Light Triggers and Lawyers??? - Page 3

MLeake · November 5, 2011, 11:33 PM

DTGuy, or Larry, if you prefer...

Mas Ayoob, when online, is identifiable. So is Marty Hayes.

If you consider yourself to be an expert on the same plane, or possibly on a higher plane where you can seem to talk down to/about Mas, why don't you tell us who you are?

Then we could look up some of your court experiences and achievements, so we could make a more informed decision when comparing your opinions with Mas's, or Marty's.

So far, you are telling us, relatively anonymously, that you know better. So show us why we should take your word.

**Frank Ettin** · November 5, 2011, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DT Guy

For the record, I'm court-certifiable as an expert witness in the use of force,...

Well if you're on trial, you can hardly be your own expert witness. Certainly your credibility as an expert will be minimal, if that.

Perhaps you've lined up an expert witness who will see things your way. But of course the DA will have his experts as well.

Alaska444 · November 6, 2011, 01:08 AM

It appears that true firearms experts advice on this issue just doesn't budge some folks. It was enough for me, but if you want to look further, go to the actual cases involving this issue and the appeals court decisions that affirm the expert recommendations. People are simply over looking that this issue is a settled matter of law already. No matter how many times you say something isn't so, the evidence speaks otherwise when you look at actual court case documentation.

Quote:

PEOPLE STATE NEW YORK v. FRANK MAGLIATO (07/08/86)

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK

. . . At trial, defendant did not dispute that he drew his weapon and cocked it. However, he contended that his pistol had a hair trigger and that he accidentally exerted enough pressure to fire it. The defense adduced expert testimony describing the operation of a colt .38 pistol such as defendant's. In "single action" position, the shooter manually cocks the hammer, as defendant did here. Only 4 1/2 pounds of pressure are required to move the trigger the remaining .012 to .015 inch. A second defense expert characterized defendant's pistol as having a "hair trigger" in such "single action" position, explaining that the "slightest movement", "extremely light" pressure would cause the weapon to discharge.

. . . The mere display or brandishing of a pistol may, perhaps, create an insufficiently imminent threat to life to be considered the "use" of deadly physical force. But, leveling a loaded pistol, with the cocked hammer set to release under the slightest pressure, and pointing it at another approaching from across the street is conduct well beyond a warning or preparation for a deadly act. Such conduct, itself, constitutes a deadly act regardless of how or why the final bit of pressure is applied. Indeed, it creates a danger so nearly approximating the discharge of a pistol as to be reasonably deemed its equivalent for the purpose of the law of justification.

http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfr...8721.NY.htm/qx

Everyone is allowed their own opinions on these issues and to act in due manner according to that opinion, however, the courts will have the final say and the above case is settled law and not likely to change anytime soon. Not only trigger jobs, but simply placing in SA is deemed reckless endangerment since the "slightest movement" can cause an accidental discharge.

There is a reason that DAO is the most defensible CCW to carry. Not that a good lawyer with a LOOOOOOOTTTTT of major bucks might get you off with a trigger job on your gun, but why go there. Just doesn't seem worth the risk in my opinion, but that in the end is all I have, my opinion. It does seem however, certain people's opinions matter more than others. When all is said and done, the judge and jury's opinion will matter a bunch more than yours. God forbid any of us ever have the need to put these issues to a test in real life.

Bartholomew Roberts · November 6, 2011, 03:44 AM

Alaska444, while I agree with the general point you are making, I think you are reading that case too broadly. The case you cite took place in New York in 1983. The defendant was approached by a man with a club who had rear ended his vehicle. The defendant fired a single shot, striking the man between the eyes. Under New York law, the defendant had a duty to retreat, if he could do so safely, and the facts in the case strongly suggested he could. The defendant argued that because his shot was unintentional, he was not using deadly force by pointing the gun at his attacker and asked for a modified jury instruction - basically he wanted to argue he was justified in displaying the gun but he didn't want to argue self-defense because the state would come back with "duty to retreat.". The judge said if he made that argument, it would have to rely on justification of self-defense. The defendant appealed this decision.

The testimony that a 4.5lb trigger was a hair trigger came from the defense witness. Rather than accept this argument the Court of Appeals ruled that based on the defense's own testimony, cocking and pointing a single action pistol at someone was dangerous enough to qualify as use of deadly force and therefore had to meet all the requirements under statute.

