Liability Issues

[dresden]

I have heard the term "Liability Issues" often times together with single action pistol and 1911. What exactly are these issues and to whom do they apply? I am considering a 4" 1911 for ccw, so any and all input is much appreciated!

[Walver]

That's a new one on me, do you live in the U.S.? Unless the assumption that firing a .45 on a BG could take out innocents, but the opposite would be true. A .45 bullet is slow moving compared with .40 or 9mm, especially .357 magnum. It is the safest bullet of all these for home defense or in a populated area with HP ammo. I use a 38 spc. HP in my home by the nightstand. I mainly use that because of my wife being less apt to screw up using a revolver. I also keep a .45 on the stand and if I hear something, I take that, leaving her with a revolver in the bedroom. Maybe this is the angle, ballistics, but not understood. Some people think a .45 is a nuclear cannon or artillery grade weaponry.
Walt

[Richard]

A .45 is like a baseball bat. Swings with a lot of weight and really smacks hard and is only as good as the batter,but it works when you connect

[elijdub]

I have heard the term "Liability Issues" often times together with single action pistol and 1911.
Frankly, single action pistols are far safer, IMHO, than double-actions. 1911's have several additional safety features than the likes of Glocks, etc. The modern Kimber has TWO additional safety features that were not present at it's inception....the thumb safety (as requested/required by the U.S. Government prior to WWI production, IIRC), and the Swartz Firing Pin Safety System.....and used in conjunction with the original safety features of JMB, the gun is very, very safe, IMHO!!!
I'd be curious to know more of what you mean by "liability issues". I believe that the properly built 1911 is one of the safest most reliable guns that exists.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you sure you haven't been hearing the term "RE-liability issues" in regards to autopistols? That IS a common misconception...

[Recon]

dresden:

Are you referring to the liability that arises from someone using a 1911 in an unlawful manner or are your referring to liability from the features, materials or design of the 1911?

[ricochetjim]

It's probably an old concern regarding the possibility of accidental discharge if dropped while cocked and locked. Out of concerns for product liability, in 1983 all of Colt's 1911-type pistols were redesigned internally with a new firing pin safety system. The new setup involved a small plunger located inside the slide to block the firing pin against movement, thus preventing the pistol from discharging accidentally should the pistol be dropped or hit hard while fully loaded with a round in the chamber.

[Frank]

I"m not sure exactly what you mean. "Liability issues" covers an awful lot of ground. We have looked at a number of liability questions, not necessarily related or limited to the 1911.

There have been several threads discussing potential liability with regard to handloaded ammunition. See http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=313& and http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=314&. These thread also discusses issues associated with modifying your weapon, and the last in the list touches on the use of hollow-points: http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=23900&, http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=24030& and http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=25389&. This thread looks at hallow points: http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=11480&.

Hope this helps. Perhaps if you could focus in a little better on your concerns we could provide a more definite answer.

DVC

[wichaka]

A few years back, a local Police Chief wouldn't allow his Officers to carry 1911's. Said they were unsafe etc.

I made him this offer.......

I would take my duty Commander, unload it, cock the hammer and apply the safety. In turn I would give it to him to do what his devious mind could come up with to make the hammer drop. Including.......hitting it with a sledge hammer, running it over, throwing it off the roof of a building etc.

I told him, if the hammer drops, I walk away with a beat up gun and that's that.
But when the hammer doesn't drop, and I told him it wouldn't, I still get my beat up gun, but he has to buy me a new one as well.

He didn't take me up on my offer......

Also remember that one of the first versions of the 1911 offered to the Army for testing didn't have a thumb safety. So JMB knew how safe his offering was!

[Hawkmoon]

The inherent liability issue isn't just with the 1911, it applies to any single action semi-auto. The problem is that the trigger pull is very light compared to double action pistols, leaving one open to charges of either "having a gun with a hair trigger," or negligent discharge due to the "excessively" light trigger pull. This is why, for example, NY City mandates a special, heavier-than-normal trigger for their police issue Glocks. It's called a "NY trigger" for a reason.

The argument can certainly be countered, but if you want to know what the "liability issue" is -- that's it in a nutshell.

[dresden]

Hey everyone, thank you for your prompt posts. To be less ambiguous for those that have asked, I have pulled a few things off the net since the beginning of my quest for an answer.

Wikipedia (ouch, yes i know) has Para-Ordnance in the mix by stating they have created the first double-action only 1911 while "still addressing liability issues of a single action pistol." (thus the start of my thirst for answers) <what liability issues??>

and then second, "http://www.chuckhawks.com/trigger_options.htm" has it posted that "compressed springs or that frightening cocked hammer..." which adds to my confusion. (could a lawyer use this against me??)

