Legal Ramifications of a Trigger Job.

[Rob377]

You didn't show anything other than that they'll test it when someone claims it was an accident.

You did not show anything about a trigger job causing an otherwise justifiable self-defense shoot to become murder.

 

[Jack Burton]

You didn't show anything other than that they'll test it when someone claims it was an accident.

You did not show anything about a trigger job causing an otherwise justifiable self-defense shoot to become murder.

Wasn't my intent... I didn't show also that Fred Savage wears hearts on his underpants.

I did show that triggers on guns get tested when the prosecutor wants to. You've shown....?

I did quote from one of the leading experts on firearms who testifies in multiple trials every years. You've quoted....?

 

[Rob377]

Wasn't my intent... I didn't show also that Fred Savage wears hearts on his underpants.

I did show that triggers on guns get tested when the prosecutor wants to. You've shown....?

I did quote from one of the leading experts on firearms who testifies in multiple trials every years. You've quoted....?

Then you missed the point of the OP. Whether the trigger gets tested or not is irrelevant (unless you claim it was an accident, in which case we're not talking about an otherwise justifiable self defense shooting anymore) and Ayoob is the leading expert in self-promotion, not the law. He says this all the time to sell his DVDs and books, but has never once been able to cite any case in which a trigger job made an otherwise justifiable self defense shoot into murder.

THAT is the gun shop myth, perpetuated by gun-shop and internet lawyers like Ayoob. It's their shtick. His opinion, and $4.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Self-defense: I meant to do but I had a really good reason. Trigger could be 4 ounces, 4 pounds, 4 tons, who cares.

Getting the plea agreement from the jury at criminal trial: it was not his conscious objective to do it, this is merely a matter of recklessness. Trigger weight MAY be an issue.

Fighting over the reinsurance company's money in civil court: this dangerously modified trigger caused my client hurt, now give him money. Trigger and condition of firearm is going to be an issue.

 

[Sonney]

By doing this you eliminate the gun manufacturer of any liability. And it can come back on you. I was told this when I was in my Utah class.

 

[koutsevil]

Read an article in Concealed Carry magazine about this. Prosecution With claim that you are an overzealous gun nut looking for a gun fight. Lawyers play dirtier than two girls mud wrestling!

 

[NSA 308]

My S&W 442 has an Apex tactical trigger spring kit in it. The trigger pull is a lot lighter and smoother than stock. I carry it regularly.

My S&W SD40VE has an Apex tactical trigger spring kit in it. The trigger pull is a lot lighter and smoother than stock. It often rides in my car console.

My Glock 23 is stock, except for an extended slide stop lever and night sights. I carry it regularly in cold weather.

My nightstand home defense pistol is a Glock 35. A target/tactical pistol with a nice, factory 3.5 trigger connector. Nights sights, too.

If my life is on the line, I couldn't care less what some gun shop commando or internet lawyer with a JD from Cracker Jack University thinks of the triggers on my defensive arms. They are modified or left alone depending on how I find them to be most accurate and easy to shoot. The entire reason I modify a trigger is for accuracy purposes, to enhance safety and effectiveness if I ever find myself in a defensive encounter. If I shoot someone, I meant to do it. Trigger pull weight means nada.

I suppose I should immediately remove the nights sights from my guns, as they obviously serve no purpose other than to kill people more easily in the dark.



I don't know what some people would do without something to be afraid of all of the time.

 

[PX4me]

... I couldn't care less...

Max rep for you my friend.

 

[Josh Ward]

Jeese, you guys still arguing about this.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If it can be done in one case, it can be done in another. It is totally, 100 percent the prosecutor's call. Not yours. Not behind's. Not mine.

The prosecutor doesn't decide what forensic tests are ran, the lead detective, in conjunction with crime lab, does. At least here. Other jurisdictions may be different. I suppose the prosecutor could ask me to ask crime lab to run something I didn't, but they never have.

