TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

EEllis wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I think a light trigger pull is only a problem if a person has not practiced enough with their weapon. But that is just my experience with it. Similar to a person moving directly from a Glock type pull to a 1911 pull. The first few rounds will probably get touched off quicker than expected.

Like any other occupation. There are those that practice with the tools of their trade and there are those who just try to get by.

The NYPD and a few other depts in NY changed to what is called the NY2 trigger which has a trigger pull of 12lbs. while the normal trigger pull for a Glock would be about 5.5lbs. Double action only. The NY1 trigger id 8lbs. just for added info.

On the New York police department, they have to do finger exercises so they can pull the trigger.

Btw... I read the link you posted. I can completely agree that a heavy trigger pull like they are using is a severe impediment to accuracy.

A bit of historical perspective may be of use here.

Until the mid to late 1980's, police sidearms were almost exclusively double action revolvers with long trigger pulls with weights of between 12 - 14 pounds.

The functionally unnecessary increased Glock trigger pull weight is unquestionably an impediment to fine trigger control. However, those who take responsibility for their own skills will practice harder to compensate.

Those who do not take responsibility for their own skills will not be materially helped by lighter triggers.

The real issues are officers who place their fingers inside the trigger guard before they're ready to shoot, and insufficient range time to maintain proficiency.

rbwhatever1 wrote:The main recourse Citizens have against an unjust States actions are with lawsuits for damages to force the State to change its actions or change its Laws. If the State can re-direct the results of it's own bad actions away from itself to some "catalyst" causing Citizens to be pitted against Citizens, then the Citizens have no recourse at all and the State can do whatever it pleases. This is genius. The State trying to remove itself completely from the Liability of it's own actions with a perversion of Law.

If the People of New York City allow this, they may deserve what they get.

texanjoker wrote:I always wanted to visit NY but don't think I ever will. That place is just bonkers.

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: Let's take this a step further. You are going 7mph over the speed limit. An officer is parked on the side of the road. As he pulls onto the road to stop you he pulls out in front of a car and kills the driver in the other car. You are now charged with vehicular manslaughter? Where does this line of logic stop? Very dangerous thought process. Hope the judge tells the DA he's an idiot.

But why don't we leave it where it is. The officer doesn't pull out in the street and hits anyone but instead crashed into a car in minute 5 of your police chase that occurred when you failed to pull over. Where does the logic stop? With the Jury. We need to trust the jury can understand the difference between the two scenarios and apply the law reasonable and correctly.

talltex wrote:

texanjoker wrote:One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force. Just because they missed doesn't give him a free pass .

I would agree that you should expect to be charged for an ACTUAL action you committed....not so much in this situation...at least AS it is reported. If he was fighting with them, I see no problem with them using physical force or a Taser to control him, but the only action reported, was that he was "wading into traffic and throwing himself in the path of oncoming vehicles". Doesn't make much sense to shoot him, to prevent him from hurting himself. It does not say that he ever struck one of the officers physically, and he was only facing misdemeanor charges. Unless there's a lot more to the story, I can't see how the officers could justify shooting at him in that situation, and I think charging him with assault for the injuries actually caused by the officer's conduct is ridiculous.

CoffeeNut wrote:I don't agree with this at all.

Yes, the bad guy shouldn't have made stupid movements or shouldn't have been acting stupid to begin with but it was the officers' decision to shoot and they're ultimately responsible for what comes out of the barrel and where it lands in my opinion. It's not that guys fault that the NYPD can't shoot.

The NYPD and the officers involved should be held responsible for the shoot when it was clear that a Taser could be used with more effectiveness in that situation.

The NYPD really needs to work on shooting. I'm sure some of them can shoot but do they think that because they've banned guns that they don't need to worry about lethal threats or using lethal force anymore?