Light Trigger Pull Liability

[Fastbolt]

Some might think it prudent to live by "better safe than sorry", but that attitude shares a bed with fear mongering.
Living by fear or idioms is a lazy way to go about one's days.

I suppose someone could look to perceive it as being the same.

It's more about reasonable risk assessment and mitigation.

Once you've had the opportunity to listen to any number of people relate details of their court room experiences ... from cops, to crime lab technicians, to qualified expert witnesses, factory reps, techs and an occasional engineer, etc ... it begins to make sense to look to avoid unnecessary exposure to needlessly increased risks.

 

[Fastbolt]

Someone has been posting without reading the thread first.



In general, heavier pulls straight from the factory are there to prevent negligent discharges and to ensure greater reliability with a wider variety of ammo (due to the accompanying heavier springs). They aren't there so, when you're in court after a SD shooting, you can protect yourself from some sort over-zealous prosecutor. If you have a negligent discharge with your modified, ultra-light trigger or a gun that you removed safety-features from, I can see someone saying you are culpable for whatever happens... but that's not what we are talking about here. However, I agree with you... you make your choices, you deal with what shakes down afterward.

Not really. Read the thread. Familiar with Mas' article. Happen to agree with it.

Having spent some years speaking with assorted folks from a handful of the different gun companies, as an armorer trained by their companies, and listening to the experiences of any number of other experienced firearms trainers, and having listened/read to things that have occurred in court proceedings, I've acquired enough information to have my own opinions on this subject.

 

[TacticalReload]

Not really. Read the thread. Familiar with Mas' article. Happen to agree with it.

Having spent some years speaking with assorted folks from a handful of the different gun companies, as an armorer trained by their companies, and listening to the experiences of any number of other experienced firearms trainers, and having listened/read to things that have occurred in court proceedings, I've acquired enough information to have my own opinions on this subject.

Fair enough, and I respect that opinion. While I don't claim to have the same depth of knowledge and experience as you, mine is pretty similar and I feel fairly comfortable with my opinions, as well. I also don't feel like there is ZERO added risk to lightening the trigger pull in a carry gun, I just don't necessarily see it as being as great a risk as some people make it out to be. It's a risk that someone needs to assess for themselves and weigh against the benefits they assess they gain from a more "shootable" pistol. Some people get so incredibly bent out of shape about this topic... it's weird how angry some folks get about the choices of other people who they don't know and likely will never meet.

As I said before, none of the guns in my current carry / home defense rotation have been modified. However, if I had a Glock or M&P in that rotation, I probably wouldn't be adverse to putting a factory "-" connector or an Apex duty-carry kit into it or polishing internals as long as I was 110% sure that they would function. I just tend to like traditional hammer-fired DA/SA for self-defense purposes, and I don't want to swap springs into those guns for reliability reasons.

 

[Fastbolt]

Understood.

It certainly does seem to generate no shortage of debate and even argument, doesn't it?

I tend to suspect that a lot of folks look at the topic more from the perspective of seeking any possible confirmation bias, meaning they're simply looking for anything that supports their own preferences, and aren't really looking at it from an open-minded perspective.

I've heard all manner of unusual and unexpected lines of questioning result from investigations and court proceedings. Judges may exclude some lines of questioning, but decide to allow others, and there's no way to predict which way it'll go until the moment actually arrives.

So, in a very practical way, predictable can be preventable.

Besides, there's all manner of unrecognized biases that have sometimes been programmed into people who are going to make up any jury pool, in either criminal and civil cases. Mention a "hair trigger" with the average person who doesn't even own guns, but reads fiction or watches TV and Movies, and listen to an amazing variety of "answers" and opinions you might never expect to hear from someone.

 

[Doug M.]

If you are a dolt and have a trigger that is simply unsafe, like a 2 pound trigger on a 1911, you deserve everything bad that happens to you. SMOOTH is important - light not nearly so.

There are going to be some very real context issues. If there is an allegation of a negligent discharge (or a person who freaks out over a good shoot and says something dumb like "I didn't mean to shoot him), a lighter than factory trigger may be a problem. It is a problem only because of an underlying economy sized bowl of stupid, but will contribute to the potentially bad outcome.

I know cops who have had shootings with and do not oppose custom guns, but they are very articulate and know very well what they are doing. The trigger weight should not be admissible in an intentional shoot because it is not relevant under ER 401 et seq. The effort to get it in should be beaten back by a good attorney, as the firearm itself is not evidence unless there is a dispute about who actually fired the fatal shots, and even then, ballistic testing and the like should be done within 24 hours and the gun back to the shooter immediately thereafter.

