Justifiable is justifiable

[Arik]

I carry generic & functional firearms for self defense. Nothing fancy, nothing loud, nothing tough guy.

^THAT^

My edc firearm is a tool. It dpesnt need fancy grips, mostly because I don't want to send the additional money on something that already works.

I dont buy Zombie bullets for the same reason. Its a niche and id rather not spend extra money on it.
I have regular firearms that serve a purpose and its not to accessorise.

I need good sights, good mags and quality ammo.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[GLV]

Do no harm

To your self. Many of the things cracker 57 mentions in his original post, could cause you harm. What kind of harm? by doing them, you now will have to defend your gun if modified, Your handloaded ammo, your actions, your mouth, etc.

IF, and I pray never, have to use a gun in my defense or the defense of an innocent, I want everything to be as clean as possible. In other words, do your best not to give the prosecution any AMMUNITION.

 

[jtpur]

When I was on active duty, I had to shoot some one during a fight for my gun. Being a cop I was invited to the lab while my gun was test fired for ballistics etc. first thing the gun expert did. Was measure my trigger pull, then fire it single and double action, measure trigger pull again, then took,it apart, examined and photographed all the springs, trigger, and firing pin, measured tolerances etc, and compared them to factory supplied data. He was making sure my story added up with the ballistics.and I was a cop and the shoot was ruled justified by the department, but now the States attorney got to make a decision. So you civilians have a lot in store if you have to shoot. Best to use a stock gun!

 

[cmort666]

Best to use a stock gun!

Best to use what works.

My Norinco M1911 was "stock" when I got it... the leaf spring was bright red with rust and the hammer followed. My Glock 22 had a trigger you could hang a trophy buck from.

"I got killed, but I wouldn't have had a problem with the prosecutor!" or "I missed and shot a bystander, but at least I looked like a rube doing it!" aren't much consolation.

 

[venomballistics]

Best to use what works.

My Norinco M1911 was "stock" when I got it... the leaf spring was bright red with rust and the hammer followed. My Glock 22 had a trigger you could hang a trophy buck from.

"I got killed, but I wouldn't have had a problem with the prosecutor!" or "I missed and shot a bystander, but at least I looked like a rube doing it!" aren't much consolation.

it should be a stock gun in good repair. Last I checked, repair often requires replacement of parts

 

[xray97]

Unless the person who used deadly force is asserting that the gun was fired unintentionally I'm having difficulty understanding what difference the trigger, springs, etc. make. I was in fear of my life and fired my weapon- how easily the gun could be fired is irrelevant.

 

[cshoff]

Unless the person who used deadly force is asserting that the gun was fired unintentionally I'm having difficulty understanding what difference the trigger, springs, etc. make. I was in fear of my life and fired my weapon- how easily the gun could be fired is irrelevant.

A prosecutor who, for whatever reason, is intent on making a case against you, will use whatever avenue he/she can to make you out to be negligent/reckless/a vigilante/etc. I don't think it takes a whole lot of imagination to think of some ways that a prosecutor might try to use the fact that you made certain modifications to your gun, or the fact that you used certain ammunition, to do just that.

 

[CrossRifles2008]

The only thing I plan to do to my 40c is crimson trace grips. That's just a attempt at better accuracy for hopefully no collateral damage. Stock trigger with Winchester PDX.

 

[xray97]

A prosecutor who, for whatever reason, is intent on making a case against you, will use whatever avenue he/she can to make you out to be negligent/reckless/a vigilante/etc. I don't think it takes a whole lot of imagination to think of some ways that a prosecutor might try to use the fact that you made certain modifications to your gun, or the fact that you used certain ammunition, to do just that.

I understand what you're saying but if I intentionally shoot someone the issue will be whether I was justified or not- not how hard I pulled the trigger.

 

[cshoff]

I understand what you're saying but if I intentionally shoot someone the issue will be whether I was justified or not- not how hard I pulled the trigger.

You are making the assumption that YOU will get to decide what will be at issue.

 

[xray97]

You are making the assumption that YOU will get to decide what will be at issue.

If the issue isn't whether or not I was justified in a self defense shooting what in the world would the issue be?
Can you imagine a prosecutor saying I was justified but my trigger pull wasn't heavy enough?

 

[MP22]

DA's and juries have been wrong my friend.....thousands of times. Forensics has proven it. Just because he stamps it...doesn't mean it's always right. JMHO

 

[cshoff]

If the issue isn't whether or not I was justified in a self defense shooting what in the world would the issue be?
Can you imagine a prosecutor saying I was justified but my trigger pull wasn't heavy enough?

I think you missed the point. You said, "....if I intentionally shoot someone the issue will be whether I was justified or not- not how hard I pulled the trigger..."

If you intentionally shoot someone, a prosecutor, or even investigators, could make "the issue" any number of things that you may not have foreseen. The point is, YOU don't get to decide what is at issue or not. It MIGHT be a straightforward, black-and-white case, or it might not be. This is why, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it is best if we mitigate any potential liability when we can, where we can, and as often as we can - because AFTER a shooting, it is too late.

