Modified Trigger on Carry Gun

[Mr.510]

My carry gun has a modified trigger. It's an XD45 Compact and the trigger pull is a bit over four pounds. I didn't specifically want a lighter pull, though I like the improvement in accuracy that came with it. I wanted less over travel and a shorter reset, which I got. I read everything I could find at the time from the usual legal experts on defensive use of handguns before deciding to modify the gun. Rather than buying a kit and doing the trigger job myself (something I'm fully capable of, being a master craftsman machinist) I spent the ~$200 to have the best known gunsmith in the country that specializes in XDs do the trigger job on my carry gun. I had him do his standard "Combat/Carry" trigger job that he'd probably done hundreds of at the time. My primary reasoning is that should the modified trigger, or anything else about the gun, be a factor in a legal battle my lawyer could call this gunsmith as a witness since he personally modified my firearm. I don't know if I'm smart or dumb, but this seemed the most reasonable course of action (six years ago) to minimize the 'risk' of carrying a modified firearm for self defense. I'd love to hear what Frank (and any others with actual experience in self defense cases) thinks of having a gunsmith do a trigger job versus doing it yourself?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Thanks X-Rap and JohnKSa, very interesting!

 

[Sam1911]

Many years ago the Old Fuff was occasionally called upon to testify as an expert witness about modifications to a firearm that might have a bearing on the case.

Which all points back to my question of, IF we're talking about fairly standard trigger pull weights and normal clean-up-the-action trigger jobs, how would that have enough obvious bearing on the case to even come to the attention of the Prosecutor, or anyone else?

I guess what my question boils down to is, would the level of investigation you (Old Fuff) were called on to perform ever be a normal part of the discovery process in a claimed self-defense trial, where ACCIDENTAL shooting (or gun malfunction, etc.) was not a claim made by either side?

If you are claiming the shooting as an act of self-defense, and there isn't some really bizarre cavalcade of circumstances which somehow make it look like you're trying to cover up an accident, would any agent of the state's investigatory team or prosecution be at all likely to take note of your gunsmith's fluff-&-buff work on the hammer and sear? Or your aftermarket connector in your Glock?

It seems that when this concern is debated, it always gets pushed into the shallower waters of true "hair triggers" (which a forensics tech can't help but notice when she or he almost blows his own finger off testing your gun), or the corresponding shoals of cases where someone's claiming an accidental/negligent discharge took place. But neither of those things appear to have bearing on the predominate majority of common self-defense cases.

JohnKSa's point that a 6lb trigger spec differs enough from a 4.5 lb. combat trigger job that a tech might make note of the difference, and a prosecutor (or civil litigator) might want to grab that info and build trouble for you out of it, is interesting and plausible. I wonder what a risk there really is in such things and how much of an impact such a claim might make on a jury. But that's probably impossible to quantify.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If you are claiming the shooting as an act of self-defense, and there isn't some really bizarre cavalcade of circumstances which somehow make it look like you're trying to cover up an accident, would any agent of the state's investigatory team or prosecution be at all likely to take note of your gunsmith's fluff-&-buff work on the hammer and sear? Or your aftermarket connector in your Glock?....

That's one of those questions which is impossible to answer any more specifically than "maybe."

I've never been involved in investigating a shooting, but I have been involved in investigations of other things, in connection with both civil and criminal matters. Investigators do play hunches and they do get curious about things, and that can impel them to look at things they might not otherwise look at.

 

[Old Fuff]

First of all I'll say that I never was involved in two or more cases with identical circumstances. They might be slightly similar, but no more then that.

As a very flexible rule-of-thumb, in cases where the legal right to shoot is questioned, it is more likely (but not certain) that the attorney(s) representing the defendant (criminal case) or respondent (civil case) will seek outside help in attempting to find ways to strengthen his client's claims to lawful self defense, or shift the blame to someone or something else.

In other words, if Mr. Goodguy plugged Mr. Badguy under circumstance where the shooting might have been avoidable one possible defense (but not the only one) might be to convince a jury that what really happened was the gun's fault. Understand that all this doesn't have to be true or false, but it does have to convince the jury to work.

