Light Trigger Pull Liability

[Philadelphia Patriot]

About the magazine/speedloader thingie....BS! LLEA carry extra ammo, it's a really good idea. What you don't see them carry is firearms with triggers at less than factory specification.

There are other folks on this site who have had to carry what's issued and learned to deal with the factory trigger. Barring physical issues like RA, you can too. All it requires is practice.

If I read words to the effect of "a good shoot is a good shoot and the details don't matter" again I'm gonna barf. You can be sued for anything. Also, you don't need to be handing plaintiffs counsel any more issues to raise and your counsel any more to potentially deal with.

If Joe the Criminal's family sues me because I shot him for pulling a knife on me, then they can say whatever they want. I will gladly take the stand and say, "Yes, I intentionally shot Joe the Criminal. He pulled a knife on me demanding my belongs and threatened me with death and/or serious bodily injury. I was afraid for my life, and even if I complied with his demands, I strongly believed he was going to kill me before fleeing so that I would not be able to identify him to the police. The [insert name] police department and [insert name] district attorney's office determined I acted accordingly with Pennsylvania law and defended myself. They never charged me."

They can question the gun all they want, but when I say I intentionally shot Joe the Criminal and was not prosecuted because I followed Pennsylvania law, then there goes their case.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

Here is Pennsylvania's Castle Doctrine explained...

The most recent version of Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine legislation was signed into law in June 2011. The law extends the right to self-defense up to and including deadly force in a victim’s dwelling (now including any attached porch, deck or patio), occupied vehicle, or any other dwelling or vehicle that the victim legally occupies. A place of work is included in the "castle" provision under certain circumstances. Use of deadly force is justifiable if the "castle" area in the event that an assailant is "unlawfully and forcefully entering" or has entered the "castle" area. Deadly force is also justifiable, subject to certain provisions, if a person that legally enters the "castle" goes on to unlawfully attack a victim (when the victim is reasonably in fear of his/her life) or if the attacker attempts to kidnap anyone who legally occupies the "castle". The victim must be in "legal possession" of a firearm or other weapon to be justified in the use of that weapon. Use of deadly force to protect an innocent third person is generally allowed in circumstances where the provisions for justifiable self-defense are met. Victims who justifiably use force to defend themselves under the provisions of the law are immune from civil liability for any injuries sustained by the attacker during the incident. The new legislation also contains a stand your ground provision when outside the "castle". Outside "castle areas" there is no duty to retreat if confronted with a weapon.

 

[Muss Muggins]

It's not a justified shoot until the prosecutor or court says it is . . .

 

[marathonrunner]

a clean shoot is a clean shoot and as long as it is then modifications won't be a negative but if you accidently hit a bystandard you can be facing a huge lawsuit. I leave my CCW gun bone stock. My Walther PPQ is the best striker fired pistol out of the box.

 

[TacticalReload]

If you have a negligent discharge with a modified trigger, that possibly / probably will be an issue. If you intentionally pulled the trigger and your defense is justifiable homicide, I have to figure it's going to be less of an issue how light your trigger was. If someone runs someone over in their car by accident and they were drunk, I'm sure it's going to be a problem. If someone was drinking and states that they ran someone over on purpose, a drunk driving charge is probably not what they have to worry about.

In an intentional self defense shooting, the whole light trigger thing probably can really only be spun into the idea of your frame of mind since you were intent on pulling the trigger regardless of if it was 3 pounds or 13 pounds, and that's a weak argument of a desperate prosecutor IMO. If this is their entire case -- if they are trying to convict you on the basis of you must be blood-thirsty or incompetent because you have a 4# instead of a 7# trigger -- then you're probably in good shape with any but the most inept defense lawyers. We aren't talking about the fact that you were wearing a t-shirt at the time of the shooting that said "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" on the front. We are talking about an otherwise safe, but slightly modified, handgun.