Even at the local gunshop, I have purchased 90 grain RBCD blended metal munitions, where the salesman mentioned "liability issues" with me using this over another, and perhaps, less lethal brand. He even went as far as to say that if I used this particular munition, it would be "interesting" if I had to defend myself in a court of law having used this over, say, 230 grain ball ammunition.

I have been informed that it is the lawyers who design our guns and that we are just fortunate enough to take our pick from the competition that arises.
Heaven forbid that I ever have to use my Kimber to defend myself, but in the event that I do, I would like to be ever-ready. Hence my post (and thank you much to those who have responded).

I hope this clears some confusion, including my own. Thanks again.

[John]

In a critical incident, the question will not be "what you shot the bad guy with", but if you were justified to shoot him in the first place. If you are proven justified, then the pistol or the ammo you used is irrelevant. If not, then you have worst problems than what equipment you used.

[Hawkmoon]

and then second, "http://www.chuckhawks.com/trigger_options.htm" has it posted that "compressed springs or that frightening cocked hammer..." which adds to my confusion. (could a lawyer use this against me??)
The fact that a single action should be carried "cocked and locked" is not a liability issue, it is a perception issue. People who do not know or understand anything about guns apparently sometimes see a cocked pistol in a holster and automatically assume that it must be dangerous. This seems to be the reason many police departments do not authorize carrying single action pistols as duty weapons. For concealed, self-defense carry, nobody sees what type of pistol you have or in what mode you carry it, so it's not any issue at all.

And the Para-Ordnance LDA pistols ARE cocked for carry. The mainspring is cocked, but the hammer is down until the trigger is pulled so it doesn't look as frightening to the uninitiated.

[Norton]

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
The idea of liability may stem to either state of mind (modified gun shows intent of usage) or in a civil case bringing someone in with deeper pockets (manufacturer).
The reasoning is to either provide a defense/prosecution in a criminal matter or some how find another party as partially responsible. Someone who is more collectable.

An example would be like the stamped warnings on barrels, a suit that should never happened. Duh.

In our society, the individual is not responsible when they misuse a tool. Some how
it becomes at least in part the tools fault.

Go figure.

That's my two cents.
Norton

[prophet42]

That's a new one on me, do you live in the U.S.? Unless the assumption that firing a .45 on a BG could take out innocents, but the opposite would be true. A .45 bullet is slow moving compared with .40 or 9mm, especially .357 magnum. It is the safest bullet of all these for home defense or in a populated area with HP ammo. I use a 38 spc. HP in my home by the nightstand. I mainly use that because of my wife being less apt to screw up using a revolver. I also keep a .45 on the stand and if I hear something, I take that, leaving her with a revolver in the bedroom. Maybe this is the angle, ballistics, but not understood. Some people think a .45 is a nuclear cannon or artillery grade weaponry.
Walt

I find this amazing, and have run into it myself, people tink I'm some sort of power freak because I carry a .45. Everyone is so conditioned now to 9mm that .45 has obtained this mythical stature especially with the uninformed masses. I cant use .45 at some gov. sites I work cause they only allow 9mm.
But what is the quintessential American pistol round and I cant use it to guard my own country!

Many I have run into think I will have liability issues because I carry a gun bigger than the sheriffs! again uninformed masses. but I have seen lawyers come up with some wild arguments to try and make an honest gun owner look like Hitlers brother!

[MLee]

The fact that a single action should be carried "cocked and locked" is not a liability issue, it is a perception issue. People who do not know or understand anything about guns apparently sometimes see a cocked pistol in a holster and automatically assume that it must be dangerous. This seems to be the reason many police departments do not authorize carrying single action pistols as duty weapons. For concealed, self-defense carry, nobody sees what type of pistol you have or in what mode you carry it, so it's not any issue at all.....
Unfortunately for me and folks in my local area (Central Willamette Valley, Oregon) a local firearms training group preaches that a cocked and locked 1911 is a "liability issue" in court. They suggest that the Glock "safe trigger" or a double action weapon - "that the police use" is less of a liability problem. True or not, if one should get into a discussion in a court room with a local DA or another attorney you would have to dig your way out of the "liability issue".

Mike

[wichaka]

I would press them to make their case as to why it's a liability issue...........make them put up or shut up.

[Hawkmoon]

I would press them to make their case as to why it's a liability issue...........make them put up or shut up.
I agree.

The only way you're going to be in court is if you have to shoot someone. At that point, the liability "issue" doesn't derive from the fact you carried a cocked-and-locked single action pistol, the liability issue derives from the fact that you shot somone. If you act sanely and don't start flapping your gums to the police who respond to the incident, there is no way anyone will know if you carried the pistol in Condition 1, Condition 2, or Condition 3.

Carrying a cocked-and-locked single action does not make you any more or any less "liable" in court. It may give an opposing prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney another argument to support his claim that you should be held liable, but the type of pistol does not in itself create any liability.

[MLee]

I agree.

