Butch50, a good question about civil action data resulting from "SD" shootings. I believe Arizona has one of the best CCW training programs and they require a two hr refresher at renewal to cover any changes in the state laws. Here is a website that provides actual case examples that start ~ page 45 - a very readable document.
http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/version11-1.pdf
Here is one excerpt that would most likely apply to discharging a gun with a suspect "SA hair" trigger:
Negligence - accidental discharge, accidental shooting
a. Negligence is a tort best known as an "accident." In other
words, a person who did not intentionally harm the victim or
the victim's property, but accidentally harmed the victim or
the victim's property in violation of a duty to the victim has
probably acted negligently. Careless or improper use of
firearms can easily lead to being sued for negligence.
I hope this is what you are asking for . . . and it is based upon actual data, but from just one state. Statistics are available for CCW holders that commit crimes; however, civil actions tend to be anecdotal, i.e., have a wide range of circumstances, and thus be difficult to categorize.
Decided against the P-64
Decided against the P-64
Last edited by novgarod on March 6th, 2006, 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Decided against the P-64
If your justified in the eyes of the law (Grand Jury) in the taking of a life it truly doesn't matter about the method used. Now if its an illegal firearm used then thats a whole different criminal procedure. Its during the civil court proceedings for wrongful death, that modifications etc. can come into play.
I also agree, that discovering a spring modification done on the p-64 would probably be unlikely other than self admission.
Peace,
Tal~
I also agree, that discovering a spring modification done on the p-64 would probably be unlikely other than self admission.
Peace,
Tal~
Decided against the P-64
I would say there is a big difference between "negligently discharging a firearm with a hair trigger", and admitedly pulling the trigger in a shooting ruled justfiable.
I would also say, if you are a CCW holder, and you are serious about your self defence, you should find a good lawyer familiar with firearms law BEFORE you need one. I have ones name in my wallet, a good man who is a former county prosecuter, and a class III owner/gun owner. Everybody makes lawyer jokes--until they need one.
I would also say, if you are a CCW holder, and you are serious about your self defence, you should find a good lawyer familiar with firearms law BEFORE you need one. I have ones name in my wallet, a good man who is a former county prosecuter, and a class III owner/gun owner. Everybody makes lawyer jokes--until they need one.
"I was so much older than, I'm younger then that now..."
Decided against the P-64
Novgarod, good site, thanks. I did not find any statistics on how often though.
I "think" (I don't have any factual statistical evidence) that CCW as a group are more afraid of civil litigation than necessary. I "think" we have turned it into a boogey man. The reasons why I "think" this:
1. If a shooting is ruled as justified by the Police establishment - then any lawyer who isn't on a direct retainer is going to be hesitant to spend his time and energy pursuing a suit - unless there is a real big hook that he can use with a jury. If there is a real big "hook" though then he might. Such a hook might be that the shooter is wealthy, or the shooter has been involved in SD shootings before, or there were witnesses who stated in the police report that the shooting was unnecessary, etc.
2. Most bad guys who are shot in a SD shooting are not going to be from wealthy families. Therefore the family is going to have to hire an attorney to take the case on a percentage basis - the attorney will keep 40% of the winnings, plus expenses. The family gets the rest. Few attorneys are going to take that on unless there are two things in his favore: A - the defendant has a lot of money and B: There is a reasonable chance of winning. C: might be an attorney who is starving to death and has nothing better to do - but again, who is going to waste their time and energy suing someone who can't pay?
3. Possibly a large percentage of bad guys shot in a SD shooting don't have family, or don't have family who are interested in suing.
4. Worst case scenario, you the CCW are wealthy, you shoot a bad guy who is from a wealthy family that has attorneys on retainer and they direct the attorneys to sue you, and you have left a big hook for the attorneys to work with. In that scenario I would say you should lose some sleep.
Bottom line - if you are wealthy then you are at some risk of being sued regardless of the justification for the shooting. If you are wealthy and there is a hook for the attorney to go after then you are probably at high risk. If you are not wealthy and there is no hook for the attorney I suspect you are nearly bullet proof from civil suits. If you are not wealthy and there is a hook for the attorney I bet you are still pretty darn unlikely to be sued.
So if you are a wealthy CCW, yes you might go ahead and have an attorney on standy in the remote case that you ever use your weapon and the remoter case that you will be sued.
Me, I think I am pretty safe from civil suit, and hey if I get sued and they win a big settlement they still lose
.
