View Single Post
Old January 24, 2010, 09:46 PM   #55
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,571
Quote:
Still no cite of a single example? Find ONE intentional, otherwise justified self-defense shooting where a trigger job resulted in a conviction. Just one.
Quote:
But I am simply not going to worry about something which has never happened,
Quote:
...become the first in the history of jurisprudence to be prosecuted for it...
Please read post #29 on this thread for proof that it has happened.

Please read the rest of the thread to understand why even if it hadn't happened it's still clear that it could be a problem in some circumstances.

The point of this topic is NOT that a trigger job will convict you. It won't if the rest of the evidence clearly supports your claim of self-defense. The point of this topic is that if the rest of the evidence casts doubt upon your claim of self-defense, providing the prosecutor with MORE evidence that can be used against you is a very bad idea.

Given that it is impossible to predict the circumstances of a shooting, it makes sense to take reasonable precautions against providing the prosecutor with any evidence that might be used against you.

As pointed out, a "carry trigger job", preferably performed by a someone with the proper qualifications, that doesn't alter the safety function of the pistol and that provides a trigger pull that is within the typically accepted "prudent pull weight range" is NOT likely to be a problem.

Removing safety mechanisms, altering the basic function of safety mechanisms, lightening the trigger past the point that is typical for self-defense pistols, are not in the same class and could definitely be used against you under the proper (improper depending on how you look at it) circumstances.

Look at it this way:

If an armed serial killer, just escaped from the psych ward of the local prison, breaks into your house and you end up shooting him while he is in the process of abusing your wife and children there is no way that anyone is going to take a look at your gun to see if you've modified it.

BUT, if you are attacked on the street by a normal looking guy with no prior criminal record who pretends to have a gun in his pocket and threatens to kill you if you don't hand over your wallet and you shoot him with no witnesses present, that's a different story. When the police arrive on the scene, you are standing there with a gun that you just used to shoot an unarmed man. That is not going to be a clearcut case. It could very well come down to whether the jury likes you and believes you. If the prosecutor tells the jury that you don't have any regard for the safety of others as demonstrated by the removal/alteration of standard safety features of your firearm and brings in the local police armorer who testifies that the department doesn't allow such modifications for safety reasons, do you really think that won't make any difference at all to the jury?

Sure, you can bring in your expert witness to try to rebut the prosecutor's claims, but wouldn't it be a LOT easier and a LOT cheaper to be able to say something along the lines of: "My self-defense weapon is equipped with all the safeties that the manufacturer designed into it. Furthermore it is used by such & such LE organization in exactly that configuration."
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04622 seconds with 7 queries