The only way you're going to be in court is if you have to shoot someone. At that point, the liability "issue" doesn't derive from the fact you carried a cocked-and-locked single action pistol, the liability issue derives from the fact that you shot somone. If you act sanely and don't start flapping your gums to the police who respond to the incident, there is no way anyone will know if you carried the pistol in Condition 1, Condition 2, or Condition 3.

Carrying a cocked-and-locked single action does not make you any more or any less "liable" in court. It may give an opposing prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney another argument to support his claim that you should be held liable, but the type of pistol does not in itself create any liability.

You are preaching to the choir on this one. First, I have no intention of shooting anyone anyway. If I should, heaven forbid, have to defend myself, I would not "flap my gums" to anyone that could be used against me - I would immediately seek counsel from a qualified attorney. The problem is more pointedly that this group has set themselves up with certain members of the community as the "defacto" experts - as some of them are full time sworn officers of the law with local police agencies. The concept that they are promoting is that someone carrying a 1911 in condition one is "looking for trouble" and that the only sane way to carry concealed is using a weapon that is carried by the local police agencies - i.e., predominantly Glocks. A number of the sales personnel in the local toy stores have taken courses with these folks and have accordingly switched from carrying 1911's in condition one, to either Glocks or DA pistols - and have repeated the "warnings" learned in classes with the aforementioned "experts" to their customers. What I have tried to express is that since their "expert" advise has somewhat clouded the mores of the local society, one might be at a disadvantage in a hypothetical situation in court if you were carrying a 1911 rather than the accepted, appropriate personal protection weapon of choice, the ubiquitous Glock. I believe perception is very important in the minds of jurors.

Mike

[DSgt31]

Liability Issues are described in one sentence I will plagiarize from a well known gun trainer:

"Every bullet has a lawyer attached to it."

The "old" advice was to make sure your assailant is "down for the count" as "you only pay once in a wrongful death suit." Possibly true, but a civil lawyer will try to "tear you a new one" if given the chance. Document your practice, attend a well regarded training facility if you can, but more importantly, make the decision to protect yourself and loved ones as most of the time when the police show up, it is too late to help anyone.

I know, I'm a police officer. Unfortunately in a deadly force encounter, you only have ONE chance to make the right decision.

DetSgt31

[Richard]

Texas just passed the "castle law". It went into effect on 09/01/07. IF you are in a shooting that you are "in the right" (self protection, protecting your property, protection someone else) IE: a clean kill, you can not be sued in civil court. Our state govenor pushed this bill through. Before if someone broke into you house and protected yourself or others , you could be sued in civil court by the family of the intruder if you could have exited your own house/property to get away.
BTY- .45 is what I use for the reason it is a slower and fatter. I have neighbors and really don't want to be shooting through their home.

[Frank]

It’s all well and good that some jurisdictions have enacted laws that offer some protection to you if you act in legitimate defense of yourself or another, but who decides if your action was in fact one of legitimate defense – a good shoot. Do you get to decide that? Does the prosecutor have to take your word for it? I don’t think so.

This is, of course, the rub. In real life it may not necessarily be a simple and straight forward matter to demonstrate the elements that will support a claim of legitimate self defense with lethal force or that the circumstances and your actions entitle you to the protections of such laws.

These laws are great, but they’re not a free pass. You may still need to establish that you have satisfied the requirements for the protections they provide.

DVC

[Walver]

Richard, I'm proud of the people in Texas getting that bill through. We have a simular law here in Georgia that carries that theme outside the house. If you percieve your life or the well being of a loved one to be threatened, you are legally able to excersise lethal force. Georgia followed Florida on that, and more states are adopting a version of it. Thanks to the NRA for lobbying and consulting with our State House members in these states. I mean they were literally in there on the floor with these bills, in front of the Committees, to get them through.
Walt

[Walver]

You are right Frank, and sooner or later the new laws will be abused. So far, in Georgia this past year we haven't had any cases questioned like that. That is, I haven't heard of any such cases being questioned. However, I feel we are on the right road forward, and attitudes are slowly being changed about guns. Even my wife, who for 23 years was against them has changed her entire opinion on the subject. One season on the Grand Jury helped to open her eyes. Your advice is well taken about "no free ticket to use lethal force", I do hope nobody would kill, just thinking they are above the law. I'm sure the shooter being intoxicated for example would negate the written law. After the shooting, I guess a lot of what happens is up to the Investigating Officer's perception, and his report.
Walt

[John]

Just a gentle reminder that we shouldn't let this discussion degrade into politics.