If you think lawyers are on the dim side when it comes to guns you should observe a typical jury... :banghead:

 

[JohnKSa]

Which all points back to my question of, IF we're talking about fairly standard trigger pull weights and normal clean-up-the-action trigger jobs, how would that have enough obvious bearing on the case to even come to the attention of the Prosecutor, or anyone else?

If you modify your gun in such a way that the modification is not detectable through normal examination then it almost certainly wouldn't come to anyone's attention unless that fact was discovered from other sources. What other sources? Social media, forum posts, comments by friends and family interviewed by the police, receipts from gunsmiths, etc. Would those come into play? It's certainly possible.

I guess that means that if you buy a gun with a trigger pull that is unusually bad for that particular model from that particular manufacturer then there would be little possibility of liability if you modify it to conform to what is the norm for that model from that manufacturer. It probably wouldn't be detected and even if it were it could likely be explained to the jury's satisfaction.

But if you buy a gun with a trigger that is representative for that model from that particular manufacturer then if you modify it to be lighter than the norm/spec., the difference would be detectable and therefore it might become an issue depending on the circumstances of the case.

I wonder what a risk there really is in such things and how much of an impact such a claim might make on a jury. But that's probably impossible to quantify.

Assuming that the modifications can be defended by presented evidence (manufacturer specs, expert witness, etc.), the risk is measured by what it will cost to counter the claims that arise from the modification.

The effect on the jury would probably be significant. Imagine knowing nothing about guns and having someone tell you that the defendant had a "hair trigger" on the gun he used to kill someone. Unless the claim could be countered, I think it would have a negative effect on that person's defense.

 

[Sam1911]

Unless the claim could be countered

Fortunately, that shouldn't be very hard. And any decent defense attorney would be all over the "hair trigger" claims to such a degree that s/he'd make the prosecutor look like a foolish ignoramus for bringing it up.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, apparently the prosecution has SUCH a poor case that my colleague here is attempting to drum up negative impressions of my client out of nothing but his own woeful ignorance. I think it would be in the interest of the Court to have a brief discussion, now, of 'hair triggers' and of the actual adjustments and modifications my client had performed on this gun, and why. And then we can set aside my counterpart's sadly uneducated claims and perhaps you good folks can try to overlook the shortcomings of his comprehension of the subject matter. I'm sure he didn't mean to mislead you, he just doesn't know what he doesn't know. Let's take a moment to bring him up to speed on the subject and then we can set aside that specious line of discussion..."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Sam1911:

Unless the claim could be countered

Fortunately, that shouldn't be very hard. And any decent defense attorney would be all over the "hair trigger" claims to such a degree that s/he'd make the prosecutor look like a foolish ignoramus for bringing it up.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, apparently the prosecution has SUCH a poor case that my colleague here is attempting to drum up negative impressions of my client out of nothing but his own woeful ignorance. I think it would be in the interest of the Court to have a brief discussion, now, of 'hair triggers' and of the actual adjustments and modifications my client had performed on this gun, and why. And then we can set aside my counterpart's sadly uneducated claims and perhaps you good folks can try to overlook the shortcomings of his comprehension of the subject matter. I'm sure he didn't mean to mislead you, he just doesn't know what he doesn't know. Let's take a moment to bring him up to speed on the subject and then we can set aside that specious line of discussion..."

I wouldn't be so sure.

The comment was,

The effect on the jury would probably be significant. Imagine knowing nothing about guns and having someone tell you that the defendant had a "hair trigger" on the gun he used to kill someone. Unless the claim could be countered, I think it would have a negative effect on that person's defense.

Suppose the defendant claims self defense, and the prosecution or plaintiff can challenge the claim with some effectiveness and present some basis for an assertion that the shooting involved manslaughter, or a negligent discharge, depending upon the purpose of the trial.

When the expert witness for the prosecution or the plaintiff is asked about the trigger pull of the gun used, and how it compares to the specification for a factory model, he or she need only to state the facts.

