 12 random draws from the gene pool.
Then again, those 12 folks probably aren't barbecuing with the DA on weekends...
Jon651
Member
DAO is not the "only" safe way to shoot a revolver in self defense, it is just the way some of us prefer to shoot a revolver in self defense. Plus not every one of us actually carries the revolver we use, per se. Mine lives in the bedside table and I carry a semi-auto. But then again, I'm not comfortable trying to carry a 629 Classic as a concealed firearm...
On the flip side, whomever gets the honor of being shot at with my 629 will certainly know it!
OP
"You need to take "Professional Training".
I have. My question was to understand the legal stance on the issue.
Thanks for the advice as there is never "too much" training.
I have. My question was to understand the legal stance on the issue.
Thanks for the advice as there is never "too much" training.
Last edited:
So would I.
First in many areas once you are arrested and/or charged your only choices are a jury or a plea bargain. A plea bargain is hardly the greatest deal for an innocent person. Not very often once arrested and hauled in, will either the cops or the prosecutor decide or admit it was a mistake and let you just walk out the door, without a least something like misdemeanor disturbing the peace.
Most judges did not experience life the same as the majority of people. Hard to do and end up as a judge. My wife (an attorney) says that overzealous defense attorneys are more likely to end getting sanctions, and over zealous prosecutors are more likely to become judges. But, then jury pool is a **** shoot and often made up of those who were unable to avoid it. But, there is a chance of getting a few reasonable people on the jury.
Last edited:
Matt_X
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 331
- Reaction score
- 294
Its a good question. More so because of the way you heard or saw it any reasonable person would wonder if it had a legitimate basis.
Even though I was familiar with the guidance, after becoming more familiar with 1940s long action Smith revolvers and 1911s, I was thinking aboutlooking furhter into it. So this was a useful discussion for me as well.
The history of double action is interesting as well. Through at least WW2, military training used single action with revolvers for aimed shots - including qualification. This established basic control and skills. Double action was used in the 'combat shooting' course, or a variation called 'point' shooting and involved quick response to close range targets.
Re: Forensics.
I'm guessing what was meant here was any forensics rather than just the firearm, cartridges and ballistics. It would include photos, video, audio etc.
This goes to the side discussion a bit, but I was recently on a trial involving a handgun. Neither the prosecution or defense presented any firearm related forensics. No fingerprints, no nothing. Neither had video, or third party witnesses, and the prosecution didn't show us the perps ID card to demonstrate it matched the defendent (but perhaps it got lost - that didn't come out in the testimony). We had to make our decisions mostly on the police officers' testimony and cross eximanation.
Some of the other jurors were shocked that there was no fingerprinting, DNA or video. (Some even insisted on asking the judge if they could have the fingerprints. I tried to advise that we could ask for the paperwork which was entered into evidence, and it might have that info in it. The judge of course turned them down. )
My experience with juries has been that most everyone, if not all, really do try. I wouldn't worry about the jury. In the best scenario, do what you can so it doesn't get that far. The perception of the responding officers, and then later the detectives and prosecutor can determine whether a grand jury or trial is needed or not. I'll leave it there since its pretty off topic.
Last edited:
Bill Lear
Member
Just to play Devil's advocate, you're making the case against light trigger pulls of any kind! One can easily postulate the a person in true danger is close to the attacker where pointing the gun is more than adequate. A Glock 5.5 pound factory pull is "purt near criminal" in the hands of a frightened citizen, and the 1911 trigger should probably be banned! Even a super-light and smooth DA trigger such as that on my 2020 Python is borderline in terms of how easy it is to quickly exceed the mere 7 pounds it requires to cock and drop the hammer!
Sometimes I even wonder if the New York trigger installed on my P80 Glock pattern 17 in .22 TCM9R is still TOO LIGHT for true safety in a pair of frightened hands! That NY2 trigger might sound heavy, but in actual use it's amazingly smooth, linear, with no stacking and sweeps right through the "break" - in many ways I prefer it over the well-broken in trigger on my stock G19 that feels lighter than angel's hair wafting against an eyelash while riding on roller bearings!
A "safe" trigger is the DA on my S&W M69 which starts out feeling like an iron bar welded in place before it finally yields to a herculean finger pull. My CZ75B has an outstanding "safe" DA pull that's about a quarter mile long with ample starting stiffness to delay the snatch of an adrenalin-fueled fist!