Thanks

[Rich-D]

You are preaching to the choir on this one. First, I have no intention of shooting anyone anyway. If I should, heaven forbid, have to defend myself, I would not "flap my gums" to anyone that could be used against me - I would immediately seek counsel from a qualified attorney. The problem is more pointedly that this group has set themselves up with certain members of the community as the "defacto" experts - as some of them are full time sworn officers of the law with local police agencies. The concept that they are promoting is that someone carrying a 1911 in condition one is "looking for trouble" and that the only sane way to carry concealed is using a weapon that is carried by the local police agencies - i.e., predominantly Glocks. A number of the sales personnel in the local toy stores have taken courses with these folks and have accordingly switched from carrying 1911's in condition one, to either Glocks or DA pistols - and have repeated the "warnings" learned in classes with the aforementioned "experts" to their customers. What I have tried to express is that since their "expert" advise has somewhat clouded the mores of the local society, one might be at a disadvantage in a hypothetical situation in court if you were carrying a 1911 rather than the accepted, appropriate personal protection weapon of choice, the ubiquitous Glock. I believe perception is very important in the minds of jurors.

Mike

My experience and opinion is completely different from yours. I was the head of a city's major crime unit which included all crimes of violence in one of the most violent cities in the country, Camden NJ. And a survivor of seven major gun incidents, three in another State after I retired. The last incident occurred April 4th 2007.

First, as an LEO when a person who shot or killed someone refused to inform me of the facts concerning a shooting, they were charged and I relied on the courts to figure it out. They may be charged as a material witness or obstructing justice or the shooting itself. I based the charges on the facts that I had available. Knowing that, when I retired in another State and was involved in shootings, I cooperated fully, as I had nothing to hide. I was never charged, sued or represented by an attorney. Nor were my guns held longer then the day the trial ended.

In so far as the condition that a gun was carried in. As long as a gun was legal, and utilized in a lawful manner, I never heard a word in a court room or read in a police report one word concerning the manner in which a gun was carried. In the process of cross examination, the defense may only examine the facts that you presented to the prosecutor on examination. So their discovery is limited. Don't answer questions outside of your testimony, just give the prosecutor a glare and he'll object if he didn't do so already. Unless you bring it up, It would be impossible for the defense to discover the facts of your method of carry. A successful result in the criminal trail and a civil suit is highly unlikely to be filed and even less likely to succeed.

When you are the victim or witness in a crime and lawfully use a deadly weapon, it is the prosecutors responsibility to represent you, You are not permitted to have your attorney represent you in a criminal trial unless you are the one charged.

If by chance you plead the 5th Amendment against self incrimination, Then you are saying, I don't want to incriminate myself. Which means that you do have something to hide. The 5th works only if the police do not have enough to charge you. However we are discussing the use of a deadly weapon. Plead the 5th, do not pass go, go directly to jail.

Glock, Sig, and Berretta have made a business of selling double action guns. They train the police trainers who have absorbed the company sales pitch of safer, less libel, more reliable etc, etc. And they pass it on in their training.

However, I am not falling in line with that manner of thought as I know better and I hope to impart the facts to this membership.

I am adding one caveat to the above if you do decide to take the most cautious position. Extemporaneous remarks may be used against you (Words blurted out without a question asked) However responding to investigative questioning may not, unless you are read your rights. If you are read your rights, it is the proper time to call an attorney.


Rich

[Walver]

Thanks Rich, that's useful information for all of us. I feel your experience on this subject makes you qualified as an expert. Thank you again for the advice, I'm one that has a hard time keeping my mouth shut and will heed your advice. Now, I do hope I never need it. :)

[tonka]

Every bullet that exits your pistol's barrel is ridden by a lawyer, and the "clean shoot" is as ethereal as the "one shot stop." Know your local laws, which local attorneys are sympathetic to self defense issues, and be prepared to give all your time and treasure to same. Consider the possibility of being cleared in your criminal case, just to tried again in civil court. This IS a fine group of folks, and the insights gained here are quite valuable, but just like you shouldn't pack your Rohm-Gesellschaft .22 into a gunfight, you shouldn't rely on any of our kind words to guide you through a legal proceeding.

[Rich-D]

Every bullet that exits your pistol's barrel is ridden by a lawyer, and the "clean shoot" is as ethereal as the "one shot stop." Know your local laws, which local attorneys are sympathetic to self defense issues, and be prepared to give all your time and treasure to same. Consider the possibility of being cleared in your criminal case, just to tried again in civil court. This IS a fine group of folks, and the insights gained here are quite valuable, but just like you shouldn't pack your Rohm-Gesellschaft .22 into a gunfight, you shouldn't rely on any of our kind words to guide you through a legal proceeding.

While I believe that my experience amounts to more than a "Rohm-Gesellshaft .22 in a gunfight", nor is my previous post comparable to mere "kind words". It is everyone's choice to either consider advice or reject it. I have made a number of clean shootings, and investigated a number of clean shooting. I have arrested and charged those that refused to cooperate in the aftermath of a shooting. And I did not charge those that cooperated in defensive shootings. And as a Union President I have given the same advice to Officers involved in a shooting.