Most of these "target guns" are labeled as such because of (1) guns with lighter triggers tend to be using lighter springs which makes them less reliable in extreme cases and/or (2) there is a fear of a negligent discharge in the heat of an adrenaline-filled self defense encounter. If you have tested your pistol to be 100% reliable with your chosen ammo and if we are specifically talking about cases where the weapon was intentionally fired in SD, neither of these distinctions between a "target" gun and a "defense" gun matters.

So much of what get tossed around as commonly accepted internet gun wisdom has its roots in what some "expert" or another said... then it gets repeated and repeated and repeated until everyone basically takes it as gospel. Modify your gun and go to jail. Use reloaded ammo and go to jail. Put Punisher grips on your gun and go to jail. Use a .44 magnum and go to jail. Shoot someone from more than 10 yards away and go to jail. The fact is that we need to SEE the number of people who got prosecuted due to these things vs the number of people who did these things and we either not charged or not successfully prosecuted. I have never seen these types of numbers. In fact, I've seen next to no actual cases where these so-called common knowledge no-nos landed someone in prison in a case where, had someone used a non-modified gun or shot from only 9 feet instead of 29 feet or whatever, they would have gotten off free and clear. Jenny McCarthy read a bogus "scientific study" about a link between vaccination and autism, decides to spread the word, and now we have cases of measles and other previously eradicated illnesses on the rise. Free internet advice is often worth less than you paid for it.

Here is how I see it. Like I mentioned before, you have the risk of running afoul with the law from the second you buy a gun. Carry one at your own risk. Use it at your own risk. Heaven forbid you feel the need to use it and you will set into motion a whole series of events and processes that will be less than enjoyable (not even including the psychological effects of using deadly force regardless of if it was justified or not). Your fate will largely be guided by the cops that show up, the bosses of those cops back at the station, the DA that reviews the facts of the case, the media and the public at large, the lawyer you might need to hire, the lawyer that the other person or person's family might hire, etc., etc. Weigh the risks and make your choice. Chances are, if some or all of those people named above don't like you or don't like guns or don't like citizens using deadly force, they will make your life very hard -- trigger or no trigger, modification or no modification, good shoot or not. If some or all of those people feel like you did the "right" thing in the eyes of the law or of God or of their own moral compass, they will not make your life very hard -- trigger or no trigger, modification or no modification. A good shoot is NOT always ruled a good shoot, and people with non-modified firearms in jurisdictions that have castle doctrines or "stand your ground" laws DO get prosecuted sometimes. Decide what matters most to you... having a pistol that might help you hit what you're aiming at or make it less likely you hit a bystander or whatever... or possibly giving a tiny bit less ammunition to a prosecutor that probably already was gunning for you regardless. I really REALLY want to see an otherwise justifiable homicide case where the sole factor in someone going to jail was because they put a much lighter mainspring into their j-frame.

The argument that you should just "train harder" to get around the drawbacks of whatever platform you're using is a straw man argument. It's hard to argue that someone isn't a "better" shooter with a better trigger, no matter how good you are with a worse one. What you're suggesting is that you should train harder until you consider yourself GOOD ENOUGH to adequately overcome a heavy, gritty trigger -- despite the fact that, even at that level of proficiency, you would be BETTER with that same gun if it didn't have that heavy, gritty trigger.

If you have a $3k Wilson Combat 1911 with a 3.5# trigger that shoots 1.5" groups straight from the factory, is that LESS of a liability than your Glock that had trigger work done to drop the trigger pull to 3.5# from the factory 6+ pounds? Is a 1911 more of a liability than a double action gun that you can't shoot nearly as well simply because you walk around with the hammer cocked all the time? Is a Beretta with a safety and a 12# trigger pull less of a liability than a SIG Elite SRT without a manual safety? I can't answer any of these questions for you. Just use some common sense and answer them for yourself in a way that makes you most comfortable.

Oh... and in case anyone is misunderstanding what I'm saying, I'm not advocating that you carry a modified gun or not. I, myself, happen to have a carry rotation that does not include any modified guns. However, I don't get all bent out of shape about doing so... it just so happens that I am happy with the way my guns perform as is. I DO have a concern about accidental / negligent discharge in a high stress situation with a gun that has an extremely light trigger... intentional discharge with those same guns? Not so much.

