[Gaerek]

Threads have been locked on discussions of the Zimmerman case. I bring is up because it's recent and relevant. I've been following the case. I've seen the details. The evidence appears to show very strongly that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. I'm done talking about Zimmerman because I don't want the thread locked. Go look it up on your own.

and by the way George Z's gun wasn't modified so that has nothing to do with this thread

My point was in reply to someone who said that if it was a clean legal shoot, it will never see court. That is plain FALSE. Context and reading comprehension are key. Look at the statement I quoted. I didn't bring Zimmerman up because his gun was modded. I brought it up because it was what appears to be a clean shoot that's going to court.

then putting his trust in the criminal justice system. Instead of finding salvation and legal protection, however, his decision cost him three years in prison

And statistically, if you're in a shooting, even though you know better, you will probably talk to the investigator. Most people do, even though they shouldn't. The fact that he talked without a lawyer present is irrelevant.

Thankfully, Mr. Fish won his appeal and is currently a free man.

I like the fact that you bolded this. As if it's relevant and it somehow proves that using a non-standard, well, anything (ammo, trigger, etc) will make you a free man as long as it's a clean shoot. HE STILL SPENT 3 YEARS IN PRISON AND BANKRUPTED HIS FAMILY. Mr. Fish actually passed away in October, and his family is left paying the bills. Is that something you wish to do?

I didn’t get all the details but sounds like he shot an unarmed man.

This is also irrelevant. The basis of whether a shooting is legal or not isn't based on whether or not the person who was shot was armed. It's whether a reasonable person (the jurors are usually made to put themselves in the shoes of the shooter) would believe that the actions were justified. If Mr. Fish feared for his life (and read what happened, as you admitted you didn't) and believed his life was in danger, his actions were justified. You act as though this wasn't a legal shoot. It WAS a legal shoot. He made mistakes that most people make. The critical piece against him was that "deadly man killer" round he carried. Also, the Judge wouldn't allow the man's (not Fish, the guy who was shot) background introduced as evidence, which showed him to be violent and mentally ill. Fish's background as an avid shooter WAS allowed, and the prosecutor used that (along with the 10mm he shot) to paint him as a cold blooded killer.

The argument you are still trying to make is that a modded gun has never been used as evidence against a shooter. I'll go over this one more time.

1) We don't know that. It may not have been used to convict someone, but there is a high probability that it was used as evidence and was another legal hurdle to overcome.

2) It's a logical fallacy to believe that because something hasn't happened in the past, that it won't happen in the future. What hasn't happened in the past has NO BEARING whatsoever on what will happen in the future. Like I said, in Fish, no one had been convicted based on the caliber of weapon used before. Then, it happened. He was the test case, and it cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and 5 years (3 spent in prison) of his life.

3) Most people don't mod their guns. It's a decent possibility that very few modded guns have been used in shootings. So few, that we simply don't have access to any test cases.

You seem to be ok having to explain your used of a modded trigger in court. You are correct in assuming that you probably won't be convicted solely on that alone (assuming you didn't have an ND that killed someone). But are you aware of how much it will likely cost you to fight a conviction? Or how much time it will take? Every legal hurdle you have to jump through adds time and money.

Let's not forget that there are almost ZERO experts that recommend modding the trigger on a carry gun. If you ask people who have been part of a trial, either as a defense lawyer or expert witness, almost everyone of them (I would say all, because I haven't found one that does without the disclaimer "at your own risk" but I haven't heard from every single one in the country) says it's stupid (I simplified here) to mod the trigger of your carry gun.

Since you've asked for cases where a modded trigger was used against someone, how about I ask you to find something for me. Find me experts who say it's ok to mod a trigger beyond factory recommended specs, and report back. I've done some legwork and given some very good information (that you refuse to accept) straight from the mouth of a very well known expert in his field. This shouldn't be too tough for you.

I don't want anyone to have to fight for more than they have to in court. Anyone, with practice can shoot a stock trigger nearly as well as a modded trigger. A modded trigger isn't necessarily a liability in a shooting, but it very well could be a liability in court. You are free to do what you want with your guns. If you think your modded trigger is ok, and are willing to accept the potential consequences, then that's on you. I'm only trying to help educate.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, unless you can actually find an expert that says it's ok to mod your trigger, then I'll comment again. I think my argument is out there, and if you've read everything I've written, you know my stance.