for those who carry glocks

[CompVest]

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.

[A-R]

TAM, I definitely understand your point of view (and no this is not meant to be another tongue in cheek Glock vs. 1911 tit-for-tat - being serious here). I felt that way for a long time and carried my Glock box stock for a decade.

But through my own experience and discussing triggers and safety etc with many many folks (including many wonderfully knowledgeable folks on this forum) I've come to the conclusion that keeping that booger hook off the bang switch is the A-number-1 most important safety feature of any gun. Everything else is just some degree of window dressing.

Certainly having an extra external manual safety (like a 1911 thumb safety) does help, but something you said above always gives me pause: This idea that a 1911 owner could accidentally hit the trigger and not have an ND because the manual thumb safety prevents it. I can't remember who first said this, but seems it is written in every gun manual I've ever read "Never rely on a mechanical safety"; put another way: follow the four rules - ALWAYS. I think I remember one of your posts a while back in which you'd carried one of your 1911s all day and realized upon taking it out of holster at end of day that at some point the mechanical safety had been switched off, unbeknownst to you. What if you'd accidentally hit the trigger that day?

My point is, while external safeties and stiffer triggers can provide an extra level of safety, none of them will fully overcome the OOPS mistake of having your finger inside the trigger guard when it's not supposed to be. In some ways this all comes down to training, muscle memory, and even the user's own capacity for constant vigilance and adherence to the four rules.

In terms of a Glock trigger, I don't honestly think the difference between the stock trigger (about 5.5 lbs I believe) and the addition of the 3.5 connector (which actually only reduces trigger pull to 4.5 lbs) is going to make a huge difference in avoiding an ND. If your finger (or some other object like a retention strap) is inside the trigger guard when some amount of force is exerted on the gun, it's gonna go bang whether the trigger pull weight is 5.5 or 4.5 lbs. But a Glock can be set up to have a trigger as light as the lightest competition 1911 (without a thumb safety) or as heavy as a stock double-action revolver, and just about everything in between. The variance between a 2-lb hair trigger and a 10-lb NY-2 trigger IS more significant. On Glock race guns with true hair triggers down in the 2-lb range, I definitely see your argument and would never run such a trigger on a defensive gun. And I do believe that an 8-lb or 10-lb trigger like you get from the NY-1 and NY-2 trigger springs could help a bit avoiding ND problems, but those problems only occur in the first place if you've already broken the rules and placed a finger inside the trigger guard. And the heavier trigger greatly reduces my accuracy.

I don't run 8-lb or heavier triggers on my semi-auto guns because I have NEVER been able to adequately overcome the rapid degredation of my accuracy when pulling a heavy trigger (this is why personally I dislike DA/SA semi-autos like Sigs and older metal-frame S&Ws, though otherwise they are fantastic firearms). At the same time, I don't prefer to rely on a thumb safety like a 1911 (even though I love that gun design) because the only two NDs I've had in my entire life are from 1911-pattern guns. But also because every gun (striker-fired semi-autos and double-action revolvers) I own lacks a manual safety, and using such a gun for carry would require learning a new battery of arms, new muscle memory, etc. For this same reason - in opposite direction - I think it's great that S&W offers thumb safeties on the M&P series so that folks who're used to the 1911 battery of arms can feel comfortable sliding right into that weapon system.

As with most things outside the Four Rules (which should be chiseled in stone), I think a lot of this comes down to personal preference and the end user knowing his/her own tendencies and comfort level. If a thumb safety makes you feel safer, by all means buy guns with thumb safeties and use them. Me personally, I feel very safe with my slightly altered Glocks, which are always carried in holsters that fully cover the trigger guard and don't have extraneous retention devices that could lodge into the trigger guard. I prefer the simplicity of draw, acquire, fire (without that extra step of "drop safety") - just works best for me - and my triggers, while about a pound lighter than stock, just feel better to me - my reason for using them has more to do with overall feel of the full trigger press/reset than merely pull weight.

