Repercussions Of A Modified Glock.... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Repercussions Of A Modified Glock....


IrishRifles
06-27-2012, 20:16
In the aftermath of a self-defense shooting on the legality aspect, is it a bad idea to change the basic fundamentals and modify your Glock from its stock condition?
IE: will it come back to bite you in the ass in court? http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss51/irishrifles2/icon_shrug.gif

Reconinforce
06-27-2012, 20:38
If the media can relate it more to some "evil" firearm I bet it will not help. If legal teams eat people up for using reloaded or "hopped up/killer" rounds then they would find a way to color a trigger job in a bad light. Just my view from what I have read in the past.

ColdBlooded
06-27-2012, 20:41
As long as your modification are not in violation of any federal or state laws, no.

That being said. I would not put "Punisher" logos on my slide cover plates, nor would I have the end of my barrel engraved with "Smile at Flash".

RedHaze
06-27-2012, 21:06
As long as you didn't shoot them 38 times with this thing, using your ultralight 1.2439 lb trigger pull you should be ok...
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/wesmerc/DSC_0006-1.jpg?t=1318012636

AA#5
06-27-2012, 21:42
Yes it will, & they will only hurt you. Modifications that lighten trigger pull, etc. will make an already-complicated situation worse. In a SD shooting, you'll need all the help you can get & a modified gun gives the prosecutor more ammo to use against you.

IrishRifles
06-27-2012, 22:16
Then how come the fear of the end result does not hurt the accessory makers?
What I mean is, whats more important a safe stock gun or an altered one that may get you hung in court?

CAcop
06-27-2012, 22:37
If you modify it within manufacturers specs it will probably be okay. Such as changing to a NY spring or even NY spring and 3.5 pound connector. Even things like modding the grip of Glock might help because you might be able to sell it as a safety improvement. For example if the grip is too big for you sending it out to someone to shave it down and it now easier for you to control.

Things that might harm you might be things that "look evil" or could be argued that decrease safety. Look up "Fitz Special" online. Never do that to a gun you plan on carrying.

Sgt127
06-27-2012, 22:53
Easy answer. What mods do most major police departments allow on thier duty guns? When I started, 28 years ago, we had alot of freedom. I carried a Wilson Master Grade .45. Nowdays? Its an issue Glock. Stock. Yearly inspections.

We don't even allow personally owned duty guns anymore. I think keeping a gun as stock as possible would preclude any argument that you altered it to make it shoot faster. Shoot easier. Make it more capable of killing people. If it were a good idea to modify a gun, why aren't the cops doing it?

Remember, you have to convince 12 people that were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

:)

I think a good defense attorney can mitigate those issues pretty easily, but, its still hanging out there....

oldman11
06-27-2012, 23:02
The crooked DA's and lawyers are the ones that get you hung

IrishRifles
06-28-2012, 00:20
I think its a catch 22 no matter what you do to it, regardless of how slight.

byf43
06-28-2012, 05:58
Personally, my 'SD/HD' Glock(s) are bone stock.
The G26 that I carry is bone stock, with the exception of a Pearce +1 magazine extension (so that I can get a good purchase on the pistol).

In this day and age, I'm not giving anyone any (additional) reason to believe that I did anything other than protect my loved ones, or myself.

I don't need a "whoop-t-doo whiz-bang" gadget or modification to make my Glock(s) perform.

SigFTW
06-28-2012, 07:04
As long as you didn't shoot them 38 times with this thing, using your ultralight 1.2439 lb trigger pull you should be ok...
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/wesmerc/DSC_0006-1.jpg?t=1318012636

I saw one of those on Star Trek!! :tongueout:

I keep my carry stocked and buy SD ammo even though I reload.

Baba Louie
06-28-2012, 07:28
Opinion only mind you... From a criminal case POV, if the shooting is justified and your response legally correct, probably not an issue... depending on the modifications of course.

From a civil "wrongful death" lawsuit situation that may follow, it might become an issue, depending on plaintiffs attorney, the jury, and of course, mods done to weapon.

How good is your attorney? Familar with weapons is he/she? What advice do/did/will they provide you? A bunch of answers from GT'ers is worth exactly what you paid, ya know?