If you shoot someone, then try to utilize an Amendment whose sole purpose to to protect you from "self incrimination" then you should as you state, referring to an Attorney "be prepared to give all your time and treasure to same"

Stymie the investigation and the very least that will occur is a Grand Jury inquest. Wherein a Defense Attorney is not permitted in the courtroom to defend you. Most jurisdictions only permit you to send notes to an Attorney who must wait outside of the Courtroom and you in turn may read his reply. The Grand Jurors view such events in a very poor light. And it only takes a majority of votes to indite you. But you could always plead the 5th which means you have information that would incriminate you. And as the police have a victim and a shooter they have an arrest warrant.

An investigative agency in a shooting has the duty, means and authority to bring to a successful conclusion a shooting incident where the doer is known to them. Which means either convince the agency that you acted in self defense or be charged.

Further, If you are aware of a case where a civilian shooting in self defense deemed lawful by an investigative agency ended in the person being successfully sued in Civil Court. Please inform me, as I will add it to my lesson plan.

However in a life or dead situation, ones mind should not be muddled with fear of civil suit. Nor should one lack the knowledge of the laws when engaging in deadly force. If you operate within the law, there should be no need to invoke your 5th Adm. rights to an Attorney and paint yourself as a person with facts to hide.

It's my opinion, laced with fact, it worked for me and many others. I've also witnessed the flip side where invoking the 5th caused immediate charges to be filed.



Rich

[Morrisey]

Concerns over liability result in things such as frangible rounds (which in some cases have been stopped by a perpetrator's heavy winter outerwear). It is possible to literally question yourself to death -- because if you hesitate when you should be reacting, you are giving the bad guy time to make you a dead guy. Train, practice, and then employ those skills. That's the best anyone can do. And if you wind up in court afterward, at least you are alive.

Tom

[Hawkmoon]

Rich-D, as a retired officer and former union head, can you confirm what I have always "heard," that officers who have been involved in a shooting are advised not to give a statement until they've had a night to think it over, and have an attorney with them when they meet with the team from the department that writes up the incident? I believe even Ayoob sets that out as being departmental SOP, and if all officers are instructed to wait rather than make a binding statement on the scene, I would assume that the investigators also view that as SOP and are willing to allow their fellow officer the time to gather him/herself together before pressing him/her with questions.

So if that's the case for officers, why would officers automatically think that a private citizen who wishes to do exactly the same thing must have something to hide?

[Rich-D]

Hawkmoon, It has not been my experience that an Officer be permitted a night to think things over after the use of deadly force. When an incident occurs the Officers on the scene and the Officers arriving in it's aftermath are required to file a report as soon as possible, and no later than being relieved from that shifts duty.

If an Officer is given his or her rights, he/she may invoke the right to not incriminate themselves. However they will most certainly be subject to termination proceedings on an Administrative level, unless the Officers action is covered by a binding contract, established protocol or State law..

In so far as an Officer being able to communicate with union reps prior to filing a police report or during responses to initial investigative inquires, it would be a matter of written contract, protocol or State law. I would like to hear from Departments that have a written contract, protocol, or a State law that permits the Officer not to respond to his Supervisors or initial Investigators inquiries concerning the use of deadly force or that provide an Officer a night to think it over.



Rich

[tonka]

Rich-

Excellent points. I guess I should have made the tone of my post more along the lines of "trust the pros," of which you are clearly one. I did not mean to challenge you or anyone else with real, solid experience in these matters.

My comments were tempered somewhat by the plight of a friend who killed a man in self-defense, faced a jury, was acquitted, then was informed that the decedant's family would be suing on the basis of Wrongful Death, a la Goldman vs. Simpson. That act of this drama has yet to play out, and surely my friend is no O.J. Echoing your comments, he has stated that he'd do the same thing again if faced with the same threats (before and after the shooting.)

I'm heartened by the lack in this forum of the "shoot the intruder and drag him back into the house" crowd, but those guys still manage to be heard. They're scarier than the crackheads!

[Rich-D]

Rich-

Excellent points. I guess I should have made the tone of my post more along the lines of "trust the pros," of which you are clearly one. I did not mean to challenge you or anyone else with real, solid experience in these matters.

My comments were tempered somewhat by the plight of a friend who killed a man in self-defense, faced a jury, was acquitted, then was informed that the decedant's family would be suing on the basis of Wrongful Death, a la Goldman vs. Simpson. That act of this drama has yet to play out, and surely my friend is no O.J. Echoing your comments, he has stated that he'd do the same thing again if faced with the same threats (before and after the shooting.)

I'm heartened by the lack in this forum of the "shoot the intruder and drag him back into the house" crowd, but those guys still manage to be heard. They're scarier than the crackheads!

