quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
In what now feels like another lifetime ago I was a criminal defense attorney for 5 years out of law school.

I modify my guns without concern. It’s the kind of things people like to wring their hands over on the internet, but simply isn’t important in the real world.

If you modify your gun or car or home or...anything...and render it unsafe, that’s another story. For example, you lighten your Glock so much that when you sneeze it discharges and kills a kid, that’s a different story.

Light trigger in a self defense case? No matter at all. It is not an element of the crime of murder or manslaughter. If it’s a good shoot, it’s a good shoot. That gray guns made your gun a beast on the range is of no consequence. Enjoy your hot rods!

quote:

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie:
I don't agree with the attorney you spoke with. In all my striker fired pistols that I carry, I have modified the trigger for an increased trigger pull. My couple of Glocks and MP's all have a trigger pull of 6 to 8+ lbs, and I made the modifications. I have no worries if I ever had to use them in a SD situation. Like others have said, I would be worried about carrying a striker with a very lite trigger pull; 2-3 Lbs. I want a deliberate, conscious pull of the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Anyone can argue nearly anything

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.

quote:

Originally posted by enidpd804:
There are so many things at play there. We've had almost no defensive shootings here that weren't OIS. No one ever asked about the gun or any potential work that was done. It certainly can be, though. Cops and lawyers are just people and you never know what you'll get from an investigation/prosecution. Many prosecutions have used some pretty silly shit during trial. I remember one in the northeast where the prosecutor used the name of the Mossberg Persuader during closing in a stereotypical movie Nazi voice.

I stick to policy on my carry guns, but our policy allows for trigger work that doesn't take the pull under 5#. I encourage folks who ask me about it to follow as that would be defensible.

quote:

Originally posted by tsasser05:

quote:

Originally posted by enidpd804:
There are so many things at play there. We've had almost no defensive shootings here that weren't OIS. No one ever asked about the gun or any potential work that was done. It certainly can be, though. Cops and lawyers are just people and you never know what you'll get from an investigation/prosecution. Many prosecutions have used some pretty silly shit during trial. I remember one in the northeast where the prosecutor used the name of the Mossberg Persuader during closing in a stereotypical movie Nazi voice.

I stick to policy on my carry guns, but our policy allows for trigger work that doesn't take the pull under 5#. I encourage folks who ask me about it to follow as that would be defensible.

But, that is simply not true. That is a organizational policy and is different than what applies to the civilian defender. As I asked before: Is a Wilson Combat 1911 trigger set to 3.5-4# out of spec since Springfield Armory mandates a 5-6# pull as their specification? Is a WC 1911 no longer viable for civilian defense because of trigger and feature differences? This is the argument you are making and it is absurd with a little bit of thinking.

quote:

The problem isn't for many about modifying a pistol. It's where you live.

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.

quote:

I'm not making any argument whatsoever. I'm presenting my not at all minimal experience. Miss me with your troll shit.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Anyone can argue nearly anything

True statement there.
The prosecutor in the Harold Fish shooting (AZ) was a prime example.
The slimeball prosecutor actually stated in court: “ He carried a gun that was MORE powerful than what the police carry!” because Mr. Fish carried a 10mm on his hikes in the woods.