As for legal consequences, I fully understand why many law enforcement agencies go with stock or heavier Glock triggers to try to reduce overall liability. Afterall they have dozens, hundreds, even thousands of officers of varying skill levels to worry about. I only have to worry about me. And for me personally, I don't really worry about legal consequences of a slightly modified trigger. I'm not a cop. I don't go chasing after bad guys, gun in hand etc. If I'm going to be hung out to dry for altering one part in a gun to make the trigger feel a bit better, which helps me shoot SAFER and MORE ACCURATELY then so be it. My goal is to never discharge my weapon at another human being. Ever. But if I ever have to discharge my weapon toward another human being, it will be to save a life - mine or someone elses. As long as I shoot accurately and only hit the bad guy, I'll fend off any other spurious claims as best I can. If I must shoot, I'd rather hit my target with a gun I'm comfortable shooting than miss with a trigger that is too heavy for my personal preference.

Anyway, I've spent WAY over my $0.02 allottment on this long-winded diatribe. TAM, as always no ill will intended at all - much respect for you

[MostlyHarmless]

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.

[MostlyHarmless]

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.

[MostlyHarmless]

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?"

[A-R]

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.

"I most certainly DID intend to shoot [the bad guy]. He threatened to kill me and my children and had an axe in his hands. When he raised the axe and moved toward us, I raised my Glock and fired two controlled shoots into his chest - just like I've been training to do for years. Upon receiving the two gunshot wounds, center mass, the attacker fell backwards and the threat to our lives was over, so I moved my children to a safe area and called 911, asking for an ambulance and police response ASAP"

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?

"As for my competency ... I didn't miss, did I? I hit what I aim at. Just like I normally do at the range, at IDPA competition etc. I adjusted the trigger on my Glock so that it felt good to me, was smooth and easy to properly manipulate - thus making it easier for me to hit my intended target, which I did in this case. This was no accident, I purposely fired both rounds at the bad guy to stop his unlawful attempted use of deadly force against me and my children.

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?"

First of all, it's a gross over-statement to label anyone who carries a gun with a less-than-stock trigger as a "light pull advocate" . There are varying degrees to this (as with most things). Simple answer to all of the above is, assuming I have a good lawyer, I'll answer in the way my lawyer counsels me to. But for the sake of this internet discussion, I gave the above answers. The answer to the last part - again - is "I did not make a mistake, I intentionally fired two rounds into the bad guy's chest to stop his unlawful use of deadly force against me and my children. If you have proof that I didn't intend to shoot him, please present it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole you overpaid weasel! "

(OK, I probably wouldn't say the last part )

[MostlyHarmless]

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).

[A-R]

I appreciate what you're trying to do. Which text did I not read carefully, in your opinion? It seems to me the argument you're putting forth is that a prosecutor or plaintiff attorney would use a lightened trigger to claim I accidentally shot someone. If I testify in open court (OK, sure that's a risk because my lawyer may not want me on the stand at all) that I INTENDED to shoot the person, doesn't that negate any and all possibility that the shooting was an accident? Again, I understand that there are all sorts of varied possibilities that may or may not add up to a clean shoot where you'd want to say "Yes, I intended to shoot him." But, IMHO, that becomes a whole other matter entirely - if we're discussing a situation where you may or may not be involved in a "clean shoot", then you have much bigger problems than the pull weight of your trigger. And if an attorney is trying to make up an "accidental shooting" claim out of thin air, seems he needs more to go on than "he had a hair trigger on the gun." Now the argument that a hair trigger = a gun nut. OK, maybe that's an "easier" claim to throw up and see if it sticks (after all, we're all gun nuts in the minds of many libtards because - well - we own guns, silly - so of course we're gun nuts). But I doubt a Texas jury buys such rubbish unless there are other aspects of you or the case that also point toward some gun nut/vigilante characterture.

Of note is that Ayoob lives/works primarily in the northeastern United States, if I'm not mistaken, and a judge/jury and opposing counsel have a whole different set of morals regarding self defense up there. I don't foresee a true jury of my Texas peers buying the light trigger argument so easily.

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?

[MostlyHarmless]

...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.