Would the defendant's attorney be wise in putting his or her client on the stand and asking about the reasons for the modification, exposing the subject to cross examination?

 

[Sam1911]

Oh, who knows? I'd take that risk, without a hesitation, but some folks shouldn't be on the stand at all, in their own defense!

I think the answer would have to depend on what's being claimed/asserted about that information. If the expert is testifying that your gun came from the factory with a pull about 6 lbs, most probably, and it now has a pull of 4 lbs., and that's all that's said, maybe we let that matter rest. What does that mean to an firearms-ignorant jury anyway?

If that information is given and then the prosecutor jumps up and down on it going on about "hair triggers" and what your "hair trigger" implies about you as a bloodthirsty rambo-wannabe, then we're going to have a cogent and pointed rebuttal and will try to make him look like he should be sitting in the corner with a pointy hat bearing the letters "DUNCE."

...and the prosecution or plaintiff can challenge the claim with some effectiveness and present some basis for an assertion that the shooting involved manslaughter, or a negligent discharge,...

As always, every one of us who responds to this debate is painting the scene (the circumstances and specifics and exactly WHAT is being charged or claimed) in a way that favors the explanation they are making. Things can go many ways and we can't predict even what kind of situation we'll find ourselves in, let alone how others will view it, or what our opponents in court will try to do with it.

................

Of course if you want to completely eliminate all chances of having to face these questions at a trial, simply find an example of your gun of choice that has a stock trigger that works for you, and resist any desire to improve or customize anything about it. Then you only have to worry about all the other things the prosecutor might have to say about you.

Same can be said about using handloaded ammo. If the minute possibility that your ammo will somehow cast a question on your ability to prove something important about the circumstances of your shooting, use factory ammo. And then cross your fingers and hope that factory ammo testing WILL prove whatever it is that you need to prove.

Same can be said about using "magnum" or "police" or "powerful" or "military style" or "hollowpoint" or "saturday night special" or "high-capacity" or "Dirty Harry" or "Exxxtreme Shock" or "full metal jacket" or "custom" or ...fill in the blank ... style guns or ammo. Don't use those if the chances that those freighted terms will be tossed around at a trial are not acceptable to you.

Same can be said about who you are, what you do for fun, what gun sports you engage in, what kind and how much shooting and tactics training you pursue and with whom -- and who and where you talk about, write about, or post about those hobbies and pursuits. If you don't want the risk of having to answer claims about what kind of a person that makes you, DON'T do those things!

Everything is very risky, after all.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by sam1911:

I think the answer would have to depend on what's being claimed/asserted about that information. If the expert is testifying that your gun came from the factory with a pull about 6 lbs, most probably, and it now has a pull of 4 lbs., and that's all that's said, maybe we let that matter rest. What does that mean to an firearms-ignorant jury anyway?

Good point. The prosecutor or plaintiff would have to ask for some explanation of what the light pull means, and perhaps some information on what kind of pull is generally considered acceptable for service use. A police armorer would be able to answer those questions.

An expert would also likely be brought in to describe physiological reactions to stress, including, in particular, involuntary pressure on the trigger--all well known stuff, most probably admissible because it would be relevant and objectivey supportable.

...then we're going to have a cogent and pointed rebuttal and will try to make him look like he should be sitting in the corner with a pointy hat bearing the letters "DUNCE."

I just don't see how one could persuasively rebut such testimony.

Of course if you want to completely eliminate all chances of having to face these questions at a trial, simply find an example of your gun of choice that has a stock trigger that works for you, and resist any desire to improve or customize anything about it. Then you only have to worry about all the other things the prosecutor might have to say about you.

That's the only effective mitigation that comes to mind for me.

Same can be said about using handloaded ammo. If the minute possibility that your ammo will somehow cast a question on your ability to prove something important about the circumstances of your shooting, use factory ammo. And then cross your fingers and hope that factory ammo testing WILL prove whatever it is that you need to prove.

