Liability in carrying modified guns?

[ToddS112]

Anyone know of a REAL case where an officer or CCW permitee was sued for shooting someone and the basis of the suit was the gun had been modified? I'm talking INTENTIONAL shooting.

I see a bad guy with a weapon. I pull the trigger INTENTIONALLY, the gun goes bang, bad guy goes bye-bye.

What possible difference could there be if the trigger pull is 5 oz or 5 pounds. I meant to shoot him, I pulled the trigger.

I understand how it could play in an accidental shooting.

Again, anyone know of a REAL case where the modification of a gun had any bearing in a case?

 

[dfariswheel]

I can't remember the details, but an officer (New Orleans??) shot a suspect, and did so deliberately.

The suspects families lawyer tried to claim that the gun had been altered (trigger job) and the officer shot the man accidentally.
As I recall, the lawyer lost the case.

 

[S/W - Lifer]

I carried a modified revolver as a LEO. The gun was inspected and approved by the dept. armorer. This was common practice and there were no issues I'm aware of.

 

[McPita]

I think the answer to your question depends on what the modifications are. I have three Smiths that are used as carry and home protection arms. All three have been modified to double action only. You certainly don't want to give a lawyer any more ammunition to use against you in a legal proceeding than you have too, so be careful.

 

[bountyhunter]

This topic has been beaten to death. My position is given what we know about lawyers (and I have known a few) why would any sane person open the door EVEN A CRACK to give them any wiggle room to claim the shooter was using a gun which was "unsafe" or "prone to discharge". IMHO, any mods that lighten or shorten trigger pull should never go on a defense gun.

FYI, if the gun operates as designed by the manufacturer, the slimy lawyer has no choice but to sue the gun maker, not you. If you altered the gun in any appreciable way, your neck is on the chopping block.

I think modifyinga gun to DAO probably makes you less liable to lawsuit since it makes the gun less likely to ND. One of the gripes about DA/SA pistols is the SA pull is too short (and light) and makes it prone to ND. That is a documented problem with the Beretta 92FS service pistols. They are carried hammer down so the first trigger pull is a very long 12# pull, but all following shots are a very SHORT pull of about 4#. Under stress, that is not a good situation for marginally qualified operators.

 

[RightWinger]

Over the years I have heard all kinds of silly gun myths. I have heard people say that you should not carry magnums loads because they are more "deadly" and you would appear more humane if you used .38 spl or .44 spl....etc. I have also heard that you should not load your own carry ammo or dare do an action job on a revolver.....amazingly enough I have asked everyone that told me these idiotic tales to show me an actual lawsuit over such an issue, let alone show me one where that was won by the attorney. I've yet to see any. Lets face it folks.....If you break a basic safety rule and have an ND, you're going to be liable regardless of what has been done to your gun, if you intentionally to shoot someone and are justified then how is this affected by modifications or "magnum" loads in your gun? I recall a young kid in college waxing 2 thugs as they tried to rob a gas station. This young man was on his way back from an IDPA match and had a full blown race gun in the holster underneath his jacket when he stopped in for a smoothee.....we did take his gun and had it sent to the ballistic lab and gathered all the information off of it, but the DA nor anyone else ever thought to make a stink about his 1.5 lb trigger or his 20 round mags, or his red dot optics.....maybe it was because he was completely JUSTIFIED!!

 

[robertrwalsh]

Mostly this is crap, but it depends on what you call "modified". The real possible problem is modifying safety devices, like pinning down grip safeties, even if that had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting. A lawyer can try to make you out as a dangerous psycho because you "disabled the safety". Also, if you take the trigger down below factory specifications that can be an issue for the same reason. In the case of a DELIBERATE shooting it should not make a difference but that does not mean it couldn't. A bent lawyer and a stupid jury can do some weird stuff.

 

[bountyhunter]

It depends on the modification. If you alter it in a manner to make the trigger lighter or shorter (making the gun more prone to discharge), some lawyer will feast on that regardless of the facts. My position is to never give them that opportunity.

