Yes. My LC9S' stock trigger is great so I've never felt the need for any trigger changes.I know some people say messing with a carry gun is a NO GO! But Im curious who all carries with a upgraded trigger?
This is an interesting thread. Interesting because as far as I can tell...there aren't any actual lawyers involved in it.
My first cousin was a criminal attorney in Norton, Virginia for years. Licensed to practice in both Virginia and Kentucky, a lot of his cases were argued in Wise County, and in "Bloody" Harlan...where people resolved their differences with guns about as often as not. I picked his brain as much as I could, and he offered several pieces of advice on guns and defensive shootings. I won't list all of them, but one of the things that I remember was that you didn't want to use a gun that had been modified or "enhanced" in any way...that it's best if it's exactly as it was made.
And as a reason, he chuckled and said:
"A prosecutor who has a hint of weakness in his case...or sees a strength in the defense's...will dance an Irish jig and pull rabbits out of hats if he even thinks that it'll sway a jury toward a conviction. Don't give him anything that he can use to root out a rabbit."
Just my 2% of a buck.
Yes that is the anecdotal scenario that is often stated in these conversations. People reference their friends, relatives who are lawyers or Mas Ayoob talking about the risk of an aggressive prosecutor but no one ever posts or sites actual case law. No one ever seems to be able to give examples of trials where this lead to a conviction. Most of the time no one can even sight were that tactic was employed. Did your cousin site actual cases?
He did mention a few that nearly went sideways over "hair triggers" and the use of hollowpoint ammunition...and a couple that actually did...and remember that his jury pool came from a group of people who believe strongly in the right to self defense. I can't cite individual cases. It's been a while, and I didn't ask for specific details anyway.
And he never tried to impeach the belief that a good shoot is a good shoot regardless. Only that certain factors make it more difficult for the defense attorney.
The one thing that he didn't give much credence to is the one about cocking a gun and taking deliberate aim.
It's been about 30 years, so as nearly verbatim as I can do it:
"If you've aimed a gun at another human being and pulled the trigger, whether the gun was cocked or not is the least of your worries."
And, at the end of the day, I only relayed what I was told by someone who had a lot of experience in the venue. What you do with that is up to you. For some few people, an experienced voice doesn't trump what they believe.
I am not saying there is not some truth value here but honestly what you are describing it not a properly modified trigger. A good defensive trigger is not a "hair trigger" and the concept that hollow point ammo was a point of contention throws the entire credibility of the comments into question for me. An experienced voice relayed second hand from a conversation had 30 years ago might not be worth believing. IMHO.
A lot had changed in the last 30 years.
I put "hair trigger" in parenthesis because it would be the term that a prosecutor would use to describe...not because it describes a proper trigger job.
Have you ever witnessed courtroom theatrics? It would go something like this:
"Mr Sig. Would you please explain to the jury why you felt that it was necessary to have a hair trigger on your so-called defensive gun? Was a regular trigger not good enough to kill the decedent with?"
And, boom. He just painted you in a very dark color for the jury. It doesn't matter whether the trigger job is proper or not. Remember that the average jurist learned what he/she knows about guns from watching Law and Order reruns. Things may have changed in 30 years, but juries have not.
He could conceivably make an issue of practicing with your gun.
To wit:
"Mr. Sig. I understand that you practice shooting a lot...and that you use targets that look like people! (With horrified expression for effect) Could you explain that to the jury for me?"
And...boom! He just painted you as a man who fantasizes about killing...and even if your attorney objects...the jury can't unsee that picture. His job is to get a conviction. More convictions look good when he's up for reelection.
Irish jigs and rabbits.
I've always believed that...when faced with a legal question...the wise and prudent course is to heed the lawyer's advice. Or do you believe that a set of Punisher grips would somehow help your case?
I’m not even sure about modifying safeties. Now if you shoot someone by accident, sure. But in a self defense situation, it should not change anything at all. If you intentionally pull the trigger, safeties are irrelevant. Or should be.
Some are, some aren't. The "safety" that requires a mag to be inserted? Boot it out of there.To be clear, I meant that part mainly from a general safety standpoint, not a legal one, per se.
