Trigger Pull - A Twist

[KyJim]

From time to time, I've seen threads about legal implications of an overly light trigger pull, caliber selection, and even using reloads for defense. Here's a new twist. A jury convicted a school custodian of manslaughter in the first degree. In Kentucky, after conviction, the jury hears additional evidence pertinent to sentencing and recommends a sentence.

The now convicted defendant was a school custodian. Defense attorneys argued the shooting victim and co-workier bullied the defendant and once pulled a knife on him. The prosecutor argued in reply:

"Where is his responsibility in this?" Red Corn [the prosecutor] repeatedly said to the jury.

She said McGuire shot Donato because he was mad at him.

The Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handgun McGuire used to shoot his co-worker had a 10-pound trigger pull — not an easy gun to fire, the assistant Fayette Commonwealth's attorney said. McGuire shot at Donato 15 times, hitting him in various parts of his body 12 of those times, she said.

"Fayette schools custodian helper is found guilty of manslaughter," Lexington Herald-Leader, Nov. 10, 2010. Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/10/1...#ixzz14vhFdlpN.

This is the first time I recall hearing where a prosecutor used a relatively heavy trigger pull as part of the evidence and argument against a defendant. In this case, I think it fit given the fact the defendant fired 15 shots. BTW, I am acquainted with the prosecutor.

Oh yes, from the number of shots and the trigger pull weight, I'm speculating it was a SW Sigma.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Interesting strategy..... but it goes along nicely with my assumption that a prosecutor will attempt to spin EVERY piece of evidence against you. No beef against it either, as long as it's honest, that's their job.

[Frank Ettin]

Whatever there is that they can use, they will use. Of course it depends on the purpose.

[1] "Of course the defendant intended to shoot X. He had pull on a heavy trigger repeatedly to shoot X 12 times. The gun just didn't 'go off' by accident."

[2] "You, members of the jury, can conclude that the defendant had a reckless disposition. He had the trigger pull lightened to the point at which, as an expert police armorer has testified, the gun was unsuitable for its intended purpose -- to be carried for self defense."

Now the first prosecution argument isn't going be much help if the defendant has a good self defense case and it's being properly presented. Of course the defendant intended to shoot his assailant. He was being attacked and would have been killed right then if he didn't immediately stop the attacker.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Now the first prosecution argument isn't going be much help if the defendant has a good self defense case and it's being properly presented. Of course the defendant intended to shoot his assailant. He was being attacked and would have been killed right then if he didn't immediately stop the attacker.

They seem about the same to me. In either case, assuming a legit SD incident, the shooter intended to shoot the assailant. Unless someone says "I would have shot him again if the trigger wasn't so heavy!" or "I only meant to shoot 3 times but I shot 5 because the trigger is so light." then I don't see how either argument makes much sense.

I'm sure the prosecutor would use them both, but they don't makes sense.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

....they don't makes sense....

They don't make sense to you. But you wouldn't be likely to be on the jury. After the jury selection rigmarole in these kinds of cases, a jury will most likely consistent of folks who don't own guns, who don't know anything about guns, who aren't interested in guns and who even might be a little afraid of guns and people who own them. These sorts of arguments can make some sense to such people.

[44 AMP]

Mention of a "heavy" trigger pull is intended to show how the act was deliberate and intentional.

Since the shooter deliberately and intentionally pulled a heavy trigger 15 times, I'm surprised he was only convicted of manslaughter.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

These sorts of arguments can make some sense to such people.

I supposed so. It seems like the heavy trigger argument would be fairly easy to beat though, or counteract at least.

"Yes, the trigger is heavy. Yes, my client had to pull that heavy trigger 12 times. Just think, given the man's impeccable history... a devote Christian and his reputation as a fine family man, how utterly and completely in fear of his very life he must have been in to have been forced, yes, FORCED to fire that gun 12 times to save his own life!"

"OH! The horror!"

(Here, picture the defense attorney leaning on a table with the back of his other arm wiping the sweat from his brow.)