[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...Law Enforcement carries 1911's, Glocks, Smiths, Sig's, and a few Revolvers. Since they didn't come with a magazine safety they are fine....

That's not necessarily true. Many law enforcement agencies have issued Gen 3 Smith & Wesson pistols that indeed come with a magazine disconnect. They are standard issue for the California Highway Patrol. I believe they were standard issue for the FBI, but I may be wrong. One fellow I teach shooting with still has his old duty weapon from the days he was on the Santa Clara PD, and it's a Gen 3 Smith & Wesson with magazine disconnect. And recently the New Hampshire State Police ordered Smith & Wesson M&Ps to issue to officers, and they have insisted on the guns having a magazine disconnect (an LE option on that model).

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...If removing the magazine safety from a HP is bad, then we need to remove all the 1911's and any other pistol without a magazine safety from service right away and either add magazine safeties or get pistols with mag safeties and destroy those without...

And you're missing the point. It's not about the magazine disconnect. It's about someone modifying the gun to remove a safety device that the manufacturer saw fit to incorporate into the gun.

A lot of folks, including Suzi Soccermom and at least some of the folks on your jury, with no knowledge of or interest in guns, have a deep seated fear of them. They look on guns as extremely dangerous objects. Such people will tend to have a strongly negative emotional response to someone who has disabled a safety device on a gun. They will be strongly inclined to look upon a defendant who has done so as someone who is reckless or foolish or arrogant (for, among other things, thinking that he knows better than the manufacturer how the gun should be made). If you are on trial for a shooting in which you are claiming self defense, you'd rather not have members of your jury harboring such thoughts about you.

You have been charged with a criminal act of violence on another human being. Your defense is that your act of violence on another human being was legally justified. The allocation of the burden of proof burden or persuasion between the prosecution and defense in a self defense case varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But you will at least have to put forward evidence establishing a prima facie case of justification according to the standard applicable to the use of lethal force in self defense in your jurisdiction.

The prosecution will seek to discredit, consistent with the applicable standard of proof in your jurisdiction, your claim of justification. Facts, like your having disabled a safety device on you gun, that might incline your neutral, but unsophisticated about gun matters, jury to think you might be a reckless, trigger happy gun nut obsessed with making your gun the most efficient instrument of violence possible will help the prosecutor in those efforts.

Remember Suzi Soccermom and others like her are going to be deciding if you go home or if you spend a couple of years picking up the soap in the showers for guys with no necks.

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

I don't get it....

I guess not.

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

...Can't someone similarly argue that a well-tuned trigger [not, necessarily a "lighter" trigger] gives you better control and aids in more accurate shot placement?...

One can argue all sorts of things. The exercise is about considering the possible arguments that support your conduct and evaluating, objectively, how they are likely to play to a jury made up of people who have no knowledge about nor interest in guns, for whom guns are mysterious instruments of violence and who are likely to be at least a little afraid of guns. Also evaluate, objectively, whether what you gain by your conduct is worth having to make the argument, and if not, avoid the conduct.

Also consider the nature of your argument. Is it a technical, "gunny" sort of argument about fine trigger control and natural point of aim, or other similarly arcane concepts. If so, how is a bunch of non-gun folks going to respond? Are they going to sit up and listen and understand, or are their eyes going to glaze over like the Easter ham?

For example, JHP ammunition is likely to be more effective and give me a better chance of surviving a violent encounter. And the best answer to "Why did you load your gun with XXYYY?" is something like, "Sir, it's my understanding that ammunition is what some police departments issue to their officers; and I figure if they've done whatever testing they need to do to decide that it's proper ammunition for self defense, it would be a good choice for me as well." That is an answer to that question that most jurors will be able to process, follow and understand.

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

My underlying point is that the first person to fire a round isn't always doing so in a defensive mode, be he LEO or perpetrator....

If an LEO or a private citizen, he jolly well better be in a defensive mode. If he isn't, and fires a round, he has at least committed the crime of aggravated assault (and if an LEO, he has violated department use of force policy as well).

It may be that you don't understand that one may be the first to fire and still be acting in justifiable self defense. You might want to take a look at this website -- http://www.useofforce.us/. It offers an excellent overview of general self defense law.

...Mas: You should know better then to give advice unless you've been in that state to testify, and know their laws. Have you?...Fiddletown may not realize it, or Mas, but long exposure to such liberal-facist
people skew your perceptions of reality, so that you think all states are like New York and Kali. That is NOT the case...

You should know better and understand that this is not about particular state law. This is about jury psychology and trial tactics. And remember that Harold Fish was hung out to dry by a jury in gun friendly Arizona.