The fact that your friend faced a Jury whose decision is based on the weight of the evidence being Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, may not assist him in a Civil Suit wherein the Preponderance of Evidence is the deciding factor. In other words the evidence is placed on a scale and if one side outweighs the other, that side prevails.

The fact that your friend was charged criminally, gives an Attorney the thought that there is an inherent weakness in your friends utilization of deadly force.

My point is don't get charged in the first place and a Civil Suit is highly unlikely. And if one is filed it is even less likely to succeed.

A formula for not being charged is to act only in self defense of yourself or another and to cooperate with the investigating authority while displaying a reserved confidence in your action.



Rich

[Frank]

+1 Rich-D

DVC

[Iron bottom]

Does the name nifong ring a bell with anybody? Having money and good lawyers goes a long way in these judicial matters.

[Scuba Diver]

A number of web sites that sell new pistol grips have sets made of Ivory polymer with engraved designs of the Grim Reaper or the Punisher skull in scrimshaw style. I would think that someone who purchases these grips for their carry weapon is going to find it difficult at best to explain a pre-incident mind set regarding the use of lethal force?

[Frank]

I agree Scuba Diver. Embellishments like Punisher skull grips do not help you present yourself the way you'd want to present yourself if you need to use lethal force.

DVC

[Walver]

iron bottom - The name means something to me, but I can't relate it on this forum; I think he deserved what he got. :)
Walt

[Rich-D]

I agree with Frank and Scuba diver. Grips that embellish sinister symbols like skulls & crossbones, spiders, nazi symbols etc, will most certainly prejudice a Judge or Jury. And the more pronounced the symbol, the more likely the negative impact.


Rich

[Mannlicher]

If you have made the decision to arm yourself, your main concern should be your skill level, and your ability to function in a time of stress. The most important aspect is safety, knowing what to shoot, and when. Second is accuracy, third is load and platform, and last, liability.
I hire a lawyer to handle any possible legal problems, but I am on my own if the chips are down, and a decision needs to be made in an instant.

[Rich-D]

If you have made the decision to arm yourself, your main concern should be your skill level, and your ability to function in a time of stress. The most important aspect is safety, knowing what to shoot, and when. Second is accuracy, third is load and platform, and last, liability.
I hire a lawyer to handle any possible legal problems, but I am on my own if the chips are down, and a decision needs to be made in an instant.


What, no cell phone to call and get permission from the attorney prior to shooting! :D :D :D

On a serious note, +1 on the post!


Rich

[rondawg]

I agree with Frank and Scuba diver. Grips that embellish sinister symbols like skulls & crossbones, spiders, nazi symbols etc, will most certainly prejudice a Judge or Jury. And the more pronounced the symbol, the more likely the negative impact.


Rich

OK, what about Crimson Trace laser grips (or similar)? Could having those on your carry gun possibly create a liability or put you in a bad light? I put them on because I thought they would help to insure a good hit in an emergency situation, rather than a possible miss because I couldn't see or use the sights. If I could get crucified for them, I'll take 'em off!

[Frank]

A zealous prosecutor will try to crucify you for anything he thinks will work, including, if he thinks it will resonate with a jury, how you part your hair and what you had for breakfast the morning of the "event." The question is really whether the risk is acceptable in light of any true advantage you may gain.

I can't see that sinister stocks can offer any practical advantage at all, so why accept any risk that may be associated with using them. And personally, I can't see that I gain any material advantage from hand loaded ammunition or pinning a grip safety or certain other modification to the gun, so why expose myself to any associated risk.

On the other hand, some folks have hypothesized that the use of JHP bullets could be held against you. Others have suggested that private citizens who engage in "action" pistol, combat like, competition (IPSC or IDPA) or receive professional training, could be deionized as demonstrating a disposition for violence and looking upon "gunfighting" as a game -- in other words, we're anti-social gun nuts. But as to these theoretical risks, in my view I gain enough advantage from using factory ammunition loaded with JHP bullets, and from training and engaging in "action" competition, that any any such theoretical risks are worth it.

As far as lasers are concerned, I haven't decide yet whether they offer me enough advantage. However, I did discuss the subject with some of my instructors when I was last at Gunsite. They were all sporting CT laser grips on their sidearms (1911s carried condition 1), and they felt that they could be very useful in some situations.

DVC

[Rich-D]

OK, what about Crimson Trace laser grips (or similar)? Could having those on your carry gun possibly create a liability or put you in a bad light? I put them on because I thought they would help to insure a good hit in an emergency situation, rather than a possible miss because I couldn't see or use the sights. If I could get crucified for them, I'll take 'em off!

I have been utilizing CT laser grips on my main carry guns since they first came out. I don't see any legal disadvantage, in fact they may be a legal plus. As you state you are less likely to miss your intended target. I have been involved in several incidents where my gun was utilized and no officer or defense attorney ever challenged the use of the laser.