Always remember the "justice" system is in two parts: criminal and civil. In the former, they have a high level of proof to sustain a conviction so a "justified" shooting might not result in any penalty.

In the civil case, they will file "wrongful death" on you then some lawyer will whine about the "hair trigger" on your modified gun and the morons on the jury will figure:

What the hell.... give the poor "victim's" family a couple of million bucks, it's coming out of the insurance company's pocket anyway......


and so it goes.

 

[RightWinger]

Yes, I do see your point but when have you actually seen this happen within the circumstances you described?

 

[Centenniel]

Originally posted by bountyhunter:
It depends on the modification. If you alter it in a manner to make the trigger lighter or shorter (making the gun more prone to discharge), some lawyer will feast on that regardless of the facts. My position is to never give them that opportunity.

Always remember the "justice" system is in two parts: criminal and civil. In the former, they have a high level of proof to sustain a conviction so a "justified" shooting might not result in any penalty.

In the civil case, they will file "wrongful death" on you then some lawyer will whine about the "hair trigger" on your modified gun and the morons on the jury will figure:

What the hell.... give the poor "victim's" family a couple of million bucks, it's coming out of the insurance company's pocket anyway......


and so it goes.

In the case of a private citizen's use of deadly force, when would an insurance company be involved?

 

[RightWinger]

centennial,

They wouldn't.....I have great homeowners insurance but not that great

 

[saturner1]

In the case of a private citizen's use of deadly force, when would an insurance company be involved?

Having just spoken to my insurance agent about this exact subject, I am on my own if I shoot and kill a perp. This includes both civil and criminal court. But, if I miss the perp and injure or kill a citizen then my $1000000 umbrella policy would kick in. I'm in Texas so the castle doctrine would help me out on the perp, but you can probably still count on about a $100000 attorney bill.

 

[jimmyj]

Hi:
I have never carried a modified weapon on duty or off duty for the reasons Bounty Hunter expressed. Why give the other Attorney extra ammo to use against you for the Jury?
I have never had a factory weapon that I considered needed modifying. If it did I did not
get it.
Jimmy

 

[WR Moore]

As noted, it depends somewhat upon the modifications. Modifications may increase the probability of criminal prosecution or civil suit and/or the loss of either or both. Realize also that you won't get ONE gun owner on the jury regardless of if the case is civil or criminal. In your area, the concept that modifications are presented as further evidence (you've already got a deadly weapon you don't really need) of an obsession with weapons (and you just finally achieved your fantasy!) probably strikes you as sheer BS. Alas, it's not for a whole lot of folks.

Action work (preferably by factory certified armorers) that keeps the trigger weight(s) of pull within factory specficications probably isn't an issue. More visible or night sights and fitting grips to better fit your hands are highly defensable, but may add extra issues at trial that you don't need. Hell, any extra issues at trial aren't needed. And yes, a 5 oz (or outside factory specifications) trigger on a defensive firearm could be presented as depraved indifference to danger to innocent life.

The short answer is that-like the Duke lacrosse players- if you've got the money, the innocent will usually prevail. The question is if the potential costs are really worth whatever advantage you think the modifications give you. Could you get the same end result with more practice or training?

 

[Pisgah]

A sure way of messing up your argument of self defense is to say, "it was an accident". I have know of situations where, feeling remorse, a person will claim that, yes, they felt threatened and, yes, they drew and pointed their gun but, no, they didn't intend to shoot. That's bad enough, but if the gun has been modified for a lighter trigger, well, we're talking a pretty convincing case of negligence.

If you are convinced your life is in danger, you are justified in using deadly force. That is your story, and you should stick to it. If you're telling the truth it will be very hard for anyone to make any case for negligence, no matter what the gun or ammo.