M&P15T
06-28-2012, 07:34
It also depends on whether or not you state has Castle Doctrine.
If it does, then it doesn't really matter what you use.

We've discussed this before, but not one single time has anyone been able to show where a civilian SD/HD court case outcome hinged on any modifications to a firearm.

SouthpawG26
06-28-2012, 07:53
In your own home, whether its called Castle Doctrine or otherwise, defend with any and all means possible, 50 BMG, Glock racegun with 1.5lb trigger, the wife's stainless steel Black Mamba vibrator, whatever is at hand.

For carry i would indeed be more circumspect with the mods, but i too await proof of a case where the triggermods were an issue.

jmchaney
06-28-2012, 08:34
Remember, you have to convince 12 people that were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I think a good defense attorney can mitigate those issues pretty easily, but, its still hanging out there....

They may be too stupid to get out of jury duty, but they are smart enough to find their way to the courthouse. If they possess that much intelligence, then they certainly know that the tool used can have no bearing on justification.

A halfway decent attorney can mitigate such an issue, and that means an equally good prosecutor knows better than to offer such an argument to begin with.

cowboy1964
06-28-2012, 08:42
Here ya go people:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429600

Glockdude1
06-28-2012, 09:10
Here ya go people:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429600

From Mas him self: unintended discharge due to too-light pulls.

He has never said anything about a self defense shooting turning bad, just because of how a pistol was set up.

Why is it, only when a PISTOL is used, trigger pull, becomes a subject you can be "sued for" in court.

BUT, when talking about a RIFLE or a SHOTGUN being used, TRIGGER PULL, is NEVER mentioned.

Why??????????

GTFord1
06-28-2012, 09:17
This ridiculous, paranoid conversation gets brought up several times a year on every gun forum I read.

FACT: There's nothing but speculation in this argument, and it's largely a non-discussion. Show proof that anyone has ever lost a valid self defense shooting because they had a light or rail or bayonet on their gun. You can't find a single case of this.

Worry about some other boogeyman.

scccdoc
06-28-2012, 09:19
Personally, my 'SD/HD' Glock(s) are bone stock.
The G26 that I carry is bone stock, with the exception of a Pearce +1 magazine extension (so that I can get a good purchase on the pistol).

In this day and age, I'm not giving anyone any (additional) reason to believe that I did anything other than protect my loved ones, or myself.

I don't need a "whoop-t-doo whiz-bang" gadget or modification to make my Glock(s) perform.

Does your "stock" SD/HD have night sights? Or did you have them put on to help aim in low light situations?

Glockdude1
06-28-2012, 09:25
This ridiculous, paranoid conversation gets brought up several times a year on every gun forum I read.

FACT: There's nothing but speculation in this argument, and it's largely a non-discussion. Show proof that anyone has ever lost a valid self defense shooting because they had a light or rail or bayonet on their gun. You can't find a single case of this.

Worry about some other boogeyman.

:agree:

jmchaney
06-28-2012, 09:29
Here ya go people:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429600

Those are perfect examples of the danger of the combination of light trigger pull and having the finger on the trigger. An accidental discharge. In all of those cases, charges were brought not because of a light trigger, but because the shooting itself was unjustified.

IrishRifles
06-28-2012, 10:32
This ridiculous, paranoid conversation gets brought up several times a year on every gun forum I read.

FACT: There's nothing but speculation in this argument, and it's largely a non-discussion. Show proof that anyone has ever lost a valid self defense shooting because they had a light or rail or bayonet on their gun. You can't find a single case of this.

Worry about some other boogeyman.

This is a forum, and like all forums its nothing but sentiments.
That doesn't make a subject contemptible, except its seems on ones you have no practical knowledge in.
With your attitude this and all forums should shut down immediately because its all about useless speculation.
As far as proof, I worked for a district attorneys office and have been there where cases were picked apart by the prosecutor on the specifics of a weapons non-stock modifications, inevitably swaying the jury enough to get a conviction against the defendant. Research your city halls records for self defence shooting cases and see for yourself. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening, even the NRA talks about this subject many times in its articles. Notwithstanding, you believe what you want and load your weapons up with all the bells and whistles you like, just make sure you have and keep your affairs in order, for the probability of a conviction and the long stay you will be facing at the states hospitality.

jmchaney
06-28-2012, 10:43
As far as proof, I worked for a district attorneys office and have been there where cases were picked apart by the prosecutor on the specifics of a weapons non-stock modifications, inevitably swaying the jury enough to get a conviction against the defendant.

