Carry guns and modification.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by pilpens: I think, this kind of trigger modification only matters if the pistol goes off unintentionally.
If trigger is pulled intentionally in self defense, I do not think it matters if the trigger pull weight is 1lbs or 5lbs.

Okay, let's assume that the evidence is clear that a shooting was intentional.

The next question is whether it was lawfully justified.

Without sound stage footage from multiple vantage points, that has to be determined on the basis of fragmentary and incomplete evidence and testimony that may be wrong or contradictory.

Any evidence that night pertain to the shooter's state of mind--to whether or not the shooter might be predisposed to violence-- could well be relevant.

Firearms modifications might be made to appear to fall into that category.

The OP's APEX kit? Not by itself, I think, not by a long shot. Were it to be brought up, there are persons who would qualify as expert witnesses who could testify on that. see Frank's earlier post.

But a hair trigger on a firearm with a muzzle engraving that says "smile and wait for flash"?

Oh, yes.

[pilpens]

Please tell me if I am wrong to help me understand better:
1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.
2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?
Thanks.

edited:
Thanks Oldmarksman, I am beginning to understand.

[Lohman446]

Please tell me if I am wrong to help me understand better:
1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.
2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?

That is at least partially the concern and the one I intended to raise

However keep in mind that deciding if a shooting was justified is not always simple. The evidence is seldom perfectly clear and cut and dried. OldMarksman has raised the concern that certain modifications may be presented to show state of mind (he shot him because he was just waiting for the chance).

Let me give a scenario. A shooter stops an aggressive attacker. The person shot happens to be a minority. The situation is murky (virtually all shootings are) but is defensible as justified if things are as the shooter says they were. The prosecutor has a slightly different "read" of the evidence - a jury will decide.

Now let's compare two shooters:

Shooter A was of the same minority and was using a single action pistol handed down by his grandfather.

Shooter B was white. He was dressed in KKK robes and carrying heavily modified "evil" black gun.

I know I threw in confounding variables - they are there to help illustrate my point. Absent clear evidence that a shooting was justified or not (and there will seldom be clear evidence) a prosecutor may attempt to argue state of mind of the attacker. A lot of factors can be used and one of those could be a modified gun (especially if those modifications are in poor taste).

Make sure when you modify a firearm you would be comfortable explaining to a jury why the modifications were made.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Our lawyers explain this over and over:

1. If you are charged, it is not a 'good shoot' and all kinds of things will be brought up. Plenty of evidence for that.

2. Even if no criminal charges are brought up, depending on local laws - there could be a civil case and again all kinds of things will be brought up.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by pilpens: 1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.

If every party agrees that he shooting was in justified self defense, the case would not be brought to trial.

2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?

I think you mean "unintentional".

Yes, that could lead to trouble, both in a criminal case and in a civil case.

But the pistol modification could also lead to trouble if the state, or a civil plaintiff if the shooter has not already been tried and acquitted in a criminal trial in a state with civil immunity, were to contend that an intentional shooting was not justifiable as lawful self defense. That's where the question of whether the shooter may have been predisposed to violence comes in.

Keep in mind that that issue can be made difficult by much more than a pistol modification--prior e-maisl or social media posts, bumper stickers that say "Protected by Smith & Wesson", the appearance of the firearm, a threatening t-shirt, and other things can create problems. So can a PowerPoint slide in one's file that says "be polite to everyone, but have a plan to kill them".

Far fetched? That last one came up in real trials.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by pilpens

Please tell me if I am wrong to help me understand better:
1. So, "intentionally pulled the trigger in defense" --- Is the pistol modification of no issue if every party agree that the shooting was intentional and was in self defense.
2. If the opposite side argues that it was not intentional; instead it was an accidental shooting (not in self defense) --- Is this when the pistol modification could lead to more trouble?...

That is one potential way it can matter.

In addition, consider that you are on trial for aggravated assault -- you shot someone causing him serious injury. Your defense is that you reasonably believed that the person you shot was an imminent lethal threat, and, therefore, your act of violence was justified as self defense.

To support your claim that you reasonably believed your life to be in imminent danger you testify about what happened. You explain on the witness stand what happened -- what you saw and why you believed you were at risk of immediate, lethal injury. One way in which the prosecutor will try to overcome your claim of justified self defense will be to attempt to discredit your testimony and challenge the reasonableness of you perception that you were in imminent jeopardy. Is there any evidence which might help the prosecutor to do that -- any evidence which might cause a juror to perhaps doubt the reasonableness of your claimed perceptions?