I understand the comments about the negatives of heavy trigger pulls - also context driven. There are agencies that have specs for their pistols that are borderline insane (*cough* NYPD *cough*) because they are dealing with a generally firearm ignorant pool and don't invest near enough time in the fundamental training. An agency in this state, well known for bad management approaching buffoonery, was going to increase trigger pull weight on their issues pistols due to a couple of incidents of NDs instead of addressing them as training problems. One of those idiots probably should have been charged, and the idiot certainly should have been fired or forced to retire.

Big context issue: Mas developed and validated his views starting almost 40 years ago. The ignorance and hostility that we see in some states was far more pervasive. Very few attorneys were savvy about use of force and defending the good shot. I can tell you for certain that use of force will be about 2 hours of total class time in 3 years of law school, and if you actually know anything about it and have any interest, you will be considered an outlying freak. Nothing about tactics was ever considered, especially 30+ years ago when I was in law school.

Where I live and work, the odds of anyone giving the tiniest portion of a you know what about an offender getting shot are so small as to not matter. I'm in the PAO, and my colleagues in the criminal division would probably cheer. If you have the misfortune to live someplace where you can count on stupid mindsets (CA, MD, MA, NJ, a few others), yeah, you may need to change your analysis. The analysis you make has to take all these variables into consideration.

 

[Rastoff]

I tend to suspect that a lot of folks look at the topic more from the perspective of seeking any possible confirmation bias, meaning they're simply looking for anything that supports their own preferences, and aren't really looking at it from an open-minded perspective.

With this one sentence, you have summed up the entire internet forum construct. This is also true with most counseling sessions. People are looking for someone to agree with them rather than for real help.

The effort to get it in should be beaten back by a good attorney, as the firearm itself is not evidence unless there is a dispute about who actually fired the fatal shots, and even then, ballistic testing and the like should be done within 24 hours and the gun back to the shooter immediately thereafter.

Is this a process you have actually witnessed or is it just how you believe it should go? Personally I'd be amazed to see the court system do anything within 24 hours.

 

[TacticalReload]

With this one sentence, you have summed up the entire internet forum construct. This is also true with most counseling sessions. People are looking for someone to agree with them rather than for real help.

Very true. Forums tend to develop their own dynamic... a group of people who are either long time members or high post count members or both become the "core". Most other people fall into two groups... those who are semi-regulars and those that are noobs... and when someone expresses opinions contrary to the accepted party line, it becomes a pile-on bashfest. The rest of the time, it's a lot of collective glad-handing. If people stick around long enough, they learn what will get you in trouble with the forum illuminati. For example, bashing the primary manufacturer on a brand-specific forum is a good way to be group-shamed into submission and is strictly the realm of noobs, trolls, and masochists. However, reality is that no one forced any of us to be on any forum; and we are free to leave whenever we want, I suppose. I'm not specifically talking about this forum or even firearms forums as a whole... I'm talking about almost ALL forums in general with a few exceptions. Just the way it works when you combine a whole lot of people and a whole lot of anonymity. ;-)

 

[Doug M.]

Is this a process you have actually witnessed or is it just how you believe it should go? Personally I'd be amazed to see the court system do anything within 24 hours.

*
The firearm is almost never going to be evidence as a matter of law. The court should not have a role in it. The easy examples are with LE weapons used in an OIS. It should take about 3 hours to clean, test/inspect and return, and as a rule, it will be readily apparent to most that the shoot is either good or not in that time or less.

ER401: "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." In a potentially negligent shooting (see what I said about), the condition of the firearm could be relevant. It might not be, depending on the facts. In an intentional shooting, where the intended target has been hit and no one else was injured by that shooter, the trigger and other issues will never be relevant. None of that will ever be a "fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action". There can be no dispute of fact as to who shot the offender, problems of aim, etc. The questions, if any, will be as to the justification for firing, which can never be impacted by the condition of the firearm. The last sentence of ER 402 says "Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.".

Member Nyeti has written some excellent materials about this from his LE days when he was heavily involved in OIS investigations. The problem is that we have a lot of folklore (ignorance) among LE (and knowledge is usually inversely correlated with rank) and lawyers that has never been addressed. You would be amazed at the number of truly horrible and ignorant arguments I have seen in court, and the appalled at the number of judges who either don't know, or won't pull up their Huggies and do their duty by putting a stop to that stuff. I may have displayed a certain amount of irascibility on occasion.