Here is your chance to be famous. You can be the first to actually reference a case of justified self-defense that went sour because of the weapon used.

Just what were those cases you worked on?

Glockdude1
06-28-2012, 10:46
Here is your chance to be famous. You can be the first to actually reference a case of justified self-defense that went sour because of the weapon used.

Just what were those cases you worked on?

:agree:

I want to know as well!!

Nothing but Internet rumor until proven.

GTFord1
06-28-2012, 10:55
This is a forum, and like all forums its nothing but sentiments.
That doesn't make a subject contemptible, except its seems on ones you have no practical knowledge in.
With your attitude this and all forums should shut down immediately because its all about useless speculation.
As far as proof, I worked for a district attorneys office and have been there where cases were picked apart by the prosecutor on the specifics of a weapons non-stock modifications, inevitably swaying the jury enough to get a conviction against the defendant. Research your city halls records for self defence shooting cases and see for yourself. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening, even the NRA talks about this subject many times in its articles. Notwithstanding, you believe what you want and load your weapons up with all the bells and whistles you like, just make sure you have and keep your affairs in order, for the probability of a conviction and the long stay you will be facing at the states hospitality.

I live in Florida, I can't even be sued in civil court for shooting someone legitimately in self defense.

Like I said, link to a case where someone has lost a self defense shooting because they had a light or site attached. No one can ever seem to produce evidence of it ever happening.

Yes, I know just because you can't produce something doesn't make it so, and I'm not trying to get into some kind of logical fallacy whirlaround with you, but at the very least, this isn't a prevalent situation.

IrishRifles
06-28-2012, 11:36
Here is your chance to be famous. You can be the first to actually reference a case of justified self-defense that went sour because of the weapon used.

Just what were those cases you worked on?

I can not nor will I talk about the specifics of cases my former employer was involved in.
Do your own research.
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
Besides, it doesn't matter what I say, its obvious you and some here have your minds made up about the topic, hence any further debate is inconsequential.
Just as todays Supreme Court ruling shows, nothing is a sure thing in the courts regardless of popular demand supposing otherwise.
Nuff said....

Glockdude1
06-28-2012, 12:49
I can not nor will I talk about the specifics of cases my former employer was involved in.
Do your own research.
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
Besides, it doesn't matter what I say, its obvious you and some here have your minds made up about the topic, hence any further debate is inconsequential.
Just as todays Supreme Court ruling shows, nothing is a sure thing in the courts regardless of popular demand supposing otherwise.
Nuff said....



Thank you for the laugh.

Now you are comparing the Obamacare ruling, to a modified Glock???

:rofl:

Spiffums
06-28-2012, 13:09
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVmhNqaI_knyT4GysYi5WCiGsA76OZY1ifq321zsb2RGEUOJwA2rRlsb5w

Paul53
06-28-2012, 14:46
This ridiculous, paranoid conversation gets brought up several times a year on every gun forum I read.

FACT: There's nothing but speculation in this argument, and it's largely a non-discussion. Show proof that anyone has ever lost a valid self defense shooting because they had a light or rail or bayonet on their gun. You can't find a single case of this.

Worry about some other boogeyman.

Finally, a sensible answer!

IrishRifles
06-28-2012, 15:17
Thank you for the laugh.

Now you are comparing the Obamacare ruling, to a modified Glock???

:rofl:
I'd reply in kind but grandma always said....
never make fun of the retarded. :supergrin:

boone10
06-28-2012, 18:08
Night sights only for the Glock--Crimson Trace on the J-frames...

It's tough to argue with somebody who's been an expert (and expert witness) since the 70's--Mas Ayoob, BUT feel free to do whatever you want--the accessory manufacturers AND the lawyers need to make a living.