Rich

[Reconvic]

I keep a folder of all the training I ever had on firearms and safety courses.
Just as Frank said even a good shoot can become a civil legal nightmare with a zealous prosecutor. I have a set of CT on my SIG 220 which to be honest I almost never use, I can't see where it would stand in a courtroom. On my carry guns I try and keep them close to stock, but most of all make sure you have a good shoot. I also shoot IDPA and steel matches as well as using the simulator 2000 to see and correct any conditions where I may have been wrong. Always keep a Lawyer on retainer just in case.

[Scuba Diver]

Mannlicher,

You are absolutely correct in your triage of the skills and responsibility concerned with self protection, no one has implied anything less than that. However, the considerations of what may arise legally from the actions of self protection and a third parties interpretation of our overall actions and attitudes concerning firearms are no less important.

We acquires the skills to drive an automobile, then apply for a license to practice rules of responsibility to drive the vehicle. While that's all good, we still acquire automobile insurance to protect ourselves in anticipation of not what will absolutely happen but rather what might happen?

Thinking through fine details like the impressions we convey in so simple a manner as the grips we select may go to lesson complications that possibly could arise from others uneducated opinions of our actions? An act of self protection from the person being victimized is far clearer than they will appear to a third party not present who may sit in judgement? The Grim Reaper image on handguns grip is subject to varied interpretation, I would prefer that the question not arise as to what the image specifically means on my firearm in the first place?

Certainly of less importance than the skills you mention but nevertheless part of the package of responsible actions or attitudes or the simple conveyance to others what may or may not be my mind set?

I have carried a firearm for the better part of 25 years and understand as well as anyone the implications, if I was to see the Grim Reaper on another's grip no matter how illogical or incorrect, my first impression would be "Wyatt Earp". Then I would examine the facts of the shooting.

[Rich-D]

Reconvic, I can not perceive any reason why a product that enhances target acquision would be a negative in a Court Room. Nor can I find in my legal search engine any case where use of a laser by a legally armed citizen was a factor weighed by a Judge or Jury.


Rich

[rondawg]

Good to hear! I didn't want to sell my laser grips!

[Rich-D]

Good to hear! I didn't want to sell my laser grips!

Sell did you say! Well now, I could be wrong! I'll take them nasty liability laden grips off your hands for 10 cents on the dollar.



Just kidding, :p

Rich

[rondawg]

I DO wish they'd fit my Compact, since that's what I carry now.

[Mannlicher]

If a shooting is righteous, you are in all likelihood, going to be OK. If your popping the cap was questionable, the style of your grips is the least of your concerns.
I have always felt that some folks spend way too much time, and even compromise their ability to survive, worrying about what some bunch of lawyers are going to do (maybe) or what a jury will think (maybe).
My first concern will always be to survive the event at hand. The bad guy WILL kill you. The 'zealous prosecutor' may or may not trump your attorney.
Awarness, training, practice, skill, and mindset are what will save you. What you carry as your gun, or in your gun or on your gun is a very minor aspect.

[Frank]

Mannlicher, I stand by my comments. If someone wants to in some way embellish his gun, or do something else, in a way that provides no material advantage but would allow a prosecutor to impugn his character or paint him as having a fascination with, or propensity for, violence, that's his decision. Personally, I think it's a lousy trade off.

Remember that whether or not a shooting is justified is not always obvious. It may well become your burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the factors that permit you to use lethal force in self defense, i. e., that you were reasonably in fear of being killed or grievously injured. This can place your perception, state of mind and disposition in issue.

In assessing the reasonableness of your perceptions, and the threshold question of your credibility, your character and personality become an issue. Will you be seen as a level headed, rational, participating member of the community or as a trigger happy, paranoid Rambo wannabe with a disposition for violence? Will you be seen as "mainstream" or "fringe"?

Sometime I think that we all spend too much time hanging out with like minded folks -- shooters and gun hobbyists. We tend to forget how some ordinary folks see the world.

However, it's been my experience that I give some of my non-shooting acquaintances the willies. I know that they are troubled that I think and talk about some of the things we discuss on these Forums -- like shooting people and wound channels and training to fight with guns, etc. This is very troubling stuff to a whole lot of folks out there. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. A lot of people aren't real comfortable with us. Remember the sheep, sheepdog and wolf model. The sheep don't much like the sheepdog because he's too much like the wolf.

Ordinarily I don't care what people think of me. But when some of those people are going to be deciding if I go to jail or go home, I do begin to care. And some of those people may have doubts about whether private citizens ought to be able to have guns in the first place.

So I want those folks to think well of me. I want them to see me as being largely like them – a good, honest, regular guy. So why do something like put “Kill them all and let God sort it out” grips on my gun, or something else similarly well calculated to make these good folks who may be deciding my fate look upon me as a “gun nut” freak – especially when my mindless act of self-expression does me absolutely no good in a fight.