I think your characterization that simply placing a firearm in SA is reckless endangerment in NY is probably reaching further than the case above would allow.

I'd also add that I've looked at a lot of cases involving hair-triggers and this is the first one I've seen where 4.5lbs was claimed as a hair trigger. The whole "I didn't mean to shoot him, it was an accident" defense is common enough that you can usually find lots of cases where the state's firearms expert has testified as to what he considers a hair trigger. Until today, the highest I'd seen was 3.5lbs... and I think the difference here is probably that it was a defense expert trying to support the defense's claim that it WAS unintentional.

The problem we are usually looking at in self-defense goes the other way, the defense would be trying to prove that a shot was fired intentionally while the prosecutor/plaintiff's lawyer is trying to prove it was an accident.

Disturbing case though, that guy would probably be a free man if it had happened in a state with an NRA-style "Stand Your Ground" law.

DT Guy · November 6, 2011, 08:28 AM

The article I linked contains my full name, but my CV is not (and will not be) online.

I don't have any wish to change anyone's opinion about how they should approach self-defense shooting; I offered my opinion, and have no vested interest in proselytizing regarding it.

AFA the comment re: Mr. Ayoob, I should have refrained; my opinion of him was formed largely in the LEO, rather than the on-line forum, community, where he is viewed somewhat differently.

Larry

Uncle Buck · November 6, 2011, 09:02 AM

It seems a lot of people have never had to face a hostile attorney before. Based on the assumption that you are charged with the shooting (Whether you think it was justified or not) a whole new can of worms will be opened.

The prosecutor is going to start with what were you wearing that morning and work his/her way up to anything that might even remotely show that you were "On the Hunt" when you got out of bed. The prosecutor is going to try to paint you as someone who was looking for trouble and show how you prepared for it.

Most juries are given so much crap to fish through in order to find the truth, any extra crap they can be given will only help the prosecution. The less crap you can help provide, the better.

**Aguila Blanca** · November 6, 2011, 10:56 AM

With reference to Alaska444's case citation, I think if I had an expert who describes a 4-1/2-pound trigger pull as a "hair trigger" ... I'd pay his consulting fee to prevent the opposition from using him, but I would NOT put him on the stand. 4-1/2 pounds is what most 1911 cognoscenti regard as a safe trigger for self-defense carry. It is not a "hair trigger."

However, I understand that the goal here was to try to claim an accidental discharge, so perhaps the expert would have testified that a 6-pound trigger was a "hair trigger" based solely on the length of pull required.

Alaska444 · November 6, 2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

April 18, 2008, 05:54 PM #33
Mas Ayoob
Senior Member

Join Date: December 1, 2005
Posts: 236

Convictions are few; charges and lawsuits have been many. We're winning the "hair trigger" cases, by and large, but at the cost of agonizing, expensive, drawn out trials. Anyone who has been through it will tell you it's an ordeal to be avoided, and anyone with common sense can see that before they go through it.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...5&postcount=33

pilazinool · February 18, 2012, 10:58 PM

"Even when not necessary to stop the threat? You do realize, don't you, that a pharmacist was recently found guilty of murder for shooting someone multiple times when it (apparantly) wasn't necessary?"

Don H.: You may recall that the pharmacist was not convicted because he shot robbers because he was in fear for his life, but he was convicted because he chased one of them out of the store and shot the one already lying on the floor when he returned, as I recall.

**Frank Ettin** · February 19, 2012, 12:57 AM

pilazinool,

Let's not stray off topic. And you've essentially quoted Don H out of context.

Everyone is invited to see what Don H wrote in context in post 6.

Anyway, this is an old thread, and I'm going to close it now.