In the case you quoted the trigger pull became relevant due to the claims made. First line of the article, "Prosecutors in the Wisniewski case do not contend that Dylan Wisniewski purposely intended to shoot Ashlee Swazey".

As I've said multiple times, you can't justifiable accidentally shoot someone. With a negligent discharge, the condition of the weapon can become relevant to the investigation. If you tell me the gun fired 3 rounds when you dropped it, don't you think I'll probably have crime lab test the weapon to verify that the gun will do that? That's a totally different situation from a claim of self defense where you MEANT to shoot someone.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Self-defense: I meant to do but I had a really good reason. Trigger could be 4 ounces, 4 pounds, 4 tons, who cares.

Getting the plea agreement from the jury at criminal trial: it was not his conscious objective to do it, this is merely a matter of recklessness. Trigger weight MAY be an issue.

Fighting over the reinsurance company's money in civil court: this dangerously modified trigger caused my client hurt, now give him money. Trigger and condition of firearm is going to be an issue.

That thar's a pretty good summary.

 

[TEK]

..Ayoob is the leading expert in self-promotion, not the law. He says this all the time to sell his DVDs and books...
THAT is the gun shop myth, perpetuated by gun-shop and internet lawyers like Ayoob. It's their shtick. His opinion, and $4.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

you have a jd great. I'll bet there's quite a few on here who do.

if you are a practicing lawyer then you know that what makes or breaks many a case tried in front of a jury is the expert witness.

ayoob is not a law expert. but as a lawyer you must know that expert witnesses are generally not called upon for law opinions unless they are experts in law such as in a legal maplractice case. you can see below that in fact expert witness are specifically NOT to testify about legal conclusions. So it doesnt matter one bit whether or not Ayoob can give case names. Actually if he was the expert witness, probably there's no way he'd give actual case names but would be obliged to speak in general terms.

lets take a look at the indiana rules of evidence on expert witnesses

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
(a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
(b) Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable.
Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. Experts may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue
(a) Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
(b) Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.
Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.

I added the bold above. Read that folks if you are not familiar with it and understand that what a lawyer, whether plaintiff/state or defense, is trying to accomplish with a witness, is get some testimony that helps WIN the case and CONVINCE the jury. that is a complicated thing that they are speculating about as lawyers and if they as lawyers think maybe the jury will be swayed by testimony about a scary trigger job or the "assualt rifle" bullcrap or the "widowmaker" brand on the knife used in purported self-defense then that lawyer will try and get it into evidence and the hearing of the jury as much as possible.

AYOOB has testified as an expert witness plenty i have read-- which means probably his opinion is paid for by client-lawyers and not just spewed forth to "sell books" and so what his opinion about matters in our little context here is whehter or not he knows about situations where these matters were bandied about in front of a jury. if he says that it happens guess what, sure seems plausible to me, and he probably knows better than me since I am not an expert witness for hire in gun cases and he is; and I am willing to keep my self-defense tools as un-sexy and stock as possible in the interests of being as boring as possible should the day I am ever in the dock like George Zimmmerman.

Now I suggest some of you who take the contrary opinion here not just get mad about it, but watch as much of the coverage of that trial as possible, and you will see that a lot of seemingly minute or trivial factual matters may become the subject of lengthy testimony and ultimately may make the difference in the mind of the trier of fact.

 

[ghitch75]

 

[rjklein4470]

IMO as long as your carry gun is the same as what your local law enforcement carries you are fine. If hey are double singal and you comply with one or both I would say you are ok, If you have your competition gun on you and you get car jacked and its 2.5lbs trigger, it could get u-g-l-y ugly.

 

[24Carat]

A financially healthy rule of thumb, where potential liability is concerned, is what does a major corporation legal department exposed to comparative risks advise where corporate policies and procedures are concerned ?

One quick answer is that the second largest security company in the world does not allow its armed employees to carry weapons with any modifications.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A financially healthy rule of thumb, where potential liability is concerned, is what does a major corporation legal department exposed to comparative risks advise where corporate policies and procedures are concerned ?

