Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 88

Thread: DA/SA revolver for self-defense. Liability concern?

  1. #11
    Justified use of a firearm is justified use. The only case that I recall where embellishment of a firearm was actually used (with success) was with an OIS and the officer had a punisher emblem on his equipment. Equipment modifications and concerns are primarily centered on law enforcement (other government) organizations, I cannot see them being really relevant for Joe Citizen since their primary focus is not stepping into harms way.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    out of here
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex8056 View Post
    I have read on various self-defense blogs, magazines, etc. about how having a DA/SA revolver with an exposed hammer could open its user up to liability issues if they have to use this revolver in a defensive situation. I belive it goes something like: "a prosecutor or plaintiff attorney could say that you had a hair trigger and the gun went off by accident,"

    How do the members of this forum deal with that possibility? Perhaps some people do remove the SA capability, or buy revolvers without SA. While other people with a DA/SA revolver just don't let it bother them.

    Is there some other way to protect yourself, in a legal aspect, if you choose to carry a DA/SA revolver?

    Also, I wonder why I haven't heard of anyone being concerned with an exposed hammer DA/SA semi-auto. I don't hear people saying, "That DA/SA semi-auto is a liability! The prosecutor will say that you pulled the hammer back on your sig P226 in a defensive scenario, and the gun just went off accidentally."
    Just to establish a baseline so as not to assume anything:

    1. DASA revolver is DA unless you physically cock the hammer. Otherwise all subsequent shots are DA.
    2. DASA semi is DA for first shot unless you physically cock the hammer. Otherwise all subsequent shots are SA.

    I think cocking a DASA revolver manually could cause legal issues if you didn’t mean to shoot. The SA on a revolver can be incredibly short of a trigger pull. Like 1mm on some of my Smiths.

    I don’t think you’d have any legal issue with a DASA revolver if you didn’t manually cock to SA.

    I personally don’t like spurs on carry revolvers anyway though.

  3. #13
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex8056 View Post
    I have read on various self-defense blogs, magazines, etc. about how having a DA/SA revolver with an exposed hammer could open its user up to liability issues if they have to use this revolver in a defensive situation. I belive it goes something like: "a prosecutor or plaintiff attorney could say that you had a hair trigger and the gun went off by accident,"
    As a general rule, you can't justifiably accidentally shoot someone. If the narrative is you were scared or startled or reckless or what-have-you and accidentally shot instead of meaning to shoot, the relative ease of pulling the trigger could be a talking point for the prosecution. A bright line good shoot with an unequivocal statement of your intent to shoot will mean that's not an avenue of attack that's likely to be tried or successful.

    I have not seen this brought up in while I'll call the post-Glock world in reference to a revolver, but I don't claim to know every case everywhere ever.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  4. #14
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Doesn't Mas cite a case of a Canadian officer who cocked a revolver and then had what was seen as a ND? Is that what we are talking about? I don't see haven't a standard revolver with a hammer by itself being a problem unless it was cocked. I vaguely remember reading that cocking the revolver was recommended by some a long time ago. But memory is a strange thing. Mas would know.

    Any characteristic of the firearm can be brought up by a lawyer. Any personal characteristic can be brought up. That's why you see the choices of dress when someone has to testify. Same principle. White sidewalls are grown out. Dress like a middle aged woman. All legit strategies to avoid priming something in a juror. But just having a standard DA/SA - I don't see that.

    Justified use of a firearm is justified use.
    That's a variant of a good shoot is a good shoot and not useful. It isn't justified when you are charged unless the judge or jury says so. Since you are on trial, there is a significant sample of folks who think it is not justified. Not to beat this one again but Potter's defense was in part that the use of lethal force, even if mistaken, was justified. However, the jury didn't think so. Cliches don't help.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    I vaguely remember reading that cocking the revolver was recommended by some a long time ago. But memory is a strange thing.
    One I know of was Chic Gaylord ca 1960.
    And didn't a Frenchman say that a fine single action was a big asset of the MR73 for their applications?

    Speaking of accurate shooting, not cocking a revolver for enhanced intimidation.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  6. #16
    My question boils down to, is it wise to carry a stock DA/SA revolver if you only plan to use it in DA? So I wouldn't want to pull the hammer back in a defensive situation.

