quote:

Originally posted by EasyFire:

quote:

Originally posted by JDSigManiac:
As a former prosecutor and now as an attorney that defends police officers in civil cases alleging excessive force (including shootings)and who advises police agencies on liability issues, it is my opinion that anyone who says the answer is definitively one way or another is mistaken. The only correct answer is “it depends.” It depends on if the shooting was intentional or accidental, whether the intended target got shot or an innocent bystander did. Criminally, it makes a difference whether you get a reasonable prosecutor or an anti ccw/gun prosecutor. The jury you draw is also a critical factor. If it was an accidental shooting, or if an unintentional bystander got hit, then the risks go up. Civilly, the fact that the pistol was modified from factory original WILL BE admissible. Some money grubbing coin operated whore, er, I mean “expert,” will come up with an opinion that the modification somehow impacted the shooting. Will it be reasonable? Probably not, unless it was an accidental shooting or negligent discharge. But, you will have to have an expert on your side to refute the claim. Ultimately the issue becomes one of weight of evidence, not the admissibility of it, therefore, it would be up to the jury to decide. This poses another variable, a Texas or Florida jury would view the evidence much differently than a NY or California jury. After trying nearly 50 cases to jury. Erdict, I have seen results that have taught me to never trust the common sense of the community at large. These are the people that will judge you criminally or civilly if you shoot someone.

After every shooting that I have litigated or investigated as a LEO, the weapon is seized and sent to the lab for testing. The report will indicate what the trigger pull is, and may indicate if it has been altered from factory specs or equipment. Unless other jurisdictions are different, anyone who is in the camp of “they will never know” is wrong. In a civil case, the other side will have access to inspect and test your firearm. Your modifications will be found and exploited by your opponentif possible.

Most agencies have a policy against modifying firearms for a reason. Why interject an unnecessary variable in an otherwise ridiculously complicated, emotional, and expensive process? Because one could never know or even reasonably foresee the variables involved in a theoretical shooting, my advice is always to leave the weapon in factory condition. If modifications are made by the factory (ie AEP) then there is not likely to be a problem. If you drop in some super wiz bang flavor of the month trigger, then you are incurring risk. Whether the risk ultimately manifests itself in harm depends on how the variables play out. No armchair firearms expert or internet lawyer can tell you the outcome. If a lawyer tells you they know how it will play out, then you need a new lawyer. Is it reasonable that a trigger job makes the weapon more accurate? Sure, but that wont be the only evidence that gets before the jury. Knowing what I know (and admittedly, its one guy’ opinion, as educated as it may be) all my carry guns are bone stock.

One real life example about the ridiculousness of what may occur in court: I was defending an officer in a civil case in federal court in a fatal shooting case in which the officer was accused of excessive force. A white officer shot a black teenager with his personally owned, but agency approved AR that he was qualified on. The rifle had an integral flashlight in the forearm. This simple change from factory specs had to be addressed by our expert. Obviously, putting a flashlight on the rifle was to improve visibility, and was not an evil thing “that goes up” but became an issue anyway. The plaintiff’s lawyer also kept referring to the otherwise stock AR as a “machine gun.” The moral of the story is that lawyers will exploit any potential issue in favor of their clients and prosecutors may do the same if it is in favor of their case.

At the end of the day, its a personal choice. Do what you will, but don’t operate under any illusions that the “I shoot better with my whiz bang trigger” argument is guaranteed to carry the day. If your factory trigger is not serviceable and you cannot shoot it well enough to carry, then, in one guy’s opinion, you need more practice or a different gun.

Best answer and advice!!!

quote:

After every shooting that I have litigated or investigated as a LEO, the weapon is seized and sent to the lab for testing. The report will indicate what the trigger pull is, and may indicate if it has been altered from factory specs or equipment. Unless other jurisdictions are different, anyone who is in the camp of “they will never know” is wrong. In a civil case, the other side will have access to inspect and test your firearm. Your modifications will be found and exploited by your opponent if possible.

quote:

Originally posted by giz55792:

quote:

After every shooting that I have litigated or investigated as a LEO, the weapon is seized and sent to the lab for testing. The report will indicate what the trigger pull is, and may indicate if it has been altered from factory specs or equipment. Unless other jurisdictions are different, anyone who is in the camp of “they will never know” is wrong. In a civil case, the other side will have access to inspect and test your firearm. Your modifications will be found and exploited by your opponent if possible.

Just a question, if you shoot a lot and the trigger has smoothed out/lightened up due to use/age with no mods, how would they be able to prove otherwise?

quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Walker:
I assume you did this at Sig factory. What was the cost?

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
JDSigManiac is dear right on his analysis.

I am in the camp of LE administrators who would prohibit tinkering with the internal mechanism of the issue firearm. Not so much because it creates such a liability issue, but because it is a slippery slope. It's one thing to send the gun back to the manufacturer or a reputable gunsmith for a tune, it is something entirely different for some guy who has a Dremel tool and watched a YouTube video who thinks he is now a gunsmith. We caught guns in inspections that were tinkered with that were unreliable or unsafe. The question I have to ask, what makes you more qualified than the manufacturer's engineers to make such modifications?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
How about this then.

Do police in NY get sued at a lower rate after deadly force because of rough 47 pound triggers?

This thread has taken a turn where it misses the point.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would settle for an instance where a good shoot actually turned into a bad shoot solely based upon a trigger job. Or Punisher logo grips. Or skulls engraved on the slide.

There simply isn't any. It is always a bad shoot that just keeps getting worse due to other negligence. And instead of saying "Dude, that was fucked up.", we must blame the gear as causation instead.

People have made a good living at passing this off as fact, when in the armed community it isn't. You hear "but if you shoot someone you shouldn't" as causation, and guess what.....that's ALREADY BAD. What the police does or doesn't do (despite the fact that more and more agencies are allowing approved mods or custom guns) is also irrelevant. The cops are being sued on good shoots simply because the city has deep pockets. At the worst, the defendant may get $10k to go away. Nothing ventured/nothing gained. The lawyer HAS to spin up/make up shit to get that money. That's what it is about. To make claims that this in any way rubs off on the armed citizen in a free state is really a stretch.

The only way the po-leece will see a major shift in frivolous suits involving use of force is to institute tort reform to where the loser pays, and pays big for wasting the courts time. Until that time, it is business as usual, and the lawyers get paid.

At the end of the day, it matters not to me if you modify or not. It is the false comparisons, and homemade doctrine that bother me.