Glockdude1
06-28-2012, 18:39
Night sights only for the Glock--Crimson Trace on the J-frames...

It's tough to argue with somebody who's been an expert (and expert witness) since the 70's--Mas Ayoob, BUT feel free to do whatever you want--the accessory manufacturers AND the lawyers need to make a living.

What accessories are "legal" to use?

:cool:

JerryVO
06-28-2012, 18:45
At the end of the day my answer has always been who cares. If I deploy my pistol it is because I am in fear of my life or my family's life. Consequences and philosophical arguments be dammed. Even if I go down for 20 years I am still alive and that is a small price to pay for protecting my family.

Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk 2

SouthpawG26
06-28-2012, 19:04
Night sights only for the Glock--Crimson Trace on the J-frames...

It's tough to argue with somebody who's been an expert (and expert witness) since the 70's--Mas Ayoob, BUT feel free to do whatever you want--the accessory manufacturers AND the lawyers need to make a living.

Ayoob's bedside gun was for many years a Beretta 92 with a custom Jarvis extended and Magnaported barrel, an attached Surefire 633R weaponlight, night sights and a bigass 20 round magazine.

Quite a pimped out gun...

Edited to add: a pic of the gun (on the right). This pic was posted online by Mas himself.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/cervelop2k/dd635583.jpg

AA#5
06-28-2012, 20:30
Then how come the fear of the end result does not hurt the accessory makers?
What I mean is, whats more important a safe stock gun or an altered one that may get you hung in court?

Because most modifications are on range toys or competition guns, not defensive guns.

AA#5
06-28-2012, 20:35
At the end of the day my answer has always been who cares. If I deploy my pistol it is because I am in fear of my life or my family's life. Consequences and philosophical arguments be dammed. Even if I go down for 20 years I am still alive and that is a small price to pay for protecting my family.

Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk 2

"Even if I go down for 20 years I am still alive and that is a small price to pay for protecting my family."

Now that's what I call "Optimism."

RJ's Guns
06-28-2012, 23:15
Yes it will, & they will only hurt you. Modifications that lighten trigger pull, etc. will make an already-complicated situation worse. In a SD shooting, you'll need all the help you can get & a modified gun gives the prosecutor more ammo to use against you.



I am a retired (plaintiff) personal injury attorney. I have a number of friends that are practicing or retired criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors that routinely carry handguns that have been modified with at least lighten trigger pulls. The unanimous consensus is that in a justified self-defense shooting, where the shooter intended to shoot the aggressor (and therefore “accidental/negligent shooting” is not an issue) modifications to the firearm, such as a lightened trigger pull are irrelevant and any competent defense attorney would file a motion in limine precluding the admissibility of such irrelevant material. The bottom line is, in such cases the defense attorney should make certain, via pre-trial motions, that the jury never hears such irrelevant evidence.

It has been my experience that experienced litigators, who know trial procedure and the rules of evidence, never worry about such matters that are obsessed about on forums, such as here, by laymen. If there are cases where such evidence has been admitted or such things argued to a jury, then in my opinion, the defendants had incompetent (and/or lazy) attorneys.
RJ

Glockdude1
06-28-2012, 23:27
I am a retired (plaintiff) personal injury attorney. I have a number of friends that are practicing or retired criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors that routinely carry handguns that have been modified with at least lighten trigger pulls. The unanimous consensus is that in a justified self-defense shooting, where the shooter intended to shoot the aggressor (and therefore “accidental/negligent shooting” is not an issue) modifications to the firearm, such as a lightened trigger pull are irrelevant and any competent defense attorney would file a motion in limine precluding the admissibility of such irrelevant material. The bottom line is, in such cases the defense attorney should make certain, via pre-trial motions, that the jury never hears such irrelevant evidence.

It has been my experience that experienced litigators, who know trial procedure and the rules of evidence, never worry about such matters that are obsessed about on forums, such as here, by laymen. If there are cases where such evidence has been admitted or such things argued to a jury, then in my opinion, the defendants had incompetent (and/or lazy) attorneys.
RJ

:thumbsup: __ :agree:

jmchaney
06-29-2012, 07:04
Night sights only for the Glock--Crimson Trace on the J-frames...