Modifying safeties is, uh, unsafe... ;-)
If you have a justifiable shooting, then the safeties won't matter.
If it’s a good shoot, you pulled the trigger on purpose. Safeties or lack thereof are irrelevant.
I wish that bit of common sense reasoning held some value outside this forum but... oh well. And don't think that saying you meant to shoot the guy can't also be used against you...If it’s a good shoot, you pulled the trigger on purpose. Safeties or lack thereof are irrelevant.
I put "hair trigger" in parenthesis because it would be the term that a prosecutor would use to describe...not because it describes a proper trigger job.
Have you ever witnessed courtroom theatrics? It would go something like this:
"Mr Sig. Would you please explain to the jury why you felt that it was necessary to have a hair trigger on your so-called defensive gun? Was a regular trigger not good enough to kill the decedent with?"
And, boom. He just painted you in a very dark color for the jury. It doesn't matter whether the trigger job is proper or not. Remember that the average jurist learned what he/she knows about guns from watching Law and Order reruns. Things may have changed in 30 years, but juries have not.
He could conceivably make an issue of practicing with your gun.
To wit:
"Mr. Sig. I understand that you practice shooting a lot...and that you use targets that look like people! (With horrified expression for effect) Could you explain that to the jury for me?"
And...boom! He just painted you as a man who fantasizes about killing...and even if your attorney objects...the jury can't unsee that picture. His job is to get a conviction. More convictions look good when he's up for reelection.
Irish jigs and rabbits.
I've always believed that...when faced with a legal question...the wise and prudent course is to heed the lawyer's advice. Or do you believe that a set of Punisher grips would somehow help your case?
This is an excerpt from the Harold fish story, this took place in Arizona not n.c
An overzealous prosecutor used fishs choice of firearm and ammo to get a murder conviction , which was later overturned on appeal, but not before fish and a lot of his family members where driven into financial ruin.
“Fish was grilled about whether the Kimber 10mm was one of the ‘most powerful’ guns that he owned. [Id. 193-94]. He was questioned extensively about the hollow point bullets that he used. [Id. 194-95]. Fish was asked about the impact of a hollow point bullet upon a subject, which admittedly causes the bullet to expand. [Id. 197-98, 257-59]. He was asked about the written training materials that he received when he took a concealed weapons course. [Id. 199-200]. Fish was questioned extensively about the safety mechanism on the 10mm handgun. [Id. 201-202]. He was questioned about whether or not the gun was loaded in the automobile during his drive to northern Arizona. [Id]. None of this evidence was relevant to the self-defense issue.”
Well @John Travis I took your advice and spoke with my local DA yesterday about modified guns and self defense shootings. He stated without hesitation that the gun would have ZERO bearing on you being charged if you shot someone in self defense. Basically he echoed the concept its a good shoot or its a bad shoot. If its a good shoot the gun will never be a consideration. If it is a bad shoot the gun will not play a roll because the other factors that made it a "bad shoot" will have to be strong enough to justify the charge. The weight or smoothness of the trigger is not one of those factors. They are not going CSI on your pistol in the evidence room.
Also we talked about "hair triggers" going off and their roll or increase in liability in a negligent discharge. Here again he said it is not really a factor because the most important part is that the gun went off and you shot someone. You are responsible criminally no matter what kind of trigger it is.
SO after that discussion it seems that maybe its you who has been watching too many Law and Order re-runs and listening to family members who are lawyers spin tall tales...
sheriff's investigators who interviewed Mr fish wrote it up as a self defense shooting, Mr fish called police, stayed and rendered first aid to the dynig man,was cooperative with police but in the end it was the hammering of the prosecutor on Mr fishs choice of weapon and ammunition that helped convict Mr fish, theirs a couple of good podcast and a dateline nbc show floating around the internet that are worth a watch, unless you plan to only carry where the polical climate is gun friendly, why take.a chance on supplying the rope that hangs youIIRC that was back in the early 2000s and the man who Fish shot was unarmed. There was some question on if it was a good shoot. He also talked to the police without council present. The result was inconsistent statements to the police. I also think that at the time there was no stand your ground law in AZ and he did not retreat. Lots of things went sideways for him to get into court. His council again IIRC was not strong. My remembrance of that case was that the somewhat over zealous prosecutor questioned the claim of self defense and did not allow enough testimony on the history of the violent nature of the attacker. Put that together will poor representation, no stand your ground law and an unarmed attacker it was a bit of a perfect storm. I am not saying it could not happen again but I think in terms of our right to defend ourselves we are in better climate than Mr Fish was in.