One quick answer is that the second largest security company in the world does not allow its armed employees to carry weapons with any modifications.

Corporate polices also tend to ban the carrying of firearms by their employees, advise employees to cooperate with robbery attempts, etc. I suppose if that's our benchmark, the whole idea of carrying a firearm at all is a lot of liability, as is intervening in any crime even if you're the target. When I worked for AT on the armored car, I wasn't allowed to carry my factory 1911 because SAO was "too much liability."

They don't allow modifications because they are afraid Cleetus is going to jack up his gun so when he pulls it it goes bang when he doesn't want it to (bad shoot, remember you can't justifiably accidentally shoot someone) or it won't go bang when he does need it to (bad outcome for employee and for company). This is a separate issue from an otherwise good shoot being made bad because of a modified weapon.

 

[Paul30]

If it is a legal shoot it should be a legal shoot. A prosecutor can argue anything he wants. The only way I would see a problem is if it was a ND resulting in a person you did not intend to shoot getting shot. If a trigger job makes you more accurate, you are trying not to miss your attacker and hit an innocent bystander. If you are using expanding ammunition designed specifically for self defense you are not trying to cause additional damage to a person you are shooting, you are trying to prevent over penetration and protect the people behind the thug who is attacking you. It's all about perspective. The most important thing that determines your chances of being successfully prosecuted for a shooting is how much you say before your lawyer takes over. Your words can and will be used against you in the court of law, give them as few as possible.

 

[24Carat]

Corporate polices also tend to ban the carrying of firearms by their employees, advise employees to cooperate with robbery attempts, etc. I suppose if that's our benchmark, the whole idea of carrying a firearm at all is a lot of liability, as is intervening in any crime even if you're the target. When I worked for AT on the armored car, I wasn't allowed to carry my factory 1911 because SAO was "too much liability."

They don't allow modifications because they are afraid Cleetus is going to jack up his gun so when he pulls it it goes bang when he doesn't want it to (bad shoot, remember you can't justifiably accidentally shoot someone) or it won't go bang when he does need it to (bad outcome for employee and for company). This is a separate issue from an otherwise good shoot being made bad because of a modified weapon.

And Garda World bought AT. I don't see the distinction between when I am off work and carrying and the potential liability lauded on me personally by a prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer and the risk my employer sees to their bottom line because of modified duty weapons. Their bank of international lawyers holds sway with me.

I personally can't imagine trigger pull as having any concern in a carry weapon. Adrenaline is going to negate the need and potentially aggravate the presence of a lighter than factory pull. I can see a possible out if the manufacturer's custom shop did the work.

 

[Trigger Time]

Ayoob and some other trainers are of the belief that an over zealous prosecutor will find any and every excuse to hang a shooter no matter the circumstances. He has written stories where unethical prosecutors use things such as gun modifications to persuade a jury that the shooter was a crazed, out of control killer just looking to murder someone.

He can also get the jury on his side by declaring you bite your pop tarts into the shape of a gun if he wants.

The only way to overcome it is the way you overcome everything else. Present credible and expert evidence that what you did or didn't do was well within the acceptable standards of reasonable behaviour.

another reason to not trust a lawyer. Maybe some are good guys but a lot of other ones have given the profession a bad name.
Ill modify my guns any way I like (within the firearms laws obviously). If I'm forced to use one against someone it won't be because I wanted to try out the new parts. It will be to stop the threat and I will have the ability to make sure the means to do that works properly. A race car driver keeps his car clean and the parts updated for the best chances of success. My defense guns are not made or used to duck hunt. They are for shooting people or wild animals that threaten my life. Same reason a policeman carrys his. It's not to look cool. Hopefully it's never used.

 

[wwdkd]

Trigger jobs/gun modifications are completely irrelevant when it comes to using your weapon in self-defense. A good shoot is a good shoot, a bad shoot is a bad shoot. Just make sure you're justified in pulling the trigger and you'll be fine.