In theory, if the shoot is righteous, the grips on your gun would be irrelevant. But it may well be that effectively Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was righteous.

DVC

[Hawkmoon]

But it may well be that effectively Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was righteous.
Time for a rousing chorus of that old Everly Brothers favorite:

Peggy Sue, Peggy Sue

Oh how my heart yearns for you

Oh Peggy,

Mah Peggy Sue oo-ooh, oo-oo-ooh, ooh

I don't think I want her sittin' on MY jury, thank you.

[twin oaks]

Time for a rousing chorus of that old Everly Brothers favorite:
Okay folks, it's official- hearing protection during practice sessions is optional . . . .though no longer recommended.:D

[Tom]

Time for a rousing chorus of that old Everly Brothers favorite
Great. Now I have an earworm. Thanks, Hawkmoon. :p

[tonka]

Hawk, that was Buddy Holly.

[Hawkmoon]

Hawk, that was Buddy Holly.
:doh:

You're right, of course. How could I possibly have messed that up?

[twin oaks]

Tome deafness?

[Tom]

You're right, of course. How could I possibly have messed that up?
Havening a senior moment?

[Rich-D]

:doh:

You're right, of course. How could I possibly have messed that up?

You probably had the song, "Wake up a little Suzie" in you mind!


Rich

[DSgt31]

Liability issues generally mean nothing more than what a pond bottom living lawyer can dream up.

Basically, if the weapon is designed to operate a certain way and you REMOVE certain features or equipment such as a grip safety or have the grip safety "pinned back", that may be called a liability issue.

However, if the weapon is modified to enhance accuracy and reliability to a point where accidental/negligent discharges are reduced to near zero (How that is done is beyond me) and to make the weapon more user friendly without sacrificing safety should be acceptable.

Remember, every time that weapon is fired in anger, a lawyer is attached to each bullet. Lawyers will attempt to first show (generally) that the discharge was either accidental or negligent, in order to sock your insurance in some way, shape, or form. Absent that, if they cannot prove negligence or accident, then the emphasis will be that the shooter intentionally wanted to kill the "victim."

It is one thing to survive a gunfight. It is totally another to survive the potential criminal investigation, and if "cleared", it is another totally different thing to survive a civil lawsuit and prevail.

The general standard or "burden of proof" in a criminal proceeding is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Let's remove "reasonable doubt" and put in "shadow of a doubt" as prosecutors in general will not charge what cannot be proven, however, there are some notable exceptions.

In a civil proceeding, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" generally. That means if you can show a judge or jury to a level of say 51% what you did is correct, you win. However, plaintiff's attorneys will always stack the deck in their favor. A civil court proceeding is anything but "civil."
The plaintiff's attorney(s) will just love to grill folks for protecting themselves from their innocent client. Do not stand for it. Find a lowlife attorney of your own who will fight just as hard for you. It will cost you $$$, however, what is the price of your freedom and good name?

[tonka]

DSgt makes some points that I tried to make earlier in this thread, and does so somewhat more clearly than I.

In related news, I mentioned that a friend of mine was involved in what was clearly a "clean" shooting, but his local prosecutor came after him anyway. My pal was exonerated, but the decedant's family tried to extract some wergild from the situation. They have dropped their case and gone away, as of last Friday. But lets examine what really happened:

-My friend is free, has lost none of his rights, and may return to his life now. Certain sectors of society still consider him a villain, and he will have to watch his six for the forseeable future.

-The plaintiff in the civil action may or may not stay quiet. Time will tell.

-Last, and most disheartening, two legal firms got a whole bunch of billable hours for work performed on a case that should never have seen the light of day.

I wish I could share more details of the case, but I have given my word I would not until/unless my friend turns me loose to do so. I will, and may, say this much; be careful what you say to the investigating officer, and be VERY polite when you refuse to incriminate yourself.

[DSgt31]

Tonka,

Sorry your friend had to go through that. Prosecutors are humans also, and most of them but not all, absolutely despise civilians (and in some cases police officers) using deadly force to resolve a life or death matter.

Prosecutors are also politicians, political animals of the highest and possibly worst order. Some nefarious prosecutors attempt to stack the deck in their favor, see Nifong in the Duke University alleged rape case. In some unusual circumstances, prosecutors are caught in the act and hung out to dry, again see Nifong in the Duke University case.

The larger the city, the more liberal and right leaning the prosecutor(s) may be. That is why proper training not only on the range, but case specific to your state or area LEGAL training is also needed. Sure, you may have to pay an attorney for an hour or so of his/her time, however, is the investment worth it? It may be.

Of course, if you live where I do, I could be a better attorney than most. I'm not bragging, but there are moron attorneys just like there are moron doctors. The bad thing is, both doctors and lawyers get paid if they are right or not.

Caveat Emptor