Also I think the larger point is that you can ask a lot of legal professionals and get a lot of different prospectives based on locality.
He stated without hesitation that the gun would have ZERO bearing on you being charged if you shot someone in self defense.
sheriff's investigators who interviewed Mr fish wrote it up as a self defense shooting, Mr fish called police, stayed and rendered first aid to the dynig man,was cooperative with police but in the end it was the hammering of the prosecutor on Mr fishs choice of weapon and ammunition that helped convict Mr fish, theirs a couple of good podcast and a dateline nbc show floating around the internet that are worth a watch, unless you plan to only carry where the polical climate is gun friendly, why take.a chance on supplying the rope that hangs you
You're cherry-picking.
I never claimed that it would have a bearing on being charged. I said that it could have a bearing on how a jury might view a claim of justifiable self defense if you are charged. A little like a set of "Punisher" grips might look...or how a sign on your door that says: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again" could influence their deliberations. Or how saying to someone that if you caught a thief in your garage, you'd "Blow him away" might come back to haunt you.
Being charged is only part of the problem, and it's only the beginning of your problems. You're tasked with convincing 12 people that you fired because you didn't have a choice. If there's anything...any little thing...that suggests that you were looking for an excuse to shoot somebody probably won't go in your favor.
And likewise any modification made to the gun in order to make it "more deadly" or more accurate in order to insure a precisely placed kill shot.
Things like that can and do sway juries.
And, I only relayed what I was told by an experienced criminal defense attorney...one who has argued multiple dozens of cases before juries.
Mine is the stock trigger from the factory, but the package that I purchased includes an upgraded OEM trigger. I carry a Beretta Px4 compact carry, which is a factory modified version of the Px4 compact.
The last time you posted you made a claim to authority.
How so? I related what I'd been told by an experienced criminal defense attorney, and no more. His advice.
We can argue this point until hell freezes over, but the one thing that I can be sure of is that if and when I'm asked about any modifications made to a weapon to enhance its performance, I can truthfully answer "No" which shuts any further questions about the weapon down. If I answer "Yes" it opens the game to more questions...and more points that have to be explained away...many of which may not be accepted by one or more jurors.
The case involving Harold Fish is a perfect example. If he hadn't used hollowpoint ammunition, he'd probably have gotten a walk.
At the end of the day, in a defensive shoot, a pound or two difference in the trigger...plus or minus...won't make any difference in a confrontation that takes place at 15 feet or less. So, why take the chance?
And if you believe that such an issue can't/won't/shouldn't make a difference...that a good shoot is a good shoot...you may want to ask yourself a question. Given all the recent hysteria...
Scenario 1. You have an armed midnight intruder and you kill him with a single shot with an AR15.
Scenario 2. You have an armed midnight intruder and you kill him with a single shot from a double barrel shotgun.
If you don't believe that the prosecutor will try his best to make an issue of the AR15...even though the shotgun is potentially more lethal...you're deluding yourself. His job is getting you convicted. That's what he does. Serving justice is a secondary concern.
Finally, All I;'ve tried to do here is present a counterpoint, but I've noticed that you don't do well in civil discourse whenever you're opposed on your viewpoints, and get into condescension and backhanded insults rather easily...so I'll stop now.
Regards.
Many concerns voiced in this thread are overstated or entirely unwarranted. A lot of folks are spouting absolute nonsense that is without foundation in fact or law.
Folks, have your trigger jobs, load up with your super duper death ray hollow-points, and don't shoot anyone unless they do something to make you reasonably fear imminent death or serious bodily injury....and you'll be fine. Go forth as good law abiding citizens with the most effective firearms that you can carry.
Well, you're screwed if you ever have to shoot someone in self defense!
Unless you are questioning the reliability of this particular firearm, I am not at all worried about my legal defense using a firearm that has not been modified by me or a gunsmith.