 

[tomcatt51]

Originally posted by Pisgah:
If you are convinced your life is in danger, you are justified in using deadly force. That is your story, and you should stick to it. If you're telling the truth it will be very hard for anyone to make any case for negligence, no matter what the gun or ammo.

And if you make good hits the perp won't be contradicting you.

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by Centenniel:

Originally posted by bountyhunter:
It depends on the modification. If you alter it in a manner to make the trigger lighter or shorter (making the gun more prone to discharge), some lawyer will feast on that regardless of the facts. My position is to never give them that opportunity.

Always remember the "justice" system is in two parts: criminal and civil. In the former, they have a high level of proof to sustain a conviction so a "justified" shooting might not result in any penalty.

In the civil case, they will file "wrongful death" on you then some lawyer will whine about the "hair trigger" on your modified gun and the morons on the jury will figure:

What the hell.... give the poor "victim's" family a couple of million bucks, it's coming out of the insurance company's pocket anyway......


and so it goes.

In the case of a private citizen's use of deadly force, when would an insurance company be involved?

many homeowner's insurance would be liable for any wrongful death on the premises which they insure. Michael Jackson's home insurance was liable to pay for the child molestation lawsuit filed against him, as bizarre as that sounds. It was widely publicized at the time his insurance company tried to settle the claim with him because they were afraid how the trial would turn out. The final settlement terms were keptt secret, but they probably had to pay out some of it.

 

[bountyhunter]

Originally posted by Pisgah:
A sure way of messing up your argument of self defense is to say, "it was an accident".

The best way of screwing yourself after ANY shooting is to say ANYTHING. Use Krazy Glue if necessary, but secure your upper lip to the lower lip and do not move it until you are speaking in private to your attorney. Prisons are full of people who listened to the nice policeman when he said he wanted to help them "tell their side of the story".

You may be 100% sure it was a good shoot, even the cop may agree but it is the DA who will decide if charges will be filed.... keep your mouth SHUT.

 

[blueknight7]

Well, as a brand new member of this forum, and after being an LEO for 30 years, retired now, I might have some insite into this situation.
As stated before. There is two parts to any homicide. Yes, that is the term used in investigation of any death caused by another. The criminal part, and the civil part. You can be exonerated on the criminal part, and crucified in the civil end. Especially if they can get it moved to Federal. Remember Rodney King, and O.J. Simpson. No criminal intent proven, but the civil ramifications were enormous.
As said before, if you are involved in one of these, "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT"! Ask about the welfare, of you, or who you were protecting, and of the shooting victim. Other than that, you do have rights. I suggest you use them.
For your defense on an altered weapon. Get an attorney that understands the point is not the mechanics, but, the act, and the intent. If you were truely in fear of your life, or the life of another, do you best to keep the mechaincs of the weapon used, out of the trial. Hard to do? Extremely! Defendable? Of course!
Just remember a few years ago, after Great Britian had done a very good job of ridding their country of all handgun ownership by private citizens.
A retired British Officer heard someone breaking into his house. The only weapon he had, was his Army Sabre, given to him, when he retired. Both suspects were armed, with (imagine that) handguns.
When the police arrived, they truely had a mess to clean up. But, the British Officer had protected his home, his family, and his property. Court was unnecessary for the two miscreants, as they had been sent to their maker, for a recall.
The British courts tried to crucify the Officer. It didn't fly. And the attorney for the defense stated on absolute fact. If the private citizens in Britian hadn't been effectively disarmed, there wouldn't have been that big of a mess. Case dismissed.

 

[safearm]

More visible or night sights and fitting grips to better fit your hands are highly defensable

With the exception of more durable finishes, i.e., nickle, Armoloy, Black T, etc., these were the only modifications allowed to any department approved/issued carry revolvers.
When the department converted from private purchase carry to issue Glock 21, the only modifications allowed were a grip plug, grip sleeve (either Pachmayr or Hogue), and a metal recoil spring guide rod. Night sights were already on the gun.
Everything else was factory specification.