    I know many people carry a DA/SA revolver, so I'm definitely wanting to tread lightly, and not accuse anyone of being unwise.

    The cases mentioned elsewhere on the internet do appear to be mostly over 30 years old, when revolver useage was more prevelent. As BehindBlueI's said, they seem to be before Glock's were really in use.

    I'm hearing that a person should be fine if they use an un-modified DA/SA revolver in DA only.

    I appreciate the information!

  7. #17
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    One I know of was Chic Gaylord ca 1960.
    And didn't a Frenchman say that a fine single action was a big asset of the MR73 for their applications?

    Speaking of accurate shooting, not cocking a revolver for enhanced intimidation.
    Until we get case, I think I remember, the officer cocked the gun, not for a specific shot, but then put his finger on the trigger (not to shoot) but bang!

    Someone might know. Anyway, I've decided to carry a 642 J frame today for a specific dress reason, so I'm ok on that dimension

  8. #18
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by WobblyPossum View Post
    It’s not something I would ever worry about. Most of this fear comes from a Miami PD incident that @Mas has written about in detail. Nothing scared law enforcement administrators more than their misunderstanding of liability concepts. If your shooting isn’t 100% clear cut for any reason, you might have to go to court for it nowadays. Get a good attorney and be prepared to pay the cost of expert witnesses necessary to explain whatever nonsense the prosecution accuses you of. Look at the Rittenhouse trial. The prosecutor went after him for having FMJ ammunition. If he had used barrier-blind soft points, the prosecutor would have gone after him for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    As a general rule, you can't justifiably accidentally shoot someone. If the narrative is you were scared or startled or reckless or what-have-you and accidentally shot instead of meaning to shoot, the relative ease of pulling the trigger could be a talking point for the prosecution. A bright line good shoot with an unequivocal statement of your intent to shoot will mean that's not an avenue of attack that's likely to be tried or successful.

    I have not seen this brought up in while I'll call the post-Glock world in reference to a revolver, but I don't claim to know every case everywhere ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    Doesn't Mas cite a case of a Canadian officer who cocked a revolver and then had what was seen as a ND? Is that what we are talking about? I don't see haven't a standard revolver with a hammer by itself being a problem unless it was cocked. I vaguely remember reading that cocking the revolver was recommended by some a long time ago. But memory is a strange thing. Mas would know.

    Any characteristic of the firearm can be brought up by a lawyer. Any personal characteristic can be brought up. That's why you see the choices of dress when someone has to testify. Same principle. White sidewalls are grown out. Dress like a middle aged woman. All legit strategies to avoid priming something in a juror. But just having a standard DA/SA - I don't see that.



    That's a variant of a good shoot is a good shoot and not useful. It isn't justified when you are charged unless the judge or jury says so. Since you are on trial, there is a significant sample of folks who think it is not justified. Not to beat this one again but Potter's defense was in part that the use of lethal force, even if mistaken, was justified. However, the jury didn't think so. Cliches don't help.
    Both a Miami FL PD officer and an Canadian PD officer were involved in controversial shootings in in which it was alleged (not proven) they cocked the hammers of their revolvers resulting in unintentional shootings. False allegation or not both Departments subsequently mandated all their officer's revolvers be converted to double action only. Worth noting both these incidents occurred in the 1980s and AFAIK there haven't been any similar cases in the past 30 years.


    As BBI mentioned, there are legal (and financial) reasons why the other side might want to (falsely) claim a valid and intentional self defense shooting was unintentional. That said, the financial motive in civil cases is much greater when the deep pockets of a municipality are the potential jackpot vs the limited resources of an individual.

    Don't overthink it. If you choose to modify defensive guns just think about being able to articulate, in plain language, to a "non gun person" why the modification makes the gun safer or easier to use effectively under stress.

    The only bright line rule for me is not removing or deactivating Safety features. There is a rather notorious case out of, I believe, Louisiana, in which a local LEO installed an aftermarket (Pyramid) trigger system into his duty Glock. Some aftermarket Glock triggers, including the Pyramid, improve the trigger pull by deactivating internal safety features