 

[Rastoff]

You didn't really answer my question, but that's OK. What you did write is enough and very enlightening to me.

So often we here that any gun used in a defensive shooting will disappear into the infinite evidence locker, never to be seen again. In fact, it is very common for people to carry a poorly made, cheap gun, that they may or may not be able to shoot well, just in case they have to defend themselves and the gun will be lost to the justice system.

What you've written above absolutely voids that issue.

Of course that brings us back to the original question; is this how they really operate or is it just a small point of law that is largely overlooked?

 

[Doug M.]

I would say it should void that issue. In the real world, because of pervasive ignorance, it doesn't. (Which is a way of addressing your last sentence - few if any places operate this way because this point of law is overlooked.) For good measure, consider what happens if a firearm is kept in an evidence locker for some stupid period of time without being maintained after the shooting. This is allegedly to keep it in the same condition, but if it was in the rain, mud, blood and you name it, and left dirty, it might be ruined by the time of a trial. For no reason at all.

 

[Rastoff]

I would say it should void that issue. In the real world, because of pervasive ignorance, it doesn't.

Yeah, I believe you're correct about this.

Our court system is set up to be strictly about the law and to set aside personal beliefs. Alas, insert humans into the mix and that ideal system breaks down.

Your explanation about why the gun shouldn't be entered into evidence, in a defensive shooting, is abundantly clear. Yet, it's such an inflammatory device these days, it will be hard to keep out. Of course, that's exactly why a good defense lawyer should keep it out.

 

[Fastbolt]

To take this thread in a little different direction ...

Before the former head armorer retired, he shouldered the responsibility to perform, and allowed some armorers under him to perform, a little more "clean up" of duty and off-duty weapons than might be done nowadays.

By that, I mean he did some further spring tension adjustments, and more stoning, filing and polishing than was being taught and recommended in armorer classes.

Of course, he was also a long time experienced armorer (and built some very nice competition revolvers, 1911's and Hi-Powers), he assisted and examined weapons for a crime lab, and he was the local expert witness in any number of cases for our agency, and other agencies, within the county. He had no problem doing, and selectively allowing some armorers to do, a little more work than was being recommended by some of the gun companies in then-current armorer classes, as he felt quite able to explain and justify the reasoning for any of it.

I felt myself lucky to have spent so many years learning under him, as I was racking up the factory armorer classes at the same time. Those were different days, in many respects.

 

[Elliot45]

In my mind the bottom line is this, don't pull your weapon if you're not planning on using it. I just recenly put in an Apex sear and ultimate stricking block. The trigger is lighter, smoother and more fun to shoot and practice with. That being said, it isn't any lighter than my Colt 45 Gold Cup trigger. Funny that when many law enforement officers carried 45's, trigger pull wasn't an issue even though it doesn't take much pull to shoot a 45 in single action mode. I guess if this becomes a real issue, I should just start carrying my 45 in cocked and locked mode. Anyway, I love my Shield now and and if I'm forced to use it I'll make no appology because it was easy to shoot. Regards, Elliot45

 

[Rastoff]

...don't pull your weapon if you're not planning on using it.

Yes, but this is a very ambiguous statement. The word "use" when it comes to firearms, has so many meanings.

Follow me for a moment...
The vast majority of conflicts resolved with a firearm, are concluded with no shots fired. Was a firearm used? The answer is an emphatic, yes. Thus the whole idea of not pulling it unless you're going to use it becomes clouded. Firearms are a great deterrent.

Now, you shouldn't count on that. If the gun came out of the holster, you had better have been in fear of losing your life (or protecting someone else's life). That doesn't mean you have to shoot.

 

[DEPUTY346]

I was thinking of installing the Apex Trigger Kit, but after reading this post in the S&W Concealed Carry Forum I've become a bit hesitant. I know the modification says the trigger pull will be "approximately" 5.5 lbs, but his comment "...the collective law enforcement experience in countless such cases speaks to the wisdom of keeping “factory ‘duty spec’ trigger pulls” on any firearm one is likely to use for self-defense purposes."

Just thought I'd bring the issue up so everyone can make an informed decision on modifying their trigger.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/concealed-carry-self-defense/419191-facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html

I'm an LEO and all of my "non" issued weapons are modified with lighter trigger pulls. If it's a good shoot it's a good shoot. At the end of the day if it makes you a better shooter that right there is your affirmative defense.
Our armory weapons are Glocks with the standard 5.5 pound trigger. My off duty is a Glock 19 with the 3.5 trigger I'm not worried.