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

[srothstein]

A justified shoot is a justified shoot.
If you were justified, it doesn't matter what trigger setup you had/have. If you weren't, you can have a 100 lb trigger and you're still in trouble.

For all of us thats a no brainer, but if your in court I doubt you will have 12 txchlforum members on the jury and thats the issue. All they have to say to the jury is your handgun had a custom "hair trigger" in your gun and paint you out to be some gun freak just wanting to shoot someone. Just something to think about considering the times. Even if you were "justified".

I'm saying it won't go to court. A justified shoot won't get passed a Grand Jury. There would be no trial. What am I missing?

There is an old saying that a DA can get a ham sandwich indicted if he wants to. I know of at least two justified shoots that went to full trials because the DA wanted it. One was the man in Austin who followed the car burglar and shot him when he turned to attack. The other was an off duty police officer in San Antonio who shot some gang members who were vandalizing his house at night. IIRC both individuals were acquitted at trial.

The important thing to remember is that a grand jury is a single sided system. The DA gets to present his case but there is no law mandating the defense is given a chance also. It is very possible that a good shoot will end up in a real trial.

As I was typing, I remembered others, like Joe Horn and the first CHL involved in a shooting after a minor accident, but I don't recall all of the details of those. I am sure there are many others.

[srothstein]

Ask gigag04 (I think it was him) if he ever accidentally "shot" a training partner in the back of the head with simunitions during the stress of a training drill when he inadvertently squeezed the trigger without meaning to. (Am I remembering that correctly?)

I think it was GigAg04 that posted that, but I am not sure so I will post my embarrassing story of something similar also. "How I shot a training officer" or "How I learned to make sure my finger was not on the trigger".

I was going through the SAPD academy and we were learning to search buildings for burglars. At the time, we carried S&W model 65 revolvers for duty weapons. The academy did a very thorough and careful search for safety reasons before starting the exercise, and I turned out to be one of the reasons why. The revolvers were empty, not even blanks allowed for this exercise. We used an old storage building at the police union complex for practice and other officers for role players. We got the call for burglars in action and had to search the building for the suspects. We were not told for sure if anyone was in the building or how many, and the witness just gave a very vague description of "I saw men trying to break in this door."

The academy taught us to use the revolver in double action mode only, which gave it a pretty stiff trigger pull. We used the "third eye" position for searching, where the revolver was held tight in the center of the stomach with both hands and was kept pointing at whatever you looked at (after all, you won't see a threat from any direction but where you are looking, right?). I started the search and was about halfway through one of the large rooms, walking along the wall on my right side. As I got to the pillar that stuck out, the suspect (Det. Dan Pierdolla) suddenly stepped out at me, threw his hands in the air, and yelled "Don't Shoot, I give up." I don't think he had gotten all the way through the word "shoot" before he, I, and the instructor evaluating my performance heard the loudest click I had ever heard. Yep, the hammer falling on an empty cylinder can be as loud as a magnum round going off when you hear it at the wrong time.

I had not even realized my finger was on the trigger, and I thought I had known better. Of course, back then, SAPD ran an academy very much along the lines of military basic training and I was being yelled at by several academy staff members very quickly. I certainly was embarrassed at the time and learned a lot in that incident. The only thing that made me feel any better was when Dan came over afterward and said not to worry too much. Almost every officer he had done that too had the same reaction. It was his way of ensuring we knew not to put the finger on the trigger at the wrong time. And it worked for me.

But, to help bring this around to the question of lightening a trigger, think about the weapon I was using. I pulled the trigger all the way through the double action trigger pull and never realized it under stress. I would never lighten the trigger on a carry or defensive use gun. I am not concerned with the possible lawsuit (they can't take much from me, I don't have it) but I would never want to shoot someone accidentally or negligently.

[cbr600]

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.

Anything is possible. I could win the lottery this Wednesday night and get struck by lightning on the way to claim my prize the next morning.

To quote an old comment that stuck in my head.

How much are we talking about? What were the five largest civil judgements against a good guy who shot a bad guy in Texas in the past two years?