Under fight or flight stress the human body loses fine motor coordination, replaced by gross muscle strength, and peripheral vision narrows to a killer focus. Even hearing becomes altered so that people often report never hearing a gunshot produced by their own hand! This is why people end up with a shattered cricoid cartilage when the person only meant to hold them in a neck lock - or expired from lack of oxygen due to compressed carotid arteries because the person sousing down was fueled by a massive dump of adrenaline and lost all ability to "gently " squoze that neck!
Bear in my that Larry Seecamp designed his namesake pistol based directly on his experience in a real, self-defense shootout and his fundamental paradigm was a gun optimized for a job, not for range plinking, customization, and speculative discussions. The Seecamp has no sights, and a DAO trigger that demands a dedicated pull. Even reloading was of secondary consideration.
My CC and SD pieces have long, heavy trigger pulls as that is what I prefer. I am relatively sure that during a massive adrenaline dump they will feel like gossamer.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Considering that court accepted expert witnesses maintain that it's not possible to determine beyond doubt if the primer indent was produced by single or double action, what's your source for this statement?
cd228
Member
For the same reason they still make flintlocks, percussion cap revolvers, single action army repros, etc. Because people buy them. It's not a bad thing, it's part of what makes it fun.
Last edited:
cd228
Member
I know the poster is suspended, but 1 and 2 are a gross oversimplification of Ayoob's article. He didn't say you had to do those things, he said they can be used to make your self defense lawyer resistant. As mentioned above, if a prosecutor or the plaintiff's lawyer in a civil case is coming for your freedom or your money, they are going to build a narrative that fits their goal using everything they can to include whatever technical facts, testimony or supposition. He is advising ways of denying them opportunities to exploit. I don't hang out in civilian courts, but having sat on a court marshal or two and some separation boards, etc. I'd tell you to do anything you can to stay out of the court room.
Also remember that Ayoob comes from the perspective of the expert witness, the guy who gets paid to keep you out of jail. So sometimes he is like a Divorce attorney who tells you that the only way to win a divorce is to not get married. While you don't want to hear it and you may not agree with him, he does have a point based on his court room experience.
Last edited:
max503
Member
A friend was told by her CC instructor to make sure and empty your gun on the bad guy if you ever use it. Doing so would be evidence that you were totally frightened out of your mind.
Doug M.
Member
^ Oh lord.
It is not surprising if a 6-8 shot firearm is emptied because one shoots until they perceive that the threat is controlled. That perception may well be a second or two past the actual ending of the threat, the victim, keeps shooting. That's putting aside that handgun rounds are not all that powerful and it may require a lot of shooting to stop a determined assailant.
It is not surprising if a 6-8 shot firearm is emptied because one shoots until they perceive that the threat is controlled. That perception may well be a second or two past the actual ending of the threat, the victim, keeps shooting. That's putting aside that handgun rounds are not all that powerful and it may require a lot of shooting to stop a determined assailant.
Bill Lear
Member
On a more serious note than my former post, I think the totality of circumstances surrounding a self-defense claim have far more bearing than whether one had a hair trigger.
Say I'm sitting in my easy chair watching Jerry Springer (God rest his soul) reruns on ROKU, fondling my ancient High Standard 9-shot with timing so faulty there are hammer impacts all around the cylinder, when suddenly, I hear a key in the front door, look up and see some dood letting himself into my home using a bump key! I thrust the gun out - cocking with my support hand thumb as the gun comes up and send a 40 grain Blazer LRN down the tube, striking the dood just above the left eye, turning out all the lights in his house instantly as he wobbles and weebles to the floor.
Did my act of cocking the revolver change anything about the absolutely valid circumstances of self defense against a home invasion? Did his use of an illegal key to let himself in quietly somehow lower his actions to mere illegal entry because he was trying to be polite about it?
The answer on all counts is, nope.
As I understand things, and as I myself have trained, by the time I'm drawing a gun it's TIME to start shooting and whether I start by hammer cocking, or trigger cocking in no way shifts the responsibility for who "started it" from the attacker to me. For all those who religiously shoot revolvers DAO, there are as many and more who practice shooting by cocking the gun first...especially women who have difficulty pulling a DA trigger, and even men who suffer some form of hand impairment.