I "think" (I don't have any factual statistical evidence) that CCW as a group are more afraid of civil litigation than necessary. I "think" we have turned it into a boogey man. The reasons why I "think" this:
1. If a shooting is ruled as justified by the Police establishment - then any lawyer who isn't on a direct retainer is going to be hesitant to spend his time and energy pursuing a suit - unless there is a real big hook that he can use with a jury. If there is a real big "hook" though then he might. Such a hook might be that the shooter is wealthy, or the shooter has been involved in SD shootings before, or there were witnesses who stated in the police report that the shooting was unnecessary, etc.
2. Most bad guys who are shot in a SD shooting are not going to be from wealthy families. Therefore the family is going to have to hire an attorney to take the case on a percentage basis - the attorney will keep 40% of the winnings, plus expenses. The family gets the rest. Few attorneys are going to take that on unless there are two things in his favore: A - the defendant has a lot of money and B: There is a reasonable chance of winning. C: might be an attorney who is starving to death and has nothing better to do - but again, who is going to waste their time and energy suing someone who can't pay?
3. Possibly a large percentage of bad guys shot in a SD shooting don't have family, or don't have family who are interested in suing.
4. Worst case scenario, you the CCW are wealthy, you shoot a bad guy who is from a wealthy family that has attorneys on retainer and they direct the attorneys to sue you, and you have left a big hook for the attorneys to work with. In that scenario I would say you should lose some sleep.
Bottom line - if you are wealthy then you are at some risk of being sued regardless of the justification for the shooting. If you are wealthy and there is a hook for the attorney to go after then you are probably at high risk. If you are not wealthy and there is no hook for the attorney I suspect you are nearly bullet proof from civil suits. If you are not wealthy and there is a hook for the attorney I bet you are still pretty darn unlikely to be sued.
So if you are a wealthy CCW, yes you might go ahead and have an attorney on standy in the remote case that you ever use your weapon and the remoter case that you will be sued.
Me, I think I am pretty safe from civil suit, and hey if I get sued and they win a big settlement they still lose
.
Last edited by butch50 on March 4th, 2006, 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Decided against the P-64
Thanks to butch50, I now have a plan. If I win the lottery tonight, I will stop carrying the modified P-64 and go back to the 38 Taurus with the DA only in an ankle holster over a $300 pair of socks.
Decided against the P-64
As a complete non-expert in the law, I thought I should wade in with my ignorance.
Feel free to disagree.
First, the point of concealed carry is not to shoot someone. It is to provide for the (God forbid) rare emergency when someone else is trying to take, or greatly damage, your life. Like the airbag in your car, you hope it will never be needed; and should the need arise, I think the last thing on your mind will be any modification to the spring or fine tuning.
Second, while issues with lawyers are certainly real, it is better to be sued than to be dead.
Just my two cents.
God bless and straight shooting,
(I mean on the range, of course.)
-Kempin
Feel free to disagree.
First, the point of concealed carry is not to shoot someone. It is to provide for the (God forbid) rare emergency when someone else is trying to take, or greatly damage, your life. Like the airbag in your car, you hope it will never be needed; and should the need arise, I think the last thing on your mind will be any modification to the spring or fine tuning.
Second, while issues with lawyers are certainly real, it is better to be sued than to be dead.
Just my two cents.
God bless and straight shooting,
(I mean on the range, of course.)
-Kempin
Decided against the P-64
It is not a question of having a lawyer "on standby". If you are involved in a justafiable shooting, you should excercise your rights, and have an attorney present during questioning. This is much easier to accomplish if you already know who to call, rather than looking in the phone book for "attorney".
"I was so much older than, I'm younger then that now..."
-
fjblackesq
- Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: November 11th, 2005, 12:45 am
- Location: SW FLA - NAPLES & SW MICH - G
Decided against the P-64
you guys are watching too muich bad TV!!!!!!!!
-
mikethewreck
- Member
- Posts: 172
- Joined: December 3rd, 2005, 3:34 pm
- Location: Chattanooga, TN
Decided against the P-64
I would say that if you have not thought and can deal with out all the ramifications, you shouldn't carry. And that includes legal aspects.