It's tough to argue with somebody who's been an expert (and expert witness) since the 70's--Mas Ayoob, BUT feel free to do whatever you want--the accessory manufacturers AND the lawyers need to make a living.

And as such an expert, the examples that he has shown to support his theories have been accidents with light triggers or modified safeties, and suspected murderers with reloads.

If anyone would know of a valid self-defense shooting that went south because of weapon mods, ammunition, etc., it would be Ayoob, but he has yet to refer to one. I wonder why?

SigFTW
06-29-2012, 07:19
I am a retired (plaintiff) personal injury attorney. I have a number of friends that are practicing or retired criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors that routinely carry handguns that have been modified with at least lighten trigger pulls. The unanimous consensus is that in a justified self-defense shooting, where the shooter intended to shoot the aggressor (and therefore “accidental/negligent shooting” is not an issue) modifications to the firearm, such as a lightened trigger pull are irrelevant and any competent defense attorney would file a motion in limine precluding the admissibility of such irrelevant material. The bottom line is, in such cases the defense attorney should make certain, via pre-trial motions, that the jury never hears such irrelevant evidence.

It has been my experience that experienced litigators, who know trial procedure and the rules of evidence, never worry about such matters that are obsessed about on forums, such as here, by laymen. If there are cases where such evidence has been admitted or such things argued to a jury, then in my opinion, the defendants had incompetent (and/or lazy) attorneys.
RJ

You Sr. sound just like my attorney, so you must be the real deal :thumbsup:

M&P15T
06-29-2012, 07:25
I can not nor will I talk about the specifics of cases my former employer was involved in.
Do your own research.
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
Besides, it doesn't matter what I say, its obvious you and some here have your minds made up about the topic, hence any further debate is inconsequential.
Just as todays Supreme Court ruling shows, nothing is a sure thing in the courts regardless of popular demand supposing otherwise.
Nuff said....

Anybody else smell that? I smell........b.s.

Either post some links, or be prepared to be viewed as a liar.

boone10
06-29-2012, 08:31
And as such an expert, the examples that he has shown to support his theories have been accidents with light triggers or modified safeties, and suspected murderers with reloads.

If anyone would know of a valid self-defense shooting that went south because of weapon mods, ammunition, etc., it would be Ayoob, but he has yet to refer to one. I wonder why?


Trick 'em out there, Punisher--it's your time and money. Defending yourself against a system that wants desperately to hang you (at least in some jurisdictions) is back-breakingly expensive. Add a few wrinkles and maybe just a "shadow of a doubt" and the lawyers, media, etc. can and will make you pay even worse.

If, by the grace of God and good counsel, you are able to eek out of a criminal suit and thereby remain on the free side of the gray bars, the possibility of a civil suit (costing tens of thousands or more--even if you WIN) ain't worth it for a redonkulous 3.5 lb. connector. Do a few finger exercises and shoot what the cops shoot (gun and ammo wise). The judge and jury are far more likely to understand.

boone10
06-29-2012, 08:35
I live in Florida, I can't even be sued in civil court for shooting someone legitimately in self defense.

Like I said, link to a case where someone has lost a self defense shooting because they had a light or site attached. No one can ever seem to produce evidence of it ever happening.

Yes, I know just because you can't produce something doesn't make it so, and I'm not trying to get into some kind of logical fallacy whirlaround with you, but at the very least, this isn't a prevalent situation.


You think that fella in Sanford will be sued in civil court?

Of course he will--the current adminstration in D.C (and the liberal media) will see to that.

jmchaney
06-29-2012, 11:05
Trick 'em out there, Punisher--it's your time and money. Defending yourself against a system that wants desperately to hang you (at least in some jurisdictions) is back-breakingly expensive. Add a few wrinkles and maybe just a "shadow of a doubt" and the lawyers, media, etc. can and will make you pay even worse.

If, by the grace of God and good counsel, you are able to eek out of a criminal suit and thereby remain on the free side of the gray bars, the possibility of a civil suit (costing tens of thousands or more--even if you WIN) ain't worth it for a redonkulous 3.5 lb. connector. Do a few finger exercises and shoot what the cops shoot (gun and ammo wise). The judge and jury are far more likely to understand.