And how does this logic apply to single-action revolvers that must be cocked shot for shot? Because it's a single-action does the defender get a special pass because they had to cock the gun and set a "hair" 1.5 pound trigger that snapped like a dollar store pipette? But if one has a revolver capable of DA fire, one is somehow limited to ONLY DA operation? That kind of hair splitting is fun to consider on forums, but not terribly relevant in real life.
On the other hand, I can see where it could go the other way if one is out and about in a "stand your ground" situation, where a gun such as a Glock has been drawn and is being used to hold someone at bay, but the owner followed all his internet buddies advice on installing a stronger trigger spring, plus a 3.5# connector, and a lighter striker spring for good measure so what was a 5.5 pound pull with noticeable let-off (under non-adrenaline fueled fright) has now been transformed into a mushy, 2 pound pull the user can't even feel as his fear-stimulated 20 pound finger hauls in on it! Even then, the totality of circumstances still carries the most weight.
Let's consider the Trayvon Martin shooting. Zimmerman is a classic case of someone who dotted all "i"s, and crossed all "t"s to be legal to carry and even created a neighborhood watch which seems of been constituted mostly of HIM cruising the neighborhood armed, looking for bad people. To all outward appearances he was the quintessential "good guy". On the night he encountered Trayvon, he took aggressive action - followed him, circled back to double-check on him, and when Martin tried to duck into the shadows between apartments to avoid what to his mind was some maniac stalking him, Zimmerman got out of his truck after making the obligatory 911 call to make his next actions nice and "justified" and followed Martin down a dark sidewalk - an action I am CERTAIN he would never have taken had he not been armed and "justified" by virtue of his carry permit, and champion of the neighborhood watch status.
When 17 year old Martin bum-rushed Zimmerman from the darkness because he felt like a trapped animal, Zimmerman went down, Martin on top, delivering punches, banging Zimmerman's head on the pavement. But Zimmerman had a "nucular" response just under his hand, and in fact, when he testified at trial about his experience being pummeled by Trayvon, he let the cat out of the bag (though few understood the significance) when he stated he felt Martin's hand going for his "piece." How did he feel it? Because his hand was already there, which is why Martin seemed to so easily overwhelm him - because he was only fighting back with one hand. At that point, Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin once in the chest, killing him.
By every objective metric Zimmerman used justified deadly force to preserve his life - the totality of circumstances. Even though Martin was initially the aggressor, when Martin rushed him and got him down, the right of self-defense applied to Zimmerman. He was charged (only after huge public demand) with Second degree murder - "depraved indifference to life," which is kind of a catch-all charge when even the 400 pound gorilla in the room knows what "really happened" versus what "just the facts" indicate. EVEN THEN, a jury acquitted Zimmerman based on the objective, quantifiable facts and totality of circumstances. Perhaps he should have been convicted of murder 2 because when he had the choice to simply call 911 and wait for the cops, he chose to go on the offense and every mature person knows it was because he was heeled and had prepped for just this scenario - in fact it's not dissimilar at all from police officers committing murder "under color of law" by ensuring circumstances support their actions, and when one is the "driver of said actions" it's pretty easy to achieve the desired outcome. But I digress, the point is, that Self Defense - an affirmative defense, is well recognized and defined in law and regardless of the things the "defendant" might have done to contrive events toward a certain outcome, it's hard to get a jury to convict on what might have been going on in a person's mind during the hours, weeks, even years that led up to a "self defense" situation.
Here is an example: I'm sitting in my garage at night, door up, with my 100" flat screen tuned to the football game, relaxing in my lawn chair, fiddling with my just legal double-barrel coach gun with external hammers, when suddenly, a stranger ducks under the door and steps inside the garage. Startled I raise the coach gun just as he beings to say, "hey man, I..." BLAM! the blast reverberates through the thin metal garage door as the "intruder's" face disappears in a spray of blood and gore, and he collapses to the floor. I'm 66 years old, can barely stand up without a crane, and in no shape at all to go to fist city with the strapping 22 year old, well muscled dead dood lying inside my garage. I'm in my home, he isn't from the neighborhood and appears to have parked his car down the street as he quietly walked along the sidewalk looking for "opportunity." My equally elderly wife was just inside microwaving some nachos with the grandkids who had just been dropped off they their mother so she could go in search of a replacement babies' daddy!
