TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote:...If I testify in open court...that I INTENDED to shoot the person, doesn't that negate any and all possibility that the shooting was an accident?

No. The way the argument against lighter triggers goes, your claims that the shooting was intentional matters not at all (whether or not you, yourself testify). The plaintiff's ambulance chaser will simply say you're making the whole thing up after the fact to cover up your negligent discharge.

austinrealtor wrote:Not intending to put you on the spot, but do you have some citations from Ayoob or elsewhere of actual cases where the "good guy" shooter's verdict depended upon the pull weight of his trigger, with or without other extenuating circumstances?

There are dozens of pages of discussion on this topic over at GlockTalk, and the link I posted above leads to just one of a number of deep threads on this topic. I do recall some specific legal cases that were cited in those discussions, yes, but you'll have to dig back through the material yourself in order to find them -- once was enough for me, thanks. I went through the material to reach a decision on this that works for me. I make no claim that my decision is right for anyone else but me.

Regards

I hear what you're saying, but with respect, you seem not to have read the text carefully. Look, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. I'm just trying to add value to the discussion by noting that an expert on this topic, who acts as a professional witness to help people like us, and who studies court cases such as these for a living, advises us not to lighten triggers because it provides ammunition to civil plaintiff attorneys -- even though it's inaccurate and unfair for them to make such claims. Your own attorney will do his/her best to counter whatever arguments the plaintiff's ambulance chaser puts forth, of course. Ayoob's advice is to do what you can in advance to minimize the amount of ammunition you hand them should you find yourself in such an unfortunate situation. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether to take that advice or whether the accuracy and speed benefits make it worth it to lighten triggers despite the legal downsides.
Cheers!
PS: I don't recall whether anyone posted this, but Glock is on record saying their reduced weight connector should not be used on defense pistols. It's should be an exception to that statement when the "-" connector is used in conjunction with a NY1 or NY2 trigger spring because net pull weights aren't reduced with that combination (I wrote "should be" because I don't know whether Glock has specifically qualified their remarks with respect to that combination).

This topic has been beaten to death on the GlockTalk.com forums -- lots of good reading there to help each of us make our personal decision. Here's a quote from Massad Ayoob, one of the most noted authorities on such subjects from GlockTalk (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthr ... 474&page=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)...


"The whole debate thing works better if everyone listens to the opposite side's arguments, and actually reads them.

Some here are looking at it from the perspective of shooters talking about Glocks on the Internet. Fair enough...we all ARE exactly that.

However, to grasp the point under discussion, we have to look at it from the perspective of an unscrupulous lawyer trying to manufacture a false case against a law-abiding citizen who intentionally fired in self-defense. Manufacturing a theory of the case that the shooter ACCIDENTALLY fired -- since there is no such thing as a "justifiable accident" -- is the topic of the discussion, and that falsification can be accomplished much more easily if the defendant used a lighter trigger pull than recommended by the manufacturer.

The argument has been presented here, that a light pull may make the shooter less likely to jerk the shot, miss the intended target, and hit a baby in a stroller. Opposing counsel can be expected to argue, "If the defendant knew his competence was so low that without a 'hair trigger' he would miss the criminal and kill a baby, why didn't he realize he was not competent to carry a loaded gun in public at all?"

Light pull advocates, what will your answer be to counter that?

Some, thinking like shooters instead of defendants, say that all you need to do is keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you intend to fire. Opposing counsel can be expected to argue, "We KNOW that's what you were supposed to do, and we're saying you didn't do it. We're saying you made a mistake. Are you telling this jury that you are the first perfect human being incapable of making a mistake?"

Light pull advocates, what will your answer be to counter that?"

CompVest wrote:Civil Practice and Remedies Code: CPRC 83.001 Civil Immunity. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Again, you are assuming that a case was filed against you and that you were acquitted. Even then, anyone can sue anyone for anything, so you're not out of the woods.

I'm not an attorney.

remington79 wrote:I thought they changed the law so if you shot in self defense and it was ruled as such you were protected from civil liability.

You are assuming a case against you was adjudicated and you were acquitted.

For a civilian, it's the civil lawsuit by the perpetrator (or his/her family) and their ambulance chaser which comes after the criminal case, even if the criminal case is dismissed as justifiable. The legal standards are different, and juries are a random variable. You may be totally in the right, yet still not prevail.

10 pages of light bathroom reading on this topic can be found here....

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1259716" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;