You seem to be missing something. In a self-defense shooting, whether or not the shooter goes to trial hinges on one thing. Justification. You tell me, how does a light trigger or other modification to a weapon, preclude one from defending himself?

jmchaney
06-29-2012, 11:16
You think that fella in Sanford will be sued in civil court?

Of course he will--the current adminstration in D.C (and the liberal media) will see to that.

He has been charged with a criminal homicide. How do you equate that with justified self-defense? If he is acquitted, he probably will be sued (if he has any assets), but the administration or media will have nothing to do with it.

Glockdude1
06-29-2012, 11:45
Ayoob's bedside gun was for many years a Beretta 92 with a custom Jarvis extended and Magnaported barrel, an attached Surefire 633R weaponlight, night sights and a bigass 20 round magazine.

Quite a pimped out gun...

Edited to add: a pic of the gun (on the right). This pic was posted online by Mas himself.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/cervelop2k/dd635583.jpg

What would the repercussions of a modified Beretta be?

:headscratch:

IrishRifles
06-29-2012, 12:14
Anybody else smell that? I smell........b.s.

Either post some links, or be prepared to be viewed as a liar.

No, no... that smell is just the wind blowing your breath back in your face.

M&P15T
06-29-2012, 12:29
No, no... that smell is just the wind blowing your breath back in your face.

Oh...you're 12 years old.....got it.

So.....still nothing. No facts, no links, just B.S.

Not surprising, actually.

South Fla
06-29-2012, 13:05
More from Mas Ayoob about "hair triggers" for your reading pleasure. Post #75.

"Personal experience in the above cases, plus the vast collective and institutional experience of law enforcement in prohibiting “hair triggers” on service and off duty weapons, is what convinced me to recommend against light triggers on defense guns." (http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/general-sa-xd-xd-m-talk/50734-xd-trigger-work-ccw-8.html)

I am adding this for the sake of discussion, not argument.

Glockdude1
06-29-2012, 14:08
More from Mas Ayoob about "hair triggers" for your reading pleasure. Post #75.

"Personal experience in the above cases, plus the vast collective and institutional experience of law enforcement in prohibiting “hair triggers” on service and off duty weapons, is what convinced me to recommend against light triggers on defense guns." (http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/general-sa-xd-xd-m-talk/50734-xd-trigger-work-ccw-8.html)

I am adding this for the sake of discussion, not argument.

From Mas himself: "Actual “hair trigger AD” cases I’ve been involved with include Crown v. Gossett (cocked S&W Model 10, defendant convicted of Manslaughter in one trial and acquitted in the next);

NY v Magliato (cocked Colt Detective Special, defendant convicted of Depraved Murder, reduced to Manslaughter upon appeal, served several years hard time); and MI v. Chuck Chase (cocked S&W Model 15, defendant acquitted of Manslaughter

I see cocked Revolvers.
I see AD, Accidental Discharges.

Where are the Glocks?
Where are the 3.5 connectors?
Where are the cases where a 3.5 connector changed, a self defense shooting from good to bad, just for having one??



:headscratch:

boone10
06-29-2012, 14:49
3.5 is less than Glock recommends. Your argument is with them--not anybody quoting them. Glock doesn't need the bad press that would surely accompany a trial involving modifications that are outside of their duty and off-duty specs.

SouthpawG26
06-29-2012, 15:48
What would the repercussions of a modified Beretta be?

:headscratch:

Exactly the point i was trying to make. A lot of words get placed in Mas' mouth. He never said that you need to keep a gun stock. He sure didnt, Magnaported custom barrel and all. He has nothing against some good, effective gun mods.

He even wrote a piece a few years ago on how to DIY mod the Beretta 92.

jmchaney
06-30-2012, 06:27
I see cocked Revolvers.
I see AD, Accidental Discharges.
:headscratch:

That is true. The most important factor is though, in none of those cases was deadly force justified. Charges were brought, not because the gun fired accidentally, but because it fired period.