 

[McE]

Every single time you shoot your gun, you are lightening the trigger, are you not?

 

[Neumann]

There are more legal problems from loose tongues than light triggers. Never indicate a shooting in self defense was anything other than deliberate, in fear of your life. Accidental shootings are homicides, and less defensible against civil suits. Don't let a false sense of humanity make you say you didn't mean it.

 

[ankona]

Show me an actual case where someone was convicted solely based on using a weapon in self defense that had a modified trigger pull.

 

[EdJG]

Show me an actual case where someone was convicted solely based on using a weapon in self defense that had a modified trigger pull.

The posting by Massad Ayoob cites two cases. See OP for link.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Show me an actual case where someone was convicted solely based on using a weapon in self defense that had a modified trigger pull.

There are a couple, but only a couple. The same two cases that Ayoob cites in the linked thread are the two that come up time and time again, which tells me there aren't others. As for the two, there are other very significant issues in addition to the trigger pull which come into play . . .

 

[EdJG]

There are a couple, but only a couple. The same two cases that Ayoob cites in the linked thread are the two that come up time and time again, which tells me there aren't others. As for the two, there are other very significant issues in addition to the trigger pull which come into play . . .

The vast majority of civil cases brought are against law enforcement (there a a lot! - big pockets to go after) and it's next to impossible to determine if trigger modification played a part.

In terms of us "civilians" the incidence is probably very low, but it would be beneficial if a lawyer ran a Lexisweb or Westlaw search to find out the true numbers. With all of the companies pushing their "legal defense funds" there probably aren't a lot of payouts, but that's an entirely different subject.

In all likelihood, the risk of civil action in a valid self defense shooting involving a modified trigger is low. Just remember you can still be sued in civil court after being found not guilty in criminal proceedings.

 

[Mister X]

To me, the primary liability of a light(er) trigger is simply a higher risk of actually unintentionally discharging a weapon in any given scenario. I do seemingly come across a relatively high number of reported unintentional discharges and can't help but notice that it's often a Glock or similar striker-fired pistol involved. I imagine most of the guns in those cases have a stock trigger, which the majority of people don't consider light/too light, although many others feel differently. I'm not necessarily saying they are inherently unsafe, but would point out that I don't see such incidents occurring at the same higher rate or frequency with DAO revolvers or Glocks with NY triggers. That implies to me that a heavy/heavier trigger does indeed reduce the risks and occurrences of AD's/ND's.

 

[TacticalReload]

To me, the primary liability of a light(er) trigger is simply a higher risk of actually unintentionally discharging a weapon in any given scenario. I do seemingly come across a relatively high number of reported unintentional discharges and can't help but notice that it's often a Glock or similar striker-fired pistol involved. I imagine most of the guns in those cases have a stock trigger, which the majority of people don't consider light/too light, although many others feel differently. I'm not necessarily saying they are inherently unsafe, but would point out that I don't see such incidents occurring at the same higher rate or frequency with DAO revolvers or Glocks with NY triggers. That implies to me that a heavy/heavier trigger does indeed reduce the risks and occurrences of AD's/ND's.

I think this probably a combination of the lighter / shorter trigger pull of the Glock, lack of manual safety, and (probably more importantly) the fact that most LEOs carry Glocks and they are the ones who are far more likely to have their guns out and be pointing their handguns at people when they aren't necessarily in a position to fire the gun.

 

[pushpullpete]

I agree w alot that was said above. But, I believe the more we refer to things like 'the importance of a modified trigger in any court case' the more important it becomes. A case of words becoming true rather than 'actual facts' being true. Do NDs happen? Of course they do. The 'responsible firearm owner' trains to reduce the likelihood of that scenario, but life happens while we train and plan.
Mister X, could it be that your relatively high number of reported unintenional discharges involving striker-fired pistols is because there are so many of them due to their affordability & not their design or some other reason?