One possibility is a very light trigger. Look at post 52. Might it not affect how the jury evaluates your evidence and tries to decide if you really did reasonably believe that you were in imminent jeopardy if a prosecution expert has testified that it would be reckless to carry a gun with such a light trigger for self defense? Or you put fancy grips with the Punisher skull on your gun and jurors wonder why you identify with a comic book vigilante.

Juror impressions can be a wild card and are important. That's why any lawyer wants his client to appear in court neatly dressed and well groomed. We know from post verdict juror interviews that in the Harold Fish case (discussed in some of the threads I linked to in post 16) that at least one juror who voted to convict him was bothered by his use of JHP ammunition.

It is important to understand the nature of a claim of self defense. Because you will have admitted the elements of the crime you're on trial for, it's extremely important that you favorably impress the jury as honest, forthright, reasonable and responsible.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:

...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

. . . . He told me if I wanted to test it I must first violate the law in question.

Then I must allow myself to be convicted under that law and be prepared to go to federal prison.

He would then appeal the conviction on the merits of the argument.

If I won it he guessed it would cost me about $250K in legal fees. If I lost it would cost me about $250K in legal fees and I would likely spend ten years in federal custody.

My point: even if you are right anything that becomes an issue in court is going to cost you. It may simply be financial. It may be enough to sway a jury and result in a conviction.

Yep. If you get into a gunfight, you could very well be put into a situation of "even if you win, you lose." You might not be convicted. You might beat the civil lawsuit. And you might wind up owing a lawyer a whole bunch of money.

That's one of the reasons that I've mentioned experts several times in this thread. To be honest, I don't know what a firearms expert might charge to: (1) review the police reports; (2) visit with you; (3) examine the State's evidence; (4) run independent tests; (5) produce a report for your lawyer; and (6) fly in, stay in a hotel, and testify at your trial, . . . . but I do not think it would be hard to hit $10-15K, based on what I know about accident reconstruction experts (which I admit isn't that much).

[Bartholomew Roberts]

We know from post verdict juror interviews that in the Harold Fish case (discussed in some of the threads I linked to in post 16) that at least one juror who voted to convict him was bothered by his use of JHP ammunition.

Just to drive home that "jurors are wildcards" point, in the same breath where the juror explains she voted guilty in part because of Fish's decision to use JHPs, she also states she found Fish's testimony honest and reliable.

When you see bizarre results like those as a result of commonly used self defense ammunition used by virtually all agencies and most homeowners, it is little wonder people are reluctant about more detailed modifications that are more difficult to explain to jurors.

[Lohman446]

When you see bizarre results like those as a result of commonly used self defense ammunition used by virtually all agencies and most homeowners, it is little wonder people are reluctant about more detailed modifications that are more difficult to explain to jurors.

I'm reluctant to carry a 10MM unless I can point to the fact that I am carrying it where I am likely to encounter a threat from a wild animal and am carrying ammunition suited to that threat.

I don't need to hear some prosecuting attorney talk about a relatively uncommon round "so powerful the FBI abandoned it"

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...When you see bizarre results like those as a result of commonly used self defense ammunition used by virtually all agencies and most homeowners, it is little wonder people are reluctant about more detailed modifications that are more difficult to explain to jurors.

Very true. And with regard to gun modifications, we can discuss all day whether this modification or that modification could hurt you in court and under what circumstances, but the possibility that any sort of modification might help you in court is vanishingly small.

BTW, I need to amend a comment in post 74. Bartholomew Roberts is also a lawyer.

[Boncrayon]

Carry guns and modification: No weapon modification has ever been used against a defendant in court for a deliberate shooting. If you did it intentionally it doesn't matter what you used the case be aimed whether or not you were justified in using deadly force, not what you used to exact that force. But don't let that get in the way of you hearsay and Internet lawyer rumors.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Boncrayon

....No weapon modification has ever been used against a defendant in court for a deliberate shooting....

How do you know?

Originally Posted by Boncrayon

...If you did it intentionally it doesn't matter what you used the case be aimed whether or not you were justified in using deadly force, not what you used to exact that force....

Garbage as has been explained a number of times in this thread.

Originally Posted by Boncrayon

...Internet lawyer rumors

Spats McGee, Bartholomew Roberts, and I are not Internet lawyers. We're real lawyers.

On the other hand, in post 58 you claimed:

Originally Posted by Boncrayon

There are new laws that protect concealed carry modifications for self defense....

But when asked to cite those laws you haven't done so. Apparently no such laws exist, so you told us all a falsehood. What does that make you?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Boncrayon

Carry guns and modification: No weapon modification has ever been used against a defendant in court for a deliberate shooting. If you did it intentionally it doesn't matter what you used the case be aimed whether or not you were justified in using deadly force, not what you used to exact that force. But don't let that get in the way of you hearsay and Internet lawyer rumors.

What, pray tell, is your basis for these claims? Have you done the relevant research into statutes and the caselaw?

Or are you, as I suspect, simply pulling your claims from thin air?

[849ACSO]

What the folks who keep spouting that nonsense keep forgetting is that they aren't the ones who decide it their act of violence against another was justified. That decision will be made by others -- the DA, the grand jury, or, if you're unlucky, the jury at your trial. Your act of violence is not justified unless/until they decide not to prosecute or convict you.

Mr. Ettin,

With regard to your credentials as a lawyer (an estate/probate specialist, IIRC), I appreciate your "legal expertise", but to say that's nonsense, is, well, nonsense. Anyone who understands the legal system knows the decision of justification will be made by the state's attorney, grand jury, or possibly a petit jury at trial. Regardless, if that system(s) determines your actions of deadly force are justified, then they are just that, justified. Sure, it's still possible to find yourself in a wrongful death civil suit, but highly unlikely, especially if the criminal justice system has determined you were justified. Even if that happens, the finding of justification will be presented as evidence, probably the strongest evidence one could have.

But that has nothing to do with the original question......

That has EVERYTHING to do with the OP's question. It's not the parts/gun/caliber/weapon of choice/opportunity that determine if you're "ok", it's the justification, or lack thereof.

I can appreciate you lawyers arguing the "fine points of the law", and it's understood that your fate will ultimately be determined by others. That said, after 22 years of being a law enforcement officer, and seeing numerous murders and assaults (some justified, some not), only on the internet have I ever even heard of whether or not the weapon, or anything about it had ANY BEARING on justification.

Just my EXPERIENCE. I'm not an advocate of making modifications to anything you plan on carrying for SD that would compromise SAFETY, but "reasonable" modifications to make it better for use by the end user isn't unreasonable.

[849ACSO]

Just to drive home that "jurors are wildcards" point, in the same breath where the juror explains she voted guilty in part because of Fish's decision to use JHPs, she also states she found Fish's testimony honest and reliable.

When you see bizarre results like those as a result of commonly used self defense ammunition used by virtually all agencies and most homeowners, it is little wonder people are reluctant about more detailed modifications that are more difficult to explain to jurors.

That's a statement that I can get behind. I have seen it firsthand, and juries/jurors are fickle. I have watched cases that I wasn't intimately involved in go through trial, and watched the jury hand down a verdict that was 180 degrees off of what I saw and heard in the courtroom.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just my EXPERIENCE. I'm not an advocate of making modifications to anything you plan on carrying for SD that would compromise SAFETY, but "reasonable" modifications to make it better for use by the end user isn't unreasonable.

The thing is, the same juror that found Mr. Fish honest and reliable as a witness found his decision to use 10mm JHP unreasonable to an extent she voted to convict him despite believing his testimony (according to her own words). That is who will decide whether your modification was "reasonable."

And if you end up in a criminal trial, they'll have the full weight of the state shining the worst light possible on any decision you've made. While jurors, who may not be well informed, decide whether that modification was reasonable or not.

[Lohman446]

Because it's never been argued at trial by the prosecutor that it wasn't justified only to have the jury decide it was right? The system is always based on limited evidence and the word of the shooter. It's never been politically steered or had the justice department look into it after the local system already determined it was justified. Why have a court system? I mean the prosecutor obviously knows and there should be no purpose for an adversarial method of determine guilt or innocence in front of a jury if ones peers or such.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 849ACSO

With regard to your credentials as a lawyer (an estate/probate specialist, IIRC),....

No, you don't recall correctly.

Originally Posted by 849ACSO

...Anyone who understands the legal system knows the decision of justification will be made by the state's attorney, grand jury, or possibly a petit jury at trial. Regardless, if that system(s) determines your actions of deadly force are justified,...

Yes, that's the point: The "system" decides, not you. So how does the "system" decide? But reviewing all factors anyone in the the decision making might consider material. And your act of violence isn't justified unless/until the "system" says it is (or that it's sufficiently likely that it is that the "system" will not pursue prosecution).

And that is what makes the statement:

Originally Posted by 849ACSO

If you use deadly force upon someone, and it is justified under the law, it doesn't matter if that force comes in the form of a ball bat, brick, or custom pistol. Justified is justified....

ridiculous. Third parties will be deciding the question of justification, and among the factors which have a potential for influencing that decision might well be the weapon used, including possible modifications to the weapon.

As to whether the weapon used could have an influence on a jury's decision see Are you familiar with the research on jury behavior, such as this article, "Will it Hurt me in Court", by our own Dr. Glenn E. Meyer (a moderator here and retired professor of psychology) and published in the professional journal, The Jury Expert?

[849ACSO]

As to whether the weapon used could have an influence on a jury's decision see Are you familiar with the research on jury behavior, such as this article, "Will it Hurt me in Court", by our own Dr. Glenn E. Meyer (a moderator here and retired professor of psychology) and published in the professional journal, The Jury Expert?

I am not familiar, but always eager to soak up some info, so I will be reading it.

Originally Posted by 849ACSO
With regard to your credentials as a lawyer (an estate/probate specialist, IIRC),....

No, you don't recall correctly.

Healthcare law. I knew it had NOTHING to do with criminal law, but had to do some research.



Thanks!

[849ACSO]

The thing is, the same juror that found Mr. Fish honest and reliable as a witness found his decision to use 10mm JHP unreasonable to an extent she voted to convict him despite believing his testimony (according to her own words). That is who will decide whether your modification was "reasonable."

And if you end up in a criminal trial, they'll have the full weight of the state shining the worst light possible on any decision you've made. While jurors, who may not be well informed, decide whether that modification was reasonable or not.

Agreed. See my post regarding jury/juror fickleness.

[849ACSO]

Yes, that's the point: The "system" decides, not you. So how does the "system" decide? But reviewing all factors anyone in the the decision making might consider material. And your act of violence isn't justified unless/until the "system" says it is (or that it's sufficiently likely that it is that the "system" will not pursue prosecution).

And that is what makes the statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 849ACSO
If you use deadly force upon someone, and it is justified under the law, it doesn't matter if that force comes in the form of a ball bat, brick, or custom pistol. Justified is justified....

ridiculous. Third parties will be deciding the question of justification, and among the factors which have a potential for influencing that decision might well be the weapon used, including possible modifications to the weapon.

Both of those statements say the same thing with different words, so how is one ridiculous and one not? Maybe because a lawyer belched out one and a law enforcement officer the other?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 849ACSO

Healthcare law. I knew it had NOTHING to do with criminal law, but had to do some research.

However, I do have some grounding in a variety of legal topics, including a good deal of education in criminal law. In addition, I've worked as an assistant instructor with Massad Ayoob for a MAG-40 class in Sierra Vista, Arizona. When Mas quoted me his column in the August, 2010, issue of Combat Handguns on the inadvisability of falsely requesting medical attention, he wrote (pg 9):

...This whole 'strategy' was effectively shot down in flames by Frank Ettin, a retired attorney with more than 30 years or experience in legal liability reduction issues. Bear in mind that this is a man who knows his guns: Frank has extensive experience in firearms training, handgun competition in several formats, and concealed carry. He has deeply studied the law and the caselaw as it relates to defensive use of firearms and deadly force....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 849ACSO

Both of those statements say the same thing with different words, so how is one ridiculous and one not? Maybe because a lawyer belched out one and a law enforcement officer the other?

Your statement is nonsense because you leave out the key fact that the weapon used or modifications to the weapon can influence whether or not the use of force is decided to be justified by those responsible for the decision.

I know law enforcement officers who can understand that concept. I guess you can't.

[849ACSO]

The weapon doesn't make or break justification. Perhaps you, with all of your legal wisdom, fail to see, understand, or admit that fact.

[Lohman446]

In a perfect world where everything is cut and dry the weapon should not matter. In a world where a prosecutor is trying to figure out state of mind, where a juror is trying to pick between expert testimony and weigh the limited conflicting testimony the weapon may matter. Justified or not is not always obvious