Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/16/2009 8:24:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2009 11:32:42 AM EDT by eric496]
I've heard many times that you should not lighten the trigger pull, or make any modification whatsoever, to a gun that may be carried for defense. The reason being that should you stand trial, they will try to paint you as a lunatic who couldn't wait to shoot someone and put a "hair trigger" in it. Is that just range talk, or is there any truth to it? Can anyone point to a case where it was a problem? I'm thinking about putting a 3.5 lb connector in my Glock which is carried occasionally.
Link Posted: 4/16/2009 11:25:41 AM EDT
I think there is some truth to this - IIRC Ayoob has published examples in the past. I faced the same situation that you do (wanting a "-" connector in my Glock). I decided the better performance was worth what is a comparably minor change - by no stretch of the imagination could the new trigger be called a "hair trigger".  I went to the trouble of getting a Glock OEM part (rather than an aftermarket part) so I can truthfully state that "the gun has only 100% Glock factory parts". When I went to the place to buy it, I also took my ejector group and had the guy there install the part (no charge - its a 30 second job). Sure, I could easily have done it myself, but now I can honestly say "that OEM Glock part was installed by a Glock armoror". Silly I know, but I feel like I've covered my ass by taking this approach, and it cost me nothing.
Link Posted: 4/16/2009 11:25:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2009 11:36:04 AM EDT by civprod]
I too would like to see any sort of link to relevant case law where a modification to a gun became a problem in a subsequent court case involving a self defense incident.  I have heard of people saying that there is info out there from Ayoob, but I have never actually seen it.

Honestly, I am not too worried about carrying a glock that has a trigger modification.  In my opinion, if you carry hollowpoint bullets, you are more likely to run into problems from an overzealous prosecutor than you are if you have a 3.5# connector.
Link Posted: 4/16/2009 4:30:38 PM EDT
Self-defense= no documented problems

A/D or N/D= open up your pocketbook, which you would do anyways
Link Posted: 4/17/2009 6:34:48 AM EDT
I think it has never happened and it is Ayoob gun-magazine talk. If you say in court you meant to shoot at the moment you shot, then you should be ok. If you say 'the gun went off' then having a modified light trigger is an argument they could use to change the charge to something more serious.
Link Posted: 4/17/2009 2:30:25 PM EDT
Again, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.  Completely ignoring the criminal aspect, any good plaintiff's lawyer would seize onto a modification and drag you through depositions and such, with time spent (and your dollars) parsing out your 3.5 lb connector or slick 1911 trigger job.  It just begs the question is a trigger job worth the economic risk (minimal chances, though maximum costs)?  To some it is, to some it isn't.  

As an aside, i would never carry my glock with a 3.5 connector (except in USPSA), but that's me.
Link Posted: 4/17/2009 3:10:38 PM EDT
Cost/benefit??

Let's see..... the weapon having a smooth trigger and break is not important when engaged in a gunfight?? Maybe accuracy in your competitive shooting is more important to you, but I would bet that your "competition" has never required you to put your life on the line, if you lose that is

Can you explain how a light trigger matters when you delivered an accurate shot to the correct person?

That is the key..... your intended act occurred properly. I would guess you would open the door when your act wasn't intended or you hit the wrong target.

If we used your theory on triggers, the entire country should embracy NYPD's heavy Glock trigger because the largest PD has decided that was the best.
Link Posted: 4/17/2009 3:57:25 PM EDT
RDP

Your post seems somewhat discombobulated, but let me try to explain further.

Yes, virtually everything can be analyzed in terms of cost vs. benefit; what is the acquired benefit and detrimental cost (being economic, inconvenience, reliability, etc).

While you like a smooth trigger & break, would you consider a red optic (micro aimpoint for example) and a magwell to be essential for your carry gun?  I would hazard a guess that most would not as the inconvenience (cost) in carrying such a firearm would not be worth the advantage gained (benefit).  

Admittedly, I have no combat experience so all I know of from trained professionals is second hand.  I know of one that carries a 1911 with 1.5 trigger with no holster while others carry your out of the box Sig.  Each has made their own decision.

For me, I see little advantage in using a 3.5 connector as my splits aren't much different and my accuracy does not suffer much from  my other Glocks.  I notice the main difference in weak hand shooting, something I am trying to practice a lot this year.

To answer your question, I don't think a light trigger offers  much advantage.  I am sure that most individuals have such a rush of adrenaline, that they fall to the base level of their training where a light trigger wouldn't make much difference.  Again, this is a guess as I don't have combat experience and can't at all profess intelligence in this area.

Finally, please don't misread my theory into some anti-glock, 15 pound trigger mess.  I succinctly said "To some it is, to some it isn't".  Would you be in better shape with a NYPD trigger in a civil suit.  I might guess so, but again I don't practice in this area of the law.  I wouldn't guess  that you would be in a worse mess.