 

[CSB]

If Joe the Criminal's family sues me because I shot him for pulling a knife on me, then they can say whatever they want. I will gladly take the stand and say, "Yes, I intentionally shot Joe the Criminal. He pulled a knife on me demanding my belongs and threatened me with death and/or serious bodily injury. I was afraid for my life, and even if I complied with his demands, I strongly believed he was going to kill me before fleeing so that I would not be able to identify him to the police. The [insert name] police department and [insert name] district attorney's office determined I acted accordingly with Pennsylvania law and defended myself. They never charged me."

They can question the gun all they want, but when I say I intentionally shot Joe the Criminal and was not prosecuted because I followed Pennsylvania law, then there goes their case.

If you were to be sued civilly there is no chance you'll be allowed to say anything like that, if you were to testify. To begin with, a civil standard of liability is obviously lower than a criminal standard of guilt. Just ask O.J. Moreover, civil lawyers will think up a whole lot of other reasons you were negligent. This is especially true if you accidentally shot an uninvolved person.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[hexnut]

The only way I couldn't say any thing like that is I don't get to testify.
Tennessee has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine. Enacted in 2007, the law does not require a duty to retreat. It extends the right for persons to defend themselves from attacks by using physical or deadly force in any place they have a legal right to be. The law provides civil immunity for persons using physical or deadly force to protect themselves from an attacker.

I need to find out how this law actually works.

 

[southcoast]

The posting by Massad Ayoob cites two cases. See OP for link.

The last time this issue came up on this forum, those cases were discussed in detail, including input from Ayoob. The conclusion was the cases hinged on other issues, ie. not self defense, etc. Trigger pull was not the elephant in the room as you may believe. I encourage you to read the last discussion in its entirety for a better understanding of those cases.

As a lawyer with access to nationwide court records, I have searched for years and never found an actual civilian self defense case (criminal or civil) where the civilian maintained a self defense theory and trigger pull became a relevant issue.

Some will create scenarios in their own imagination where they believe this would be relevant, but the court system actually operates on facts and the law. There is objective reasoning why none of those wild hypotheticals have come to actual fruition.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...8-trigger-pull-modification-legal-issues.html

 

[00stormbringer]

"Riding" the trigger is the primary cause of all ND's; keep your finger out of the trigger guard until a conscious decision to fire has been made.

 

[Mister X]

Mister X, could it be that your relatively high number of reported unintenional discharges involving striker-fired pistols is because there are so many of them due to their affordability & not their design or some other reason?

That's a good point, but a whole lot of people still carry DAO snub revolvers and you just don't see many if any cases of unintentional discharges with them. IIRC, the development of the NY trigger springs as well as the Miami connector was due to the increased incidents of unintentional discharges by Officers transitioning from revolvers to semi-auto's and implementation of these heavier trigger pulls actually did drastically reduce the number of AD/ND's. I know a lot of PD's used to mandate revolvers be converted to DAO for the same reasons.

 

[EdJG]

As a lawyer with access to nationwide court records, I have searched for years and never found an actual civilian self defense case (criminal or civil) where the civilian maintained a self defense theory and trigger pull became a relevant issue.

Some will create scenarios in their own imagination where they believe this would be relevant, but the court system actually operates on facts and the law. There is objective reasoning why none of those wild hypotheticals have come to actual fruition.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...8-trigger-pull-modification-legal-issues.html

If I understand your post correctly - the issue of trigger pull was raised during some of the cases, but was deemed not to be relevant. I'm interested in learning how the issue of relevancy to the outcome was determined?

I wish I could agree with your assessment of how the court system operates. Perhaps in the ideal world it does, but not in real life.

Being new to the forum I was unaware that this topic had been extensively discussed. My purpose in posting was not to dissuade anyone from modifying their trigger - rather to highlight a potential issue that I read on another posting on a sub-forum(that was felt important enough to be made a sticky), that they should consider when making their decision.