 

[Lost Lake]

If the issue isn't whether or not I was justified in a self defense shooting what in the world would the issue be?
Can you imagine a prosecutor saying I was justified but my trigger pull wasn't heavy enough?

Yup.

Why did you shoot him three times, when the second shot went through his nose and removed the back of his skull?

On the second shot you hit my client in the throat, yet you claim you were aiming center of mass. You most likely touched off a shot as the gun came down from the recoil and hit high, paralyzing my client.

We have a study here to submit to the court from the state patrol academy showing a trigger pull of less than 5 pounds causes more missed shots under stress than a heavier pull requiring more control of the weapon....

Mr. Gunner, why do you think you know more than Smith & Wesson, a company with an extensive R&D and safety department that has designed this weapon for use by professionals world wide and set the trigger at 7.5 pounds of pull after they determined that to be the safest and most effective trigger weight?

I could do this all day. A zealous prosecutor only needs one slippery slope to put you on and start the jury questioning your motives....

You say you are more accurate with a 2 lb trigger and we have shown the tendency for misplaced shots and excessive shooting under stress with such a trigger... Is it possible you were lax in your training? Lax because you cannot operate a 7lb trigger like the entire county police department does or lax because you never trained under stress to realize the effect of a lightened trigger?

Just saying.... Is it worth it on a carry gun?

 

[xray97]

I think you missed the point. You said, "....if I intentionally shoot someone the issue will be whether I was justified or not- not how hard I pulled the trigger..."

If you intentionally shoot someone, a prosecutor, or even investigators, could make "the issue" any number of things that you may not have foreseen. The point is, YOU don't get to decide what is at issue or not. It MIGHT be a straightforward, black-and-white case, or it might not be. This is why, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it is best if we mitigate any potential liability when we can, where we can, and as often as we can - because AFTER a shooting, it is too late.

No I didn't miss the point. What I'm saying is when 1 person causes the death of another the issue is whether the death was accidental, excusable, justifiable, or criminal homicide. That is the issue. There may be circumstances that change one to another form of homicide but determining which of these is the cause of the death is the issue.
I don't disagree that alterations to a gun or ammunition selection may cause repercussions in a civil action. I don't disagree that some changes to a gun may raise questions as to the shooters mental state (intent). Neither of these are positive things to have brought into an investigation into your actions when a shooting is involved.
All I am saying is I don't see where the trigger pull or change of springs would come into play in an investigation of a shooting unless the shooter is claiming they didn't intend to fire the weapon. That's ALL I was saying. If that were a legitimate concern it would be ill advised for anyone to carry or use a single-action semi-auto for defense.
I'm not naive. I have worked homicide cases. We all should be concerned with criminal and civil considerations in self defense situations. All I was trying to say is we should keep or fears/concerns reasonable. If you alter a guns trigger pull/ springs and you UNINTENTIONALLY shoot someone - you better get ready for a ram but in a justifiable shooting it will be irrelevant. And those alterations will not, by themselves, turn a justifiable shooting into something else.

 

[xray97]

Yup.

Why did you shoot him three times, when the second shot went through his nose and removed the back of his skull?

On the second shot you hit my client in the throat, yet you claim you were aiming center of mass. You most likely touched off a shot as the gun came down from the recoil and hit high, paralyzing my client.

We have a study here to submit to the court from the state patrol academy showing a trigger pull of less than 5 pounds causes more missed shots under stress than a heavier pull requiring more control of the weapon....

Mr. Gunner, why do you think you know more than Smith & Wesson, a company with an extensive R&D and safety department that has designed this weapon for use by professionals world wide and set the trigger at 7.5 pounds of pull after they determined that to be the safest and most effective trigger weight?

I could do this all day. A zealous prosecutor only needs one slippery slope to put you on and start the jury questioning your motives....

You say you are more accurate with a 2 lb trigger and we have shown the tendency for misplaced shots and excessive shooting under stress with such a trigger... Is it possible you were lax in your training? Lax because you cannot operate a 7lb trigger like the entire county police department does or lax because you never trained under stress to realize the effect of a lightened trigger?

Just saying.... Is it worth it on a carry gun?

I hear what you're saying. I didn't say alterations were a good idea. When you say (above) " ...my client..." you're talking about a civil case. The prosecutor's "client" is the state. Any alterations can DEFINITELY come into play in civil actions. If you crank off an "excessive" number of rounds or shoot a bystander you've got problems regardless of what the trigger pull is.
You either intended to shoot the rounds or you didn't and quite frankly it is more to the prosecutor or civil atty's favor to show you did it intentionally rather than by accident due to gun alterations. A mental state of intentionally for a first or second degree murder case as opposed to criminally negligent homicide manslaughter. That is assuming " they" want to hammer you criminally or make a lot of money in a civil action.