Same can be said about using "magnum" or "police" or "powerful" or "military style" or "hollowpoint" or "saturday night special" or "high-capacity" or "Dirty Harry" or "Exxxtreme Shock" or "full metal jacket" or "custom" or ...fill in the blank ... style guns or ammo. Don't use those if the chances that those freighted terms will be tossed around at a trial are not acceptable to you.

Same can be said about who you are, what you do for fun, what gun sports you engage in, what kind and how much shooting and tactics training you pursue and with whom -- and who and where you talk about, write about, or post about those hobbies and pursuits. If you don't want the risk of having to answer claims about what kind of a person that makes you, DON'T do those things!

Such things might be said, and should the situation lend itself to rebuttal, there are all kinds of tested arguments with which to do so, with the likely exception of the part about writing and posting as it goes to state of mind. The issue of admissibility of evidence (say, regarding GSR and factory ammo) is an entirely different question, and yes, I do mitigate that risk.

But the dangers of using lighter-than-spec triggers for carry are real and are known, and I don't see how one could expect to effectively counter them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...is painting the scene (the circumstances and specifics and exactly WHAT is being charged or claimed) in a way that favors the explanation they are making. ...

Not really. Some are pointing out that one can't know ahead of time what the "scene" might be if/when it happens. Under some circumstances your trigger job might be benign, and under others it might be harmful; but you can't predict what the circumstances will be.

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, that's what I meant by that statement, and the one that followed it:

Things can go many ways and we can't predict even what kind of situation we'll find ourselves in, let alone how others will view it, or what our opponents in court will try to do with it.

There are circumstances which would make any of these choices work against us quite badly. And other circumstances which would make any of these choices quite easy to defend/deflect should they be brought up at trial. Can't really predict which.

Everything is very risky.

 

[Sam1911]

...then we're going to have a cogent and pointed rebuttal and will try to make him look like he should be sitting in the corner with a pointy hat bearing the letters "DUNCE."

I just don't see how one could persuasively rebut such testimony.

IF the case is heavily weighted toward an accidental discharge situation, then certainly that information as you suggested would be on-point and largely irrefutable.

I would not disagree about that in cases where accidental discharge is a strong claim.

The common "overzealous prosecutor" scenario, however, does not involve accidental discharge, but rather implications about you, the defendant, as a dangerous and bloodthirsty person since you carry modified weapons with "hair triggers" and clearly desire to kill someone, etc.

That scenario I see as eminently rebuttable.

But the dangers of using lighter-than-spec triggers for carry are real and are known, and I don't see how one could expect to effectively counter them.

And I would not every argue for using considerably lighter-than-spec triggers, either, for the inarguable practical danger they can introduce.

My points here are limited to the more common situation of a improved trigger, by various means, not at all dependent on a sub-4 lb. pull weight.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Everything is very risky.

Sure it is, and a lot of successfully navigating through life has to do with appropriately understanding, managing, allowing for and choosing the risks you take and how you take them.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Sam1911:

The common "overzealous prosecutor" scenario, however, does not involve accidental discharge, but rather implications about you, the defendant, as a dangerous and bloodthirsty person since you carry modified weapons with "hair triggers" and clearly desire to kill someone, etc.

That may come up, but the bigger concern, I think, is the risk of an accusation that you, the defendant, knowingly failed to exercise proper care in pointing a gun with a very light trigger at another person, or, more seriously, that in doing so the defendant displayed an indifference or disregard for the life or safety of that person.

The issue could encompass criminal culpability, civil liability, or both.

I do not see that accusation as easily rebuttable.

 

[X-Rap]

That may come up, but the bigger concern, I think, is the risk of an accusation that you, the defendant, knowingly failed to exercise proper care in pointing a gun with a very light trigger at another person, or, more seriously, that in doing so the defendant displayed an indifference or disregard for the life or safety of that person.

The issue could encompass criminal culpability, civil liability, or both.

I do not see that accusation as easily rebuttable.