Am I going to jail? Nope, not even for one night, not even in central California - they'll come bag the dude up and Clovis' finest will call it a wrap!
COULD I have prevented this by my actions? Certainly, keep the garage door closed would have been a good first step, but who wants to do that on their own tiny patch of heaven? Does my door being open automatically make the intruder and "invitee"? Nope, Does his crossing the threshold into my home constitute a home invasion? Absolutely from my subjective circumstance and that of any 'reasonable person" like me. Did my coach gun with external hammers that had to be "eared back" to set those 1 pound hair triggers have ANY bearing on the situation? Perhaps I let fly sooner than my brain expected too, but it changed nothing about the "totality of circumstances."
Carrying on the street is a vastly different situation because even in a stand your ground State, the actions you take leading up to the SD shooting can be objectively interpreted against you - just asked the dude in Florida who was set upon by four young males who challenged his demand that they lower the music in their car as they pulled into a convenience store. A lone, older man, four "toughs" who came out of the car all puffed up....he reached for a gun in the glove box and came up shooting. Had he NOT had that gun odds are he'd be the statistic, but because of the totality of circumstances, he was charged with murder because even as they fled, he delivered a few parting shots that finished one off. A serious "no-no" in today's world no matter how much they deserved it.
Say I'm sitting in my easy chair watching Jerry Springer (God rest his soul) reruns on ROKU, fondling my ancient High Standard 9-shot with timing so faulty there are hammer impacts all around the cylinder, when suddenly, I hear a key in the front door, look up and see some dood letting himself into my home using a bump key! I thrust the gun out - cocking with my support hand thumb as the gun comes up and send a 40 grain Blazer LRN down the tube, striking the dood just above the left eye, turning out all the lights in his house instantly as he wobbles and weebles to the floor.
Did my act of cocking the revolver change anything about the absolutely valid circumstances of self defense against a home invasion? Did his use of an illegal key to let himself in quietly somehow lower his actions to mere illegal entry because he was trying to be polite about it?
The answer on all counts is, nope.
As I understand things, and as I myself have trained, by the time I'm drawing a gun it's TIME to start shooting and whether I start by hammer cocking, or trigger cocking in no way shifts the responsibility for who "started it" from the attacker to me. For all those who religiously shoot revolvers DAO, there are as many and more who practice shooting by cocking the gun first...especially women who have difficulty pulling a DA trigger, and even men who suffer some form of hand impairment.
And how does this logic apply to single-action revolvers that must be cocked shot for shot? Because it's a single-action does the defender get a special pass because they had to cock the gun and set a "hair" 1.5 pound trigger that snapped like a dollar store pipette? But if one has a revolver capable of DA fire, one is somehow limited to ONLY DA operation? That kind of hair splitting is fun to consider on forums, but not terribly relevant in real life.
On the other hand, I can see where it could go the other way if one is out and about in a "stand your ground" situation, where a gun such as a Glock has been drawn and is being used to hold someone at bay, but the owner followed all his internet buddies advice on installing a stronger trigger spring, plus a 3.5# connector, and a lighter striker spring for good measure so what was a 5.5 pound pull with noticeable let-off (under non-adrenaline fueled fright) has now been transformed into a mushy, 2 pound pull the user can't even feel as his fear-stimulated 20 pound finger hauls in on it! Even then, the totality of circumstances still carries the most weight.
Let's consider the Trayvon Martin shooting. Zimmerman is a classic case of someone who dotted all "i"s, and crossed all "t"s to be legal to carry and even created a neighborhood watch which seems of been constituted mostly of HIM cruising the neighborhood armed, looking for bad people. To all outward appearances he was the quintessential "good guy". On the night he encountered Trayvon, he took aggressive action - followed him, circled back to double-check on him, and when Martin tried to duck into the shadows between apartments to avoid what to his mind was some maniac stalking him, Zimmerman got out of his truck after making the obligatory 911 call to make his next actions nice and "justified" and followed Martin down a dark sidewalk - an action I am CERTAIN he would never have taken had he not been armed and "justified" by virtue of his carry permit, and champion of the neighborhood watch status.
When 17 year old Martin bum-rushed Zimmerman from the darkness because he felt like a trapped animal, Zimmerman went down, Martin on top, delivering punches, banging Zimmerman's head on the pavement. But Zimmerman had a "nucular" response just under his hand, and in fact, when he testified at trial about his experience being pummeled by Trayvon, he let the cat out of the bag (though few understood the significance) when he stated he felt Martin's hand going for his "piece." How did he feel it? Because his hand was already there, which is why Martin seemed to so easily overwhelm him - because he was only fighting back with one hand. At that point, Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin once in the chest, killing him.