I do know that the more variables at play in any litigation, the more money you will spend.  A trigger job (or whatever it might be) adds variables which would substantially raise the cost of any civil defense (whether it is at trial or pretrial).  This is the "cost" associated with the benefit of a trigger job.  As  I have said previously, to some it is worth it, to some it isn't.    

While some individuals won't agree with me, I find it foolish to not be aware of issues(i.e. trigger jobs)  that might come to fruition at the legal defense. At the bare minimum, these issues need to be considered in deciding whether or not said gun modifications are worth it.
Link Posted: 4/20/2009 6:39:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RDP:
Self-defense= no documented problems

A/D or N/D= open up your pocketbook, which you would do anyways


+1  Deadly force is deadly force.

Link Posted: 4/20/2009 7:23:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By RDP:
Self-defense= no documented problems

A/D or N/D= open up your pocketbook, which you would do anyways


+1  Deadly force is deadly force.



Of course.....and utterly useless.
Link Posted: 4/22/2009 10:53:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/22/2009 1:29:17 PM EDT
Actually the scenario that more concerns me about a shooting with a lightened trigger is that the shootee or his family would claim the tort of wrongful death as a negligence case, saying that the self-defense assertion was actually to cover up an accidental discharge caused by the light trigger.  We've actually seen such claims in both civilian and police shooting cases.  This even arguably pleads around some of the "Make My Day" statutes that confer immunity to civil claims for self-defense shootings.
Link Posted: 4/22/2009 3:16:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/22/2009 3:21:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/22/2009 3:22:01 PM EDT by jbombelli]
I cannot see how lightening and smoothing your trigger a bit could possibly be a concern if you MEANT TO SHOOT THE GUY in the first place.  WTF difference does it make if the trigger is 3.5 lbs or 5 lbs if you pulled it ON PURPOSE ANYWAY?  And I have yet to see case law cited on this, despite asking to see SOMETHING probably 50 times in the last few years.

 
Link Posted: 4/23/2009 5:01:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By spqrzilla:
Actually the scenario that more concerns me about a shooting with a lightened trigger is that the shootee or his family would claim the tort of wrongful death as a negligence case, saying that the self-defense assertion was actually to cover up an accidental discharge caused by the light trigger.  We've actually seen such claims in both civilian and police shooting cases.  This even arguably pleads around some of the "Make My Day" statutes that confer immunity to civil claims for self-defense shootings.


You've seen the "claims," but you didn't say that they were successful.  The only way around the MMD statutes is to change the facts.  Which is it –– negligent discharge or the perp broke into the house with the intent to commit a felony?  

Link Posted: 4/23/2009 5:39:00 AM EDT
So here's my question - how is some idiot prosecutor going to even know you modified the trigger, much less what you did?

What they don't know can't hurt you.
Link Posted: 4/23/2009 5:43:16 AM EDT
spqrzilla,

I think that accidental scenario was most popularized when people considered  the negligence theory in order to pay for litigation costs with their insurance.  With a shoot being a purposeful act, virtually all insurance (with maybe the exception of the NRA offer) would not pay a dime.

As J. Wayne put so forth before, its not a good turning into a bad shoot.  Worry about the civil suit and how you will afford it.  A prosecutor going after you is one thing, a plaintiff attorney going after you for their 1/3 cut will be your worst nightmare.  Even if you prevail, you will have spent thousands of dollars defending your modifications, choice of arms.  With many liberal judges and a good plaintiff's attorneys, any civil immunity clauses will surely be questioned and possibly ruled inapplicable.

Legal defense, like anything else, is not simply black or white.  



Link Posted: 4/23/2009 5:44:48 AM EDT
I like reading Ayoob for entertainment value.  Not good for much else.

Good shoot = equipment doesn't matter.

Bad shoot = equipment doesn't matter.

Link Posted: 4/23/2009 6:46:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/23/2009 7:27:11 AM EDT
Civilly speaking, not only will the lawyers know about your gun, any modifications thereto, you will be deposed, with your whole firearms history put out on the table.  All posts on here made by you will be examined and likely used to paint a picture about you, including what is just being discussed.
Link Posted: 4/25/2009 7:26:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By spqrzilla:
Actually the scenario that more concerns me about a shooting with a lightened trigger is that the shootee or his family would claim the tort of wrongful death as a negligence case, saying that the self-defense assertion was actually to cover up an accidental discharge caused by the light trigger.  We've actually seen such claims in both civilian and police shooting cases.  This even arguably pleads around some of the "Make My Day" statutes that confer immunity to civil claims for self-defense shootings.


No, not that easily defeated.   And that's the point of the problem with an excessively light trigger pull on a self-defense weapon.  This kind of case has been made before, the example I'm thinking of was actually a police shooting, and has succeeded.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 1:34:40 PM EDT
To this date, no one, including Ayoob, can provide one example of court case where this made a difference.  This nothing more than an urban legend perpetuated by various "experts" looking to sell more books/magazines.  Ayoob is not an attorney (heck, he isn't even a police officer, but a reserve-officer).
Top Top