And this is the crux of the argument IMO. I think a prosecutor would love to use this argument and if done well I doubt a grand jury would refuse an indictment.
Worse yet a firearms ignorant jury, criminal or civil, might likely focus on both the "hair trigger" and negligent and draw some predetermined conclusions.
Again, I'll add that, should it come to this point, a S/A weapon puts you at a greater disadvantage by mechanics that could be demonstrated easily in the court room.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by X-Rap:

Again, I'll add that, should it come to this point, a S/A weapon puts you at a greater disadvantage by mechanics that could be demonstrated easily in the court room.

That's one of two reasons I had the hammer bobbed on my wife's SP101.

 

[Spats McGee]

I must confess that I haven't combed this thread extensively before putting in my 2 cents' worth. Still, there are a couple of points I'd like to address:

There are accounts in books by expert witnesses.

And the only way one would find out about them would be from a participant. No one compiles the datta.

But the real point is that most of the issues tend to be civil. Most such cases never go to court--the defendant and the plaintiff settle--and the terms are never made public--or the settlements are voided.

So, the answer to the OP's question is , "No".

There is no case law or cases that can be sited where a trigger pull weight was a factor in a Self Defense Shooting.

Got it, thanks.

Before we start discussing the issue of whether there's any "case law or cases that can be" cited, it's important to understand what that means and how cases come to be authoritative. With the advent of internet publishing of caselaw, the rules on citation are changing. However, traditionally, in order for a case to get to the point that it could be cited as authority, a case had to go to trial, be appealed, get an opinion handed down and be designated for publication. To complicate matters, there has to be some dispute over the issue we're looking for, or the courts will likely not discuss it. So, for purposes of this discussion, in order for a case to be cited "where a trigger pull weight was a factor in a Self Defense Shooting":

1. There had to be a shooting;
2. Where the shooter claimed self defense;
3. Trigger pull weight had to be a factor;
4. It had to go to trial;
5. Somebody (judge or jury) had to make some kind of determination as to the trigger pull weight;
6. The loser had to appeal that decision, generally; and
7. The loser had to appeal the finding on the trigger weight specifically;
8. The appellate court had to render a decision on the trigger weight; AND
9. The appellate court had to designate it for publication.

There are some variations on the theme above, but as you can see, there are a whole lot of pieces that have to fall into place to have a "citable case." However, one of the things that lawyers do is extrapolate. We take cases in the same general area, boil the decisions down to their principles, and try to make some reasonable prediction as to how a court will rule under certain circumstances. We look at criminal cases to see what kinds of principles our courts use in criminal cases, and negligence cases to extract the principles of negligence.

On the note of modified triggers, first, I think they're qualitatively different from handloaded ammo (which someone mentioned earlier). Not to derail the thread down that well-worn path, but a modified trigger can be examined by the crime lab or other experts after the fact and prior to trial (barring some catastrophic failure of the gun). Assuming that handloaded ammo functions as intended, it is largely destroyed in the shooting, so you have to go off into the area of exemplar evidence if you want to talk about what could happen at trial.

At the moment when the SD shooter's gun goes bang, at least two (potential) legal actions are set in motion: (1) criminal action; and (2) civil action. The number of civil actions depends, in part, on how many people (both aggressors and bystanders) are hit in the gunfight. Frankly, and no pun intended, Mr. Ettin, I think there's a pretty substantial difference between the "hair trigger" and a "smoothed trigger." The problem is figuring out where that line is drawn.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I think there's a pretty substantial difference between the "hair trigger" and a "smoothed trigger." The problem is figuring out where that line is drawn.

I agree. That's why I wrote in post 10:

...I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who could be an expert witness. He will state that a 4 to 5 pound trigger is appropriate for a service 1911 and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a 1911 with a trigger lighter than 4 pound is reckless....

 

[JohnKSa]

Fortunately, that shouldn't be very hard. And any decent defense attorney would be all over the "hair trigger" claims to such a degree that s/he'd make the prosecutor look like a foolish ignoramus for bringing it up.

If the prosecutor is inept enough to make the "hair trigger" comment without providing evidence to support it, then it might be able to "handwave" it away. If evidence is presented to support the claim that the gun has a "hair trigger", then the only prudent course of action is to present evidence that it does not.

