Post by: goishi on October 02, 2007, 07:38:37 PM
My marksmanship trainer related some information to me today that I thought may be useful. I was asking about trigger jobs for the P01.
A policeman friend of his killed somebody in the line of duty... It was justified and no criminal proceedings ever came about, but he was crucified by the civil courts because he had a trigger job done on his duty gun. Apparently lawsuit attorneys can make all kinds of accusations, and the standard of proof is less stringent than in a criminal court. Even the gunsmith who did the trigger job got sued.
So, he recommended that I leave my P01 alone since it's a defense weapon.
Just something to think about.
Post by: mpweave on October 02, 2007, 08:40:37 PM
It's ridiculous to me that law enforcement officers, discharging their duty correctly and efficiently, are still held vulnerable to civil liability where the killing was justified. He should be able to sue the estate of the perp for harrassment and mental anguish for forcing him to discharge his weapon.
Post by: mbott on October 02, 2007, 08:43:52 PM
--
Mike
Post by: Walt-Sherrill on October 02, 2007, 09:45:50 PM
It's a bit like taking a surgeon to court for cutting people with a sharp knife...
Post by: goishi on October 02, 2007, 09:50:18 PM
As an exercise into legal research, I'm going to ask for the name of the officer and then try to dig for the court records. This should all be a matter of public record, so it's just a matter of putting the nose to the grindstone.
I'll report back, hopefully with some PDFs of court documents and findings.
Post by: mbott on October 03, 2007, 02:05:27 AM
Quote
Quote:
I'll report back, hopefully with some PDFs of court documents and findings.
Fantastic.
--
Mike
Post by: Kevin Quinlan on October 03, 2007, 05:01:42 AM
Amazon should carry his books, or maybe from his LFI training center.
Post by: Unregistered(d) on October 03, 2007, 06:57:39 AM
Az has a law that states no civil liabilty for justified conduct.
Post by: goishi on October 05, 2007, 05:57:45 AM
Unfortunately my trainer doesn't want to give up the name of his friend who had legal troubles. He said like it would be a betrayal of his privacy.
So, we're back to hearsay... :/
Sorry.
Post by: gldP01 on October 05, 2007, 06:44:54 AM
I will try to dig it out to give you what issue it is in. No guarantees, I often keep gun mags in my "reading room" (bathroom) until the covers fall off. I will look.
Post by: Stuart on October 05, 2007, 11:40:13 AM
everything is defensible as long as you are justifiable in your shoot.
and were not negligent.
your training will be called into question, do you compete, do you reload, what other guns do you have, etc..
if a trigger job makes the gun better for you too shoot and makes you more accurate..that is defensible...
no matter what happens..it won't be fun..
Post by: Jekylltamer on October 10, 2007, 06:51:30 AM
After reading this post, I feel like I need to put the stock grips back on for fear that the engraving could be misconstrued as "looking for trouble".
Any thoughts?
Post by: Walt-Sherrill on October 10, 2007, 07:08:24 AM
Use of a handgun in a defensive situation should always be a last-resort sort of thing, anyway.
Post by: Omega8omega on October 10, 2007, 07:51:42 AM
Quote
Quote:
I am a Virginia Tech Alum and had the VT ribbon engraved in remembrance of the victims of April 16th
Any pictures?
Post by: Jekylltamer on October 10, 2007, 08:00:26 AM
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff175/Jekylltamer/P9040007.jpg)
These aren't the best pics, but you get the idea.
Post by: Unregistered(d) on October 10, 2007, 08:24:39 AM
Post by: Grendel on October 10, 2007, 09:00:12 PM
A righteous shoot or deadly force incident is justified no matter what you use be it hammer, shotgun, coal shovel, anti-aircraft cannon, AK47 or whatever else, provided, I repeat, provided you are acting within the law as it is written in your State. Commonly this is (with exceptions in States with 'castle' doctrines) that you must be in fear for your or another's life or of great bodily harm.
Civil or Federal court is a different kettle of fish, as OJ found out, but a good lawyer is your friend in all these cases.
Post by: ccw9mm on October 21, 2007, 05:37:31 AM
A trigger job, per se, isn't a bad thing. If expressly done to improve safety and enhance reliability, and documented as such, it cannot help but be perceived (at least in the hands of a competent attorney) as a good thing. The gritty, creepy factory trigger on my P01 was cleaned up by Matt Mink. I specifically requested the character of trigger pull I wanted, which was not materially different from factory, other than being smoothed and cleaned up, and set to a weight of pull more suitable for a defensive carry firearm. At 7.5# DA and just over 4# SA, but buttery smooth, it's more accurate, reliable and safe than CZ ever thought to make it.
Can a scumbag lawyer attempt to lever this into something it's not? Sure. If ever it comes to legal proceedings against me, I'd expect nothing less. But, in the end, claims are only that. This P01 is now more reliable, more safe, easier to use competently, less likely to have issues when my life is being threatened. To claim removal of factory manufacturing defects (burrs and marks) and elimination of what was a hair-trigger SA action is the specific cause of anything has no basis in fact.
In this specific case, I'd be willing to bet the person in question didn't have competent legal representation. That's too bad. Doesn't make it a trend. Doesn't make it likely to happen anywhere else. It is what it is.