November 6, 2011, 03:44 AM	#54
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Alaska444, while I agree with the general point you are making, I think you are reading that case too broadly. The case you cite took place in New York in 1983. The defendant was approached by a man with a club who had rear ended his vehicle. The defendant fired a single shot, striking the man between the eyes. Under New York law, the defendant had a duty to retreat, if he could do so safely, and the facts in the case strongly suggested he could. The defendant argued that because his shot was unintentional, he was not using deadly force by pointing the gun at his attacker and asked for a modified jury instruction - basically he wanted to argue he was justified in displaying the gun but he didn't want to argue self-defense because the state would come back with "duty to retreat.". The judge said if he made that argument, it would have to rely on justification of self-defense. The defendant appealed this decision. The testimony that a 4.5lb trigger was a hair trigger came from the defense witness. Rather than accept this argument the Court of Appeals ruled that based on the defense's own testimony, cocking and pointing a single action pistol at someone was dangerous enough to qualify as use of deadly force and therefore had to meet all the requirements under statute. I think your characterization that simply placing a firearm in SA is reckless endangerment in NY is probably reaching further than the case above would allow. I'd also add that I've looked at a lot of cases involving hair-triggers and this is the first one I've seen where 4.5lbs was claimed as a hair trigger. The whole "I didn't mean to shoot him, it was an accident" defense is common enough that you can usually find lots of cases where the state's firearms expert has testified as to what he considers a hair trigger. Until today, the highest I'd seen was 3.5lbs... and I think the difference here is probably that it was a defense expert trying to support the defense's claim that it WAS unintentional. The problem we are usually looking at in self-defense goes the other way, the defense would be trying to prove that a shot was fired intentionally while the prosecutor/plaintiff's lawyer is trying to prove it was an accident. Disturbing case though, that guy would probably be a free man if it had happened in a state with an NRA-style "Stand Your Ground" law. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; November 6, 2011 at 03:51 AM.

November 6, 2011, 08:28 AM	#55
DT Guy Senior Member Join Date: February 4, 2001 Posts: 959	The article I linked contains my full name, but my CV is not (and will not be) online. I don't have any wish to change anyone's opinion about how they should approach self-defense shooting; I offered my opinion, and have no vested interest in proselytizing regarding it. AFA the comment re: Mr. Ayoob, I should have refrained; my opinion of him was formed largely in the LEO, rather than the on-line forum, community, where he is viewed somewhat differently. Larry __________________ He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast. Government, Anarchy and Chaos

November 6, 2011, 09:02 AM	#56
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	It seems a lot of people have never had to face a hostile attorney before. Based on the assumption that you are charged with the shooting (Whether you think it was justified or not) a whole new can of worms will be opened. The prosecutor is going to start with what were you wearing that morning and work his/her way up to anything that might even remotely show that you were "On the Hunt" when you got out of bed. The prosecutor is going to try to paint you as someone who was looking for trouble and show how you prepared for it. Most juries are given so much crap to fish through in order to find the truth, any extra crap they can be given will only help the prosecution. The less crap you can help provide, the better. __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

February 18, 2012, 10:58 PM	#59
pilazinool Junior Member Join Date: February 18, 2012 Posts: 1	Pharmacist "Even when not necessary to stop the threat? You do realize, don't you, that a pharmacist was recently found guilty of murder for shooting someone multiple times when it (apparantly) wasn't necessary?" Don H.: You may recall that the pharmacist was not convicted because he shot robbers because he was in fear for his life, but he was convicted because he chased one of them out of the store and shot the one already lying on the floor when he returned, as I recall.

November 5, 2011, 11:33 PM	#51
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	DTGuy, or Larry, if you prefer... Mas Ayoob, when online, is identifiable. So is Marty Hayes. If you consider yourself to be an expert on the same plane, or possibly on a higher plane where you can seem to talk down to/about Mas, why don't you tell us who you are? Then we could look up some of your court experiences and achievements, so we could make a more informed decision when comparing your opinions with Mas's, or Marty's. So far, you are telling us, relatively anonymously, that you know better. So show us why we should take your word.

November 6, 2011, 10:56 AM	#57
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	With reference to Alaska444's case citation, I think if I had an expert who describes a 4-1/2-pound trigger pull as a "hair trigger" ... I'd pay his consulting fee to prevent the opposition from using him, but I would NOT put him on the stand. 4-1/2 pounds is what most 1911 cognoscenti regard as a safe trigger for self-defense carry. It is not a "hair trigger." However, I understand that the goal here was to try to claim an accidental discharge, so perhaps the expert would have testified that a 6-pound trigger was a "hair trigger" based solely on the length of pull required.

February 19, 2012, 12:57 AM	#60
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	pilazinool, Let's not stray off topic. And you've essentially quoted Don H out of context. Everyone is invited to see what Don H wrote in context in post 6. Anyway, this is an old thread, and I'm going to close it now.