-
kjeff50cal
- Junior member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: January 2nd, 2006, 1:15 am
- Location: Houston, Tejas(Texas)
Decided against the P-64
This thread reminds me of that old chessnut, do not use reloaded ammo for duty/CCW because it can be used against you in court (ain't so and if you can give me one court case where it mattered please direct us to it).
kjeff50cal
kjeff50cal
Decided against the P-64
I believe that, using previous legal findings as a base, the recommended trigger pull is no less than 4lbs DA and SA for self-defense (this is from what I've read and what various lawyers on gun boards have said)... The reason being that any less than that and the opposing lawyer can claim that you didn't really intend to fire, but accidently discharged the round due to stress, adrenaline, etc.... There's NO WAY you're getting that DA pull on your P-64 to less than 4lbs... Heck, good luck getting it to 6lbs... 
Though some would rack the slide to chamber a round, and many here would thumb back the hammer for their first shot, NEVER admit it in court, as such indicates an INTENT to fire outside the realm of self defense, besides the probability of having a low weight trigger pull... Since the only person to see such is likely to be on the recieving end of said action, it probably won't matter anyways... ;D ;D ;D
-Mark
Though some would rack the slide to chamber a round, and many here would thumb back the hammer for their first shot, NEVER admit it in court, as such indicates an INTENT to fire outside the realm of self defense, besides the probability of having a low weight trigger pull... Since the only person to see such is likely to be on the recieving end of said action, it probably won't matter anyways... ;D ;D ;D
-Mark
Decided against the P-64
A better question would be: How many people who, if they did use reloaded ammo in a SD situation, admitted to it??? ;D ;D ;DThis thread reminds me of that old chessnut, do not use reloaded ammo for duty/CCW because it can be used against you in court (ain't so and if you can give me one court case where it mattered please direct us to it).
kjeff50cal
I do remember reading about a case where this was a factor back in the late '80s/early '90s (it was one of the Ayoob files in one of the shooting rags, so take that with a grain of salt)... Of course, the idiot made the comment about how deadly his homebrew loads were to the police investigating it, thus establishing INTENT for the prosecutor (who is always a politician)... Rule one: Keep your mouth shut, let your lawyer do all your talking for you...
-Mark
Last edited by xelloss on March 6th, 2006, 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Decided against the P-64
No, I've just read too many bad court cases--you guys are watching too muich bad TV!!!!!!!!
Don't own a TV actually--don't miss it either...Decided against the P-64
BTW--If you have some kind of insurance that can be shoehorned into the situation (eg, you shoot the bad guy on your porch, and you have homeowner's insurance)--you DO potentially have a "deep pocket"--and don't laugh, a prominent newscaster in the DFW area tried exactly that tack in a slightly different realm, his child was assaulted in his ex-wife's home and he tried to join her homeowner's carrier as a party--Not that he was after the money mind you, it was the principal of the thing! (yeah, right...)
See, I really HAVE read too many bad court cases...LOL! But Kempin is right--better tried by 12 than carried by 6...
See, I really HAVE read too many bad court cases...LOL! But Kempin is right--better tried by 12 than carried by 6...
Decided against the P-64
Hey, guys, haven't you heard? "Bad TV" is a redundant phrase! ;D
Seriously, what is your worst scenario? God forbid, but if I needed to use deadly force it probably would be out-of-state, in unfamiliar surroundings (to the advantage of the criminal element, of course) against at least two thugs, and I would need to fire my gun several times. You can always be cautious, be aware of your environment, but that does not mean you cannot be surprised. Additional considerations could be added, but you get the idea.
I want my defense as vanilla as possible. My two guns, though different in size for carry flexibility, function the same and they are old shoes, a no-think necessity. They have proven reliable with my chosen ammo and I know they are under my control trigger-wise under any weather/clothing conditions. And, if I am lucky enough to come out on top in a shooting, I better know how to conduct myself because my lawyer is 500 miles away, plus he is vacationing in the Bahamas for the next week.
Have fun at the range, but keep it simple elsewhere.
Seriously, what is your worst scenario? God forbid, but if I needed to use deadly force it probably would be out-of-state, in unfamiliar surroundings (to the advantage of the criminal element, of course) against at least two thugs, and I would need to fire my gun several times. You can always be cautious, be aware of your environment, but that does not mean you cannot be surprised. Additional considerations could be added, but you get the idea.
I want my defense as vanilla as possible. My two guns, though different in size for carry flexibility, function the same and they are old shoes, a no-think necessity. They have proven reliable with my chosen ammo and I know they are under my control trigger-wise under any weather/clothing conditions. And, if I am lucky enough to come out on top in a shooting, I better know how to conduct myself because my lawyer is 500 miles away, plus he is vacationing in the Bahamas for the next week.
Have fun at the range, but keep it simple elsewhere.
Last edited by novgarod on March 6th, 2006, 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.