 

[cshoff]

No I didn't miss the point. What I'm saying is when 1 person causes the death of another the issue is whether the death was accidental, excusable, justifiable, or criminal homicide. That is the issue. There may be circumstances that change one to another form of homicide but determining which of these is the cause of the death is the issue.

And what I am saying is that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event will determine which direction investigators and the PA go. In most cases, the firearm you used WILL be subject to some level of scrutiny. If something about the firearm or ammunition is "questionable", that COULD be the catalyst for the investigation to take a different turn. It is one variable in a sea of many variables.

I don't disagree that alterations to a gun or ammunition selection may cause repercussions in a civil action. I don't disagree that some changes to a gun may raise questions as to the shooters mental state (intent). Neither of these are positive things to have brought into an investigation into your actions when a shooting is involved.
All I am saying is I don't see where the trigger pull or change of springs would come into play in an investigation of a shooting unless the shooter is claiming they didn't intend to fire the weapon.

OR.......unless there was something questionable about some other aspect of the shoot. Small things tend to add up.

That's ALL I was saying. If that were a legitimate concern it would be ill advised for anyone to carry or use a single-action semi-auto for defense.
I'm not naive. I have worked homicide cases. We all should be concerned with criminal and civil considerations in self defense situations. All I was trying to say is we should keep or fears/concerns reasonable. If you alter a guns trigger pull/ springs and you UNINTENTIONALLY shoot someone - you better get ready for a ram but in a justifiable shooting it will be irrelevant. And those alterations will not, by themselves, turn a justifiable shooting into something else.

Is it more reasonable to try to minimize potential liabilities over things we have complete control over before they ever become an issue? Or is it more reasonable to knowingly take a risk with equipment modifications/selection, even though the potential risk is not high on the probability scale? I believe the former is not only more reasonable, but also more logical.

 

[Prof_Fate]

"Justifiable"...ok, you shot an armed crackhead at 1 am in your bedroom, there have been a number of break ins in your area. You may be OK.

But wait...that's what you thought when you shot. But it turns out it's Fred from down the street...he'd had a bit too much to drink and well, your house and his house look the same and he often comes in through the window (weird, but earlier this year that was the story).

OK, now you killed Fred, father of two and he was volunteer of the year last year at the local childrens hospital. Cousin to the mayor, married the DA's sister.

You? You have a big truck with a rebel flat and NRA sticker. 10,000 rounds of ammo and 20 guns in your house. You wear camo most of the time. You spend your weekends shooting guns.

So you are obsessed with weapons and guns. Are you paranoid? Delusional? Best get you checked out right away.
All your friends and coworkers are interviewed. Some say you're a gun nut. Some appear to BE gun nuts (we all know a few that are indeed, a bit obsessed. One guy at the range likes to collect guns..he often has 8 to 10 in his car any one time. Justifiable? How?)

Maybe your like the one guy at my range that loads ammo...lots of it. He was talking tonite about putting in another order for 30,000 wadcutters. Sorry, but if they cops find that quantity of ammo in your basement there will be questions.

Oh wait, the media has a hold of it? Showing a camo dressed bald headed goatee 'biker type' being hauled out of his house after shooting the mayors cousin.

Are you competitivley shooting to be better trained, more accurate, more controlled?

Or to be sure to be prepared, get the kill shot, never miss - and therefore are enthusiatically waiting for an opportunity to test your skills?

Accidental? Justifiable? Or your worst nightmare?

 

[cmort666]

But wait...that's what you thought when you shot. But it turns out it's Fred from down the street...he'd had a bit too much to drink and well, your house and his house look the same and he often comes in through the window (weird, but earlier this year that was the story).

OK, now you killed Fred, father of two and he was volunteer of the year last year at the local childrens hospital. Cousin to the mayor, married the DA's sister.

Around here it sucks to be Fred.

If that's how liquor affects you, either stop drinking or get shot.

Those are pretty much your choices.

 

[Chuck1217]

Mas Ayoob has spoken on this subject several times, and the fact that it was a 'good shoot' doesn't always matter to a prosecutor. If he's looking for a way to dismiss the case as 'good' he could probably find it. BUT if he's looking for a way to show the anti's he's one of them- he's going to be looking for a reason to come after you. So it WAS a good shoot, you know it, the cops know it- but if you had a modified gun or 'deadly' ammo- he will take you to court saying you wanted- you were looking- you intended to kill or maim- and so what if it was a 'good shoot'? If you spend thousands of bucks on a lawyer- and even spend months in jail (which has happened) waiting for the jury to decide- well, it woulda been much eaiser to have used stocj=k guns and ammo.
Ayoob cites quite a few cases, even ones he testified in that were undoubtedly good shoots- but the shooter spent time in jail and paid tons for his lawyer- all because he had a modified gun. I can't find the links now, but I've read about his cases- more than once.