By every objective metric Zimmerman used justified deadly force to preserve his life - the totality of circumstances. Even though Martin was initially the aggressor, when Martin rushed him and got him down, the right of self-defense applied to Zimmerman. He was charged (only after huge public demand) with Second degree murder - "depraved indifference to life," which is kind of a catch-all charge when even the 400 pound gorilla in the room knows what "really happened" versus what "just the facts" indicate. EVEN THEN, a jury acquitted Zimmerman based on the objective, quantifiable facts and totality of circumstances. Perhaps he should have been convicted of murder 2 because when he had the choice to simply call 911 and wait for the cops, he chose to go on the offense and every mature person knows it was because he was heeled and had prepped for just this scenario - in fact it's not dissimilar at all from police officers committing murder "under color of law" by ensuring circumstances support their actions, and when one is the "driver of said actions" it's pretty easy to achieve the desired outcome. But I digress, the point is, that Self Defense - an affirmative defense, is well recognized and defined in law and regardless of the things the "defendant" might have done to contrive events toward a certain outcome, it's hard to get a jury to convict on what might have been going on in a person's mind during the hours, weeks, even years that led up to a "self defense" situation.
Here is an example: I'm sitting in my garage at night, door up, with my 100" flat screen tuned to the football game, relaxing in my lawn chair, fiddling with my just legal double-barrel coach gun with external hammers, when suddenly, a stranger ducks under the door and steps inside the garage. Startled I raise the coach gun just as he beings to say, "hey man, I..." BLAM! the blast reverberates through the thin metal garage door as the "intruder's" face disappears in a spray of blood and gore, and he collapses to the floor. I'm 66 years old, can barely stand up without a crane, and in no shape at all to go to fist city with the strapping 22 year old, well muscled dead dood lying inside my garage. I'm in my home, he isn't from the neighborhood and appears to have parked his car down the street as he quietly walked along the sidewalk looking for "opportunity." My equally elderly wife was just inside microwaving some nachos with the grandkids who had just been dropped off they their mother so she could go in search of a replacement babies' daddy!
Am I going to jail? Nope, not even for one night, not even in central California - they'll come bag the dude up and Clovis' finest will call it a wrap!
COULD I have prevented this by my actions? Certainly, keep the garage door closed would have been a good first step, but who wants to do that on their own tiny patch of heaven? Does my door being open automatically make the intruder and "invitee"? Nope, Does his crossing the threshold into my home constitute a home invasion? Absolutely from my subjective circumstance and that of any 'reasonable person" like me. Did my coach gun with external hammers that had to be "eared back" to set those 1 pound hair triggers have ANY bearing on the situation? Perhaps I let fly sooner than my brain expected too, but it changed nothing about the "totality of circumstances."
Carrying on the street is a vastly different situation because even in a stand your ground State, the actions you take leading up to the SD shooting can be objectively interpreted against you - just asked the dude in Florida who was set upon by four young males who challenged his demand that they lower the music in their car as they pulled into a convenience store. A lone, older man, four "toughs" who came out of the car all puffed up....he reached for a gun in the glove box and came up shooting. Had he NOT had that gun odds are he'd be the statistic, but because of the totality of circumstances, he was charged with murder because even as they fled, he delivered a few parting shots that finished one off. A serious "no-no" in today's world no matter how much they deserved it.
Last edited:
You better not plan on it being a “wrap” and not being arrested and charged. In both incidents you describe the “intruder” was unarmed, made no threats, and took no aggressive action towards you.
FYI Prisons have room for 66 year old men that can barely stand up with a cain.
Last edited:
Doug M.
Member
In some states, the mere act of unlawfully entering someone else's home is a justification for the use of deadly force. If you have a locked door and someone unlawfully enters through and you don't perceive him as a potentially lethal threat, you are not very smart. It's one of the reasons I advocate and have defense in layers. Anyone who is determined enough to climb the face (one crime) ignore the barking dogs, and then unlawfully enter through my locked door is a threat. In places like here, the process will done, but it will come out my favor very quickly.
Last edited:
