The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 24, 2009, 12:17 PM   #51
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin2
...on the positive side it can be argued successfully that hollow point actually is safer than ball ammo which is more likely to overpenetrate and harm innocent bystanders...
And a core argument supporting the use od JHP ammunition is along the lines of, "That's what the police use; they've determined it to be most suitable for self defense." That's a simple, non-technical explanation that a non-gun person on a jury will be able to process. (I can also add that I've been trained to use JHP ammunition. That's what Massad Ayoob, a well known expert, told me in class that I should use -- and I have the notes to prove it.)
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 12:56 PM   #52
Walt Sherrill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
"That's what the police use; they've determined it to be most suitable for self defense."
I've never really thought of police use of JHP ammunition as a "self defense" tactic. I tend to view it more as the best way to "get the bad guy" out of action, quickly -- or "the best round for close-quarter combat."

Wearing that vest, however, is a self-defense tactic.
Walt Sherrill is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 01:09 PM   #53
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill
...the best way to "get the bad guy" out of action, quickly...
Strikes me that is the essence of the use of force in self defense -- stop the threat quickly.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 01:54 PM   #54
Quentin2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Location: NorthWest USA
Posts: 1,591
Quote:
And a core argument supporting the use od JHP ammunition is along the lines of, "That's what the police use; they've determined it to be most suitable for self defense." That's a simple, non-technical explanation that a non-gun person on a jury will be able to process. (I can also add that I've been trained to use JHP ammunition. That's what Massad Ayoob, a well known expert, told me in class that I should use -- and I have the notes to prove it.)

Thanks again, fiddletown! Another excellent point. And if Mas said it, it's good enough for Moi!
Quentin2 is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 02:15 PM   #55
Bart Noir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2000
Location: Puget Sound, USA
Posts: 1,527
Great thread, folks. Thanks.

I may try another tactic with my new HP. Think I'll try to polish the rear surface of the disconnect, to get the friction down to the point it will allow the magazine to drop.

Or maybe a slightly weaker spring is the ticket, one that will still allow the disconnect function to work.

OBTW I once had a High Power that had been manufactured in India at the Ishapore arsenal, on Inglis machinery. The magazines had been Parkerized and so had the magazine disconnect. There was lots of friction between them, I had to actually give a good pull to get the mags out. And I could feel the sliding parts when pulling the trigger.

Bart Noir
__________________
“There’s a rattle in my glove box,
A Federal twelve-gauge slug.” – Adam Carroll in song Porter Wagoner
Bart Noir is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 03:12 PM   #56
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,327
The HiPower made it's bones with decades of military use having the mag disconnect. I wonder if the SAS removed theirs?
To me, I have no problem with it at all.
__________________
Still waiting for my Flashback...I would like it now, please.
amd6547 is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 03:47 PM   #57
Walt Sherrill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill
...the best way to "get the bad guy" out of action, quickly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown

Strikes me that is the essence of the use of force in self defense -- stop the threat quickly.
Yeah -- that's one way of looking at it.

But, any perp could use the same sort of argument to justify taking the victim out of action, quickly, and that's hardly self defense.
Walt Sherrill is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 06:03 PM   #58
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,581
My box stock MK II Silver Chrome BHP has the magazine disconnect still installed. The trigger is still EXCELLENT. I see no need to remove it.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 06:39 PM   #59
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill
Yeah -- that's one way of looking at it.

But, any perp could use the same sort of argument to justify taking the victim out of action, quickly, and that's hardly self defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill
...the best way to "get the bad guy" out of action, quickly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
Strikes me that is the essence of the use of force in self defense -- stop the threat quickly.
Huh? Let's try it this way:

[1] You are wrongfully attacked. You are innocent. The nature of the attack is such that a reasonable person would conclude that it is necessary to use lethal force to prevent your otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury at the hands of your attacker.

[2] The facts are therefore such that you are justified in using lethal force in self defense against your aggressor. Your use of force is justified.

[3] To most effectively defend yourself under such circumstances, you want to stop the threat quickly. That is the essence of self defense by the use of force under circumstances in which your use of force is justified.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 09:29 PM   #60
JMBstudent
Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2008
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 44
I don't get it. 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.
But take the mag safety out of a pistol designed for the 1935 French military and all of a sudden you have commited a crime against the Holy John Moses Browning design genius, and put yourself at risk on the streets.
We buy and use pistols designed for military use. The military specifications don't always match the needs of Law Enforcement or civilian use.
So these military pistols are tuned, maybe some trigger work done, sights are added with target or night use in mind, grips are added to suit personal needs, acommodations are made for left handed shooters, and yes sometimes grip safeties and magazine safeties are defeated.
All the above to better suit the needs of the end user.
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.
My High Powers lack a grip safety and that little Glock trigger safety which is beginning to make me nervous.
__________________
JMBstudent
Learn something new each day.
JMBstudent is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 09:32 PM   #61
Walt Sherrill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Huh? Let's try it this way:

[1] You are wrongfully attacked. You are innocent. The nature of the attack is such that a reasonable person would conclude that it is necessary to use lethal force to prevent your otherwise unavoidable, immediate death or grave bodily injury at the hands of your attacker.

[2] The facts are therefore such that you are justified in using lethal force in self defense against your aggressor. Your use of force is justified.

[3] To most effectively defend yourself under such circumstances, you want to stop the threat quickly. That is the essence of self defense by the use of force under circumstances in which your use of force is justified.
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? Doesn't that make it just as much a properly "defensive" measure as the use of JHPs? One might argue, similarly, that a well-tuned "race" gun (when used by someone who has demonstrated some skill in its use) also allows that person to MORE EFFECITVELY defend himself or herself to stop the threat quickly. Where does that line of reasoning stop?

I appreciate your original point, and agree, but the same kind of reasoning that defends JHPs seems to disappear when other "modifications" are discussed. Why is trigger work suspect, when JHPs aren't? Does one seem to be "cowboy" while the other isn't?

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. A JHP is also effective then, too.

Last edited by Walt Sherrill; August 24, 2009 at 09:41 PM.
Walt Sherrill is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 11:03 PM   #62
Poseidon28
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
Fiddletown:

Are you licensed by the Kansas Bar? How many SD cases have you tried in Kansas? What are the Kansas laws on SD?

Mas: You should know better then to give advice unless you've been in that state to testify, and know their laws. Have you?

State laws are state laws, and, Kansas may well be a different planet from the PR of Kalifornia.

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.

I spent a short time in the SFDA's office, and, unless you told them you took the safety off the gun, I seriously doubt they would ever know, nor care about your internet postings. What they would care about are the laws of the state of Kalifornia, and, did you have a justifiable reason to shoot? Was your life in danger, and, did you have a reasonable, supportable belief that your death was about to happen. In other words, was it justifiable homicide under the law, or homicide with the successful defense of self-defense, or defense of others?

Unlike Kalifornia, I'm pretty sure Kansas won't hold you in violation of some illegal law, enforced by Jerry Brown, that says you illegally modified your gun.

I suggest you find out from YOUR state, what it's laws are on modifying guns.

If you are some sort of Rambo gun nut, then in such a little populated state the DA might try and build a case against you, using everything they can, either out of being bored, or, wanting to be reelected, but, you know that, and we don't. Also, some officer that has it in for you might do the same.

Know your police, know your DA, know your political climate.

If you are in The PRK, and, in super hippy liberal San Francisco, just turn your guns in now, bend over and let whoever kill or rape you, since your convicted already? Right Fiddletown and Mas?

NOTHING could be further from the truth. San Francisco had a 48% conviction rate when I was there. There was always one super liberal hippy that was anti-government, or, was gay and had beaten by the police, or whatever, but, the conviction rate was VERY low for a major city. Truth is, come to San Francisco. No legal carry, Free crime zone central, combined with nice jails, and, 48% conviction rates. We have drug dealers that commute because the San Francisco situation is so attractive.

My point is simply general rules about this stuff are about as common as certain parts of your anatomy, and, you are getting advice worth exactly what you are paying for it.

JMBStudent:

There is no logic on gun laws. That's how the liberals get us. They take bad facts, create stupid bad laws, designed to harass, create expense, and, make firearm ownership only possible for the rich and famous. That's the goal.

Quote:
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.
My High Powers lack a grip safety and that little Glock trigger safety which is beginning to make me nervous.
This is the sort of thinking the anti's use, to justify any gun law, that limits guns coming into Kali. ANYTHING that faintly has any sort of psuedo-logical, barely justifiable angle they use. Ironically, it also affects those who have to defend us, and, infects their thinking.

When logic is God, anything can be justified, off bad facts.
Poseidon28 is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 11:36 PM   #63
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMBstudent
I don't get it....
I guess not.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 25, 2009 at 07:56 PM. Reason: clean up some typos
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 12:20 AM   #64
jjyergler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
Can we say: miss the point?

JMB, Poseidon, and others. You are completely missing the point. It isn't illegal to remove the disconnect, use handloads, lighten the trigger or make any other modifications. No one is saying these things are illegal, bad, or wrong. You are perfectly within your rights to do any of these things. That isn't what Fiddletown or Mas Ayoob are arguing.

What they are saying is that these modifications might make you more vulnerable in a legal sense. These things can be used by an agressive plantiff's lawyer or prosecutor.

Quote:
Mas: You should know better then to give advice unless you've been in that state to testify, and know their laws. Have you?
Again, it isn't about the law, it's about perception and how that affects the outcome. As a side note, how many times have you been used as an expert witness? You are attacking the qualifications of one of the most respected experts in the field. I don't think you are going to come out on top. Sorry, I'll take his word over yours.

I live in Florida, which has an extremely positive CASTLE doctrine. However, I will still choose to minimize any legal exposure regarding my choice of defensive weapon. Since I don't have prescience and can not predict the exact situations I will find myself in, I'll simply stick to stock guns in my night stand and use commercial ammo. I guarantee this, you won't outshoot me and my 229, I don't care what super slick NASCAR .45 you have. None of those things produce that much of an advantage in the real world.

My judge is simple. At our local bowling pin shoots, how many guys with stock Glocks or SIGs have had to retire because their gun failed? None that I can remember. How many guys have had $2,000 guns fail for one reason or another? Two last time I went. Rarely does the modification's promise prove to be "all that."

Instead of arguing and insulting, you might want to listen to those with vast experience in the field. As my favorite philosopher, Clint Eastwood, said: "A man's got to know his limitations." Poseidon, you might want to exhibit wisdom and listen to an experienced trial attorney and arguably the most knowledgable guy in the country in this field.
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware
Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware
Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware
Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware
jjyergler is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 12:25 AM   #65
jjyergler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
Take your own advice.

Posiedon, you say yourself:
Quote:
There is no logic on gun laws. That's how the liberals get us. They take bad facts, create stupid bad laws, designed to harass, create expense, and, make firearm ownership only possible for the rich and famous. That's the goal.
I agree with you. My point is simple, don't give the nitwits any advantage, real or perceived. If it gives no discernable advantage in the fight and there is a possible disadvantage in a legal sense, don't do it. That's all.

The other option is just to say you had no idea, it was like that when you bought it. As long as you didn't buy it factory new, that's perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure why anyone didn't say that before.
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware
Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware
Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware
Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware
jjyergler is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 12:38 AM   #66
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjyergler
...listen to an experienced trial attorney ...
Thank you, but let me clarify one thing. I do not consider myself a trial attorney. He's the guy who sits at the counsel table in court and questions witnesses and argues the case in court. But he's not the only attorney involved in complex litigation. There are any number of attorneys, including me, behind the scenes, deciding on tactics, laying out arguments, deciding on witnesses, etc. So I have been involved professionally in the management of a great deal of complex litigation, but I don't consider myself a trial attorney. And what I have doe professionally requires that I understand the craft of presenting a case in a convincing manner to a jury.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 06:33 AM   #67
Poseidon28
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
Quote:
#1
Recoiljunkie44
Member

Join Date: August 8, 2009
Location: Hudson ks
Posts: 28

Browning HI power magazine disconnect
Hey Guys I need help on deciding if i should try to remove the magazine saftey out of my Browning Hi power its a 1989 model, not the most collectible! I however don't want to have to do a very prolific mod such as grinding or changing it where it can not be restored to factory! is it easy as removing a couple pins and just reassmbling with out? I have been pondering this question for some time! Does any companies out there make a retrofit kit to do this? Below is a picture of the highpower and, any help would be greatly appreciated!
I'm sorry. The original question is so far from the discussion, I should never have posted.

Stephen Camp is an 'expert' on the Hi-Powers, and, has an excellent page on it.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/

Also the link posted on the first page is fine. Enjoy a better trigger pull, and, I wish I would have done this with two hi-powers I sold in the early 80's because their trigger was nowhere near a 1911's.

"A man's got to know his limitations."

Last edited by Poseidon28; August 25, 2009 at 06:33 AM. Reason: "A man's got to know his limitations."
Poseidon28 is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 08:12 AM   #68
jjyergler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
Good Point, Poseidon.

Sorry Fiddletown, I can see why you wouldn't want to be mislabled. Who would claim to be that who is not. I will refrain from the obligatory lawyer joke here.

Personally, I have found my limitation, for some reason, I can't seem to remember how to spell Poseidon.

As to the OP, I have shot HPs with the disconnect and without the disconnect. I don't know how much lighter it is, but it sure seems smoother and less gritty without the disconnect.
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware
Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware
Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware
Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware
jjyergler is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 08:47 AM   #69
Walt Sherrill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Posts: 4,204
And I appreciate, fiddletown, the time you've taken to expand on some of these points. Thanks.
Walt Sherrill is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 11:52 AM   #70
ranburr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 1,278
I do think Frank and Mas have some valid points in some locales. I do not think it is universal. Everyone is assuming that just because you are in a shooting, that you are going to be in a criminal court. Not true. I do agree that there is a high degree of probability that you will be in a civil court. I can't speak for every state, but in TX, you will only go to a criminal court if a grand jury chooses to push the case through. Here, it is you (no lawyer), vs the DA in front of the grand jury. If the DA really wanted to prosecute you, you would stand zero chance of not going to trial. Fortuneately, most of our DAs follow the law when it comes to self defense shootings and they never make it past the grand jury phase. A case in point that most everyone here will probably remember. In my own city, Joe Horn shot two robbers and was completely convicted on the national media stage. When it went in front of the grand jury, the DA's office presented the evidence and it died right there. When interviewed afterwards the DA stated that while they didn't agree with his actions, he broke no law. Now, back to evidence. It is such a science today, that the police will know what happened in a shooting. Whether you give a statement or not, the police can piece together the facts of the shooting itself. As far as a civil case goes, pretty much anyone can sue you at any time. It is up to you to do what you can to protect your assets. Even if you are sued in a civil case, it does not mean that you are going to lose.
__________________
ranburr
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people asking questions".
ranburr is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 01:20 PM   #71
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranburr
...Everyone is assuming that just because you are in a shooting, that you are going to be in a criminal court. Not true...
I absolutely agree that just because you are in a shooting does not mean that you will wind up in criminal court. Many defensive shootings don't, because it is determined at an some stage of the investigation that the shooter is likely to be able to sustain his claim of self defense.

But if it happens to you, there is no way you can know ahead of time whether in your particular case there will be ample evidence to support your claim of self defense or if, when the smoke clears, the evidence will be sparse that you were justified in using lethal force.

Everyone who has ever been on trial after a self defense shooting probably thought (at least somewhere in the back of his mind) as he pulled the trigger that he was right -- that he had no choice. But the fact that he wound up on trial shows that in the aftermath the prosecutor found good reason to challenge the claim of justification and to believe that he could get a jury to agree.

Yes, that might be a rare event. Yet these rare events have happened to others in the past. It may happen to one of us in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranburr
...in TX, you will only go to a criminal court if a grand jury chooses to push the case through. Here, it is you (no lawyer), vs the DA in front of the grand jury. If the DA really wanted to prosecute you, you would stand zero chance of not going to trial. Fortuneately, most of our DAs follow the law when it comes to self defense shootings and they never make it past the grand jury phase....
Actually, most DAs do follow the law (well, except for the occasional jerk -- like that guy with the Lacrosse team). It doesn't do a DA's career any good to lose a case. So a DA is not going to press for an indictment, or file charges where a grand jury review is optional, if he doesn't think he has a decent chance to win at trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranburr
...back to evidence. It is such a science today, that the police will know what happened in a shooting. Whether you give a statement or not, the police can piece together the facts of the shooting itself....
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Or most often, there will be some ambiguous points. That's at least in part why we have trials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranburr
...A case in point ... In my own city, Joe Horn shot two robbers and was completely convicted on the national media stage. When it went in front of the grand jury, the DA's office presented the evidence and it died right there. When interviewed afterwards the DA stated that while they didn't agree with his actions, he broke no law....
The Joe Horn case is interesting. One reason he was convicted in the national media is that most discussions of the event ignore, or downplay, the fact that the men Mr. Horn shot had returned to Mr. Horn's property and were coming toward him in a threatening manner. And by being on Mr. Horn's property, Texas' Castle Doctrine law came into play.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 06:50 PM   #72
Poseidon28
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
100% of the newspaper cases we discussed in law school, had incorrect facts, which we found, after reading the transcripts.

Fiddletown: Exactly how many motions have you argued in criminal court, and, how many plea bargains on criminal cases? I'm doing this just so I can brag that I've got more trial criminal court experience then you do.

"Personally, I have found my limitation, for some reason, I can't seem to remember how to spell Poseidon. " Don't feel bad, I have the same problem...

OK: Here are my legal arguments that apply to this situation:

"I bought the gun used, and had no idea the safety was missing."
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, you are screwed.

"I bought the same firearm that our local police do (Smith and Wesson 41).
I used the same ammunition they do. I thought it would be perfectly safe and not overpenetrate, with the 250 grain HP's at 1200 fps."
About half the police I met at San Francisco retained the S&W .41 magnums they were issued, a long time ago.

Argument two:

"I bought the Sig Sauer P220 because my friend, who is the police armour, said that gun with the Hydrashock 230 grain hollow points worked, and that every time they used it, the result was a non-fatal, one shot stop."
True by the way, but not San Francisco.

"I don't believe I'll ever have to use a gun in a SD shooting. More likely to be hit by a shark, or lightning. Therefore, I have my target, and hunting guns, and, if I need to defend myself, I use one of those. I am aware of my back stops, and, this does not create a threat to human life. I also picked the gun I shoot the best, my .480 Ruger, since it was handy."

"This guy was a real cop wannabe. He was turned down by the police force. He bought a police vest and uniform, painting the car like a police car.
He joined the reserves. He bought the same Sig Sauer our police use, and used the same ammo. He even went so far as to buy a Spas 12 evil, black shotgun, with a 12 shot extension tube, illegal in California, with a Pistol grip.
He kept that under his bed. It's totally worthless for hunting, target shooting, or anything but blowing large holes in people with 00 buck, that's equal to 11 .357 magnum hollow point bullets hitting a person at once."

Finally:
"My client modified the magazine release because he is a target shooter, and, removing the magazine safety makes the gun fire more accurately, making it possible to hit his target considerably more often.

The gun was originally designed with that feature for the French, in 1935, as part of a military contract, and, outside the military, has no function.

In fact, with the magazine release in a easy place to accidentally hit, the magazine could be released under pressure, and, the defendant left helpless, since he would be unable to defend himself by discharging the round in the chamber."
Poseidon28 is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 07:42 PM   #73
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
Fiddletown: Exactly how many motions have you argued in criminal court, and, how many plea bargains on criminal cases? I'm doing this just so I can brag that I've got more trial criminal court experience then you do....
I've been completely clear and open about my background and experience. How about providing a similar level of detail about yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
...Here are my legal arguments that apply to this situation...
Swell. Did you make these in real life? If so, in what context, for what purpose and how did they work?

If not, that's okay too. Nothing wrong with discussing hypotheticals. But you've just laid out a number of disjointed arguments. Who's making them? In what context? For what purpose? How do you expect the arguments to work and why?

In fact, reading through the arguments in your post, I'm completely mystified as to your point. Are these supposed to be good, winning argument?

In any case, from a defense perspective, the best argument is the one I don't have to make because it didn't happen. If I come into the picture on the defense side after the fact, I'm going to have to make do with what I have. I can't change the facts at that point. So I deal with the issues that need to be dealt with using the best arguments I can fashion under the circumstances. Sometimes those arguments will work, but there's never a guarantee.

But you, the possible defendant if things go badly for you, can change some facts beforehand. You can avoid things that could be issues later on, if you educate yourself in these matters and are willing to make some choices to avoid things that you can avoid without otherwise prejudicing yourself.

Some of these choices may involve not disabling a safety device of a gun you intend to use for self defense, or using a some other gun that you'd be comfortable using as it came from the manufacturer. Another choice is to use only factory ammunition for self defense. Of course, if you don't consider these to be potential issues, or if you aren't planning for the possibility of using a gun to defend yourself or if for some reason you're not fully aware of the possible ramifications of having to defend yourself with a gun, or for many other possible reason, you might not make those choices.

In that case of course, if you get very unlucky and are held to answer for actions you took in your defense, your lawyer will just have to work with the facts as they are, not as they could have been if you had planned better.

I sometimes find it very odd that one might spend a great deal of time preparing for a thing, using a gun in self defense, that is almost a certainty not to happen to him. He'll spend hours doing research and agonizing over choosing just the right gun, the right ammunition, the right holster. But he probably spends very little time or effort preparing for the predictable legal aftermath. He has the opportunity to prepare, but whether he does so is up to him.

Although the possibility of my needing to use a gun in self defense is tiny, the downsides of either flubbing things on the street or making a hash of the legal aftermath are seriously undesirable. So I'm going to both do what I can to improve my chances to prevail on the street AND do whatever I reasonably can to stack the deck in my favor when it comes time to play out the legal aftermath.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 09:48 PM   #74
Poseidon28
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
Fair enough.

You asked about ways of preparing for the legal ramifications of a shooting.

I came up with a bunch of different ways of viewing the same issues, admittedly spelling, and, it was a stream of C first attempt...

First argument about a modified gun isn't going to fly.

Mas Ayoob always is saying use the same gun the police do, and the same ammo. In this case, that's a rather politically incorrect .41 magnum. Many of the guys still carry them in San Francisco, and they have a choice that, or some black semi-auto. Creates a rather bumpy ride for Mas argument about using the police issue gun.

The second argument is both true, and, Mas' argument. I think you would like this one as well.

Third is I think a good argument if a non-standard weapon is used.

The shotgun, tactical with a pistol grip, huge 10 or 12 round tube, drum whatever, is something I haven't yet figured out why a DA hasn't attacked.
Never heard of a shotgun shooting being attacked as the rifle is fit for one thing, yet, that same argument has been used against black rifles, both semi auto and full auto. Strange.

The last here is the issue, and, it brings up a bigger issue: the S&W Clinton safety. It actually makes the gun unfit for it's intended purpose, because the locks do 'auto-lock', meaning the weapon is unfit for it's implied warranty.

The same argument can be made for the military designed safety on the Browning. I also really wonder if anyone would even notice it was missing.
Poseidon28 is offline  
Old August 25, 2009, 10:11 PM   #75
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,327
Seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
__________________
Still waiting for my Flashback...I would like it now, please.
amd6547 is offline  
Reply

Tags
9mm , browning , disconnect , magazine

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18295 seconds with 8 queries