Depending on the circumstances, that may be easy, but it almost certainly won't be cheap. And, again depending on the circumstances, it may not be possible at all.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Lighter triggers are inherently more accurate. Don't we all sort of have a responsibility to be accurate so as not to hit the innocents who may be present? I would argue that lighter triggers somewhat present a higher level of awareness and the owner shouldn't be judged based on that.

 

[Sam1911]

Lighter triggers are inherently more accurate.

A better trigger pull (not just, only, or necessarily lighter) can help you shoot more accurately, especially under target range conditions, but after a lot of shooting under a lot of different "practical" conditions, I'd take issue with the stated-as-fact claim that a lighter trigger will make you a better shot under real-world high-stress situations. And the clear negatives of a risk of touching off a shot when your quaking, shaking trigger finger accidentally bumps the trigger when you didn't intend it (or any number of other objects manage to hit it in the chaos of fighting for your life), surely must be weighted heavily against whatever benefits a (simply) lighter trigger provides.

I shoot MOST of my competition rounds through a pistol with a stock trigger. It isn't a great trigger by any means, though certainly decent. I do not pine for a much crisper -- and certainly not lighter -- trigger for the IDPA/USPSA shooting I do, and if I don't need it there, I certainly won't benefit from it while grappling with some thug in an alley.

So...

Don't we all sort of have a responsibility to be accurate so as not to hit the innocents who may be present?

Of course. And the expert witness you hire may need to, or try to, establish that your trigger improvements contribute to enhanced safety and accuracy. Of course, if the prosecutor is maintaining that you fired accidentally and killed someone, your "enhanced accuracy" would become an entirely moot point.

I would argue that lighter triggers somewhat present a higher level of awareness and the owner shouldn't be judged based on that.

A higher level of awareness? You mean that the defendant (you) is cognizant of good shooting practices and works to ensure best accuracy, and that speaks to responsibility? Certainly it may. But two points arise:

1) Training, good gear, high quality gunsmithing and modifications, lots of hours of practice on the range, etc., all look like responsibility and technical prowess --- to us. To the average citizen they look (at best) like the fascinations and obsessiveness present in any other "geek" culture (gaming, cars, sports, etc.) but (worse) also loaded with the elements of danger and violence. In front of a jury, perception is 90% of the game and what you see as great and responsible traits the jury is highly likely to view in a prejudiced, negative light. Keep in mind that a whole lot of our society would dismiss someone like Jerry Miculek, Todd Jarrett, or Doug Koenig as gun-obsessed, arsenal-owning, lunatics. You WON'T be in front of a jury of your peers.

2) If the situation is playing out as Kleanbore is presenting it -- i.e. you're being accused of a negligent/accidental shot killing someone you didn't intend to and destroying your claim of self-defense -- all the "it's for accuracy" claims in the world will just make you look like a bigger idiot. If they can convince the jury that you just screwed up, then it really doesn't matter WHY your gun was modified. It just was and the lighter trigger can only help support their claim of accidental discharge.

 

[Spats McGee]

....I think there's a pretty substantial difference between the "hair trigger" and a "smoothed trigger." The problem is figuring out where that line is drawn.

I agree.

I know, Frank. I was just kind of "boiling it down."

 

[Kleanbore]

Post #68...

...by Spats McGee is worth reading and understanding.

This very relevant excerpt bears repeating:

Before we start discussing the issue of whether there's any "case law or cases that can be" cited, it's important to understand what that means and how cases come to be authoritative. With the advent of internet publishing of caselaw, the rules on citation are changing. However, traditionally, in order for a case to get to the point that it could be cited as authority, a case had to go to trial, be appealed, get an opinion handed down and be designated for publication. To complicate matters, there has to be some dispute over the issue we're looking for, or the courts will likely not discuss it. So, for purposes of this discussion, in order for a case to be cited "where a trigger pull weight was a factor in a Self Defense Shooting":

• There had to be a shooting;
• Where the shooter claimed self defense;
• Trigger pull weight had to be a factor;
• It had to go to trial;
• Somebody (judge or jury) had to make some kind of determination as to the trigger pull weight;
• The loser had to appeal that decision, generally; and
• The loser had to appeal the finding on the trigger weight specifically;
• The appellate court had to render a decision on the trigger weight; AND
• The appellate court had to designate it for publication.

There are some variations on the theme above, but as you can see, there are a whole lot of pieces that have to fall into place to have a "citable case." However, one of the things that lawyers do is extrapolate. We take cases in the same general area, boil the decisions down to their principles, and try to make some reasonable prediction as to how a court will rule under certain circumstances. We look at criminal cases to see what kinds of principles our courts use in criminal cases, and negligence cases to extract the principles of negligence.

Considering that not very many people carry handguns with modified triggers in the first place, one would not expect to see very many examples of applicable case law concerning modified triggers, but there are cases involving double action revolvers with single action capability. The same principles should apply.

Case law aside, there have been suits and charges filed. I said earlier "There are accounts in books by expert witnesses. And the only way one would find out about them would be from a participant. No one compiles the data. But the real point is that most of the issues tend to be civil. Most such cases never go to court--the defendant and the plaintiff settle--and the terms are never made public--or the settlements are voided." That did not pertain to case law--I was responding to the a comment " I have not seen any actual court cases where a trigger pull/weight was a factor. Maybe I missed the links."

For some reason, someone concluded from that

So, the answer to the OP's question is , "No".

There is no case law or cases that can be sited where a trigger pull weight was a factor in a Self Defense Shooting.

Got it, thanks.

Yet, several examples had already been provided, as far back as Post #3.

There is no pertinent, substantive difference between a law enforcement encounter and a "self defense shooting", and there would be no reason to limit the discussion to self defense shootings anyway.

The rarity of shootings involving modified triggers makes reliance on actual data a virtual non-starter in risk assessment, and the number of other pertinent factors should close the door on the discussion.

There are, however, pertinent facts that can, and likely would, be brought to bear in a discussion of an incident involving a modified firearm; these include the following:

• factory standard trigger pull specifications;
• trigger pulls specified for use by police departments in places such as New York and Miami;
• the fact that experts do recommend certain pull weight minima for service use and defensive carry;
• findings regarding physiological acions such as involuntary muscle contractions during stress;and
• demonstrable evidence that even highly trained individuals are seen to touch their triggers briefly when they are unaware of doing so and believe with certainty that they have kept their fingers off their triggers.

There may be more.

Personally, I would put a lot more weight--pardon the pun--on those factors than on what someone may have been able to find regarding what another jury had decided in another trial relating to another incident.

All things considered, including those factors. one is likely to find many defendants settling out of court in civil cases, rather than incurring the expense of a lengthy trial and assuming the risk of a much more damaging award. One may also find defendants in criminal cases pleading down rather than going to trial.

I have decided to carry a firearm with an unmodified pull with, though I would not shy away from shooting, adjusting over-travel within reason, and so forth.

 

[Spats McGee]

There is no pertinent, substantive difference between a law enforcement encounter and a "self defense shooting", and there would be no reason to limit the discussion to self defense shootings anyway.

I would also add one note. When we're dealing with the legal system, as a general proposition, the rules of evidence are semi-independent of the type of case at bar. For example, in Arkansas, we have:

1. Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
3. Rules of Evidence.

In the federal system, you have the:

1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
3. Federal Rules of Evidence.

The Rules of Evidence apply to both civil and criminal actions. There may also be other applicable rules of procedure, statutes, etc., that apply to a specific type of case, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make, which is this: I have seen many posts over the years (in particular in dealing with the handloaded ammo issue) in which a poster will claim something like, "Case X was a murder case, not a self-defense case. It doesn't count." Yes, it counts. The Rule governing the admission of a particular piece of evidence generally remains the same whether we're talking about a criminal case, a negligence case, or a breach of contract case. Typically, it does not matter whether a case was SD or murder. Heck, the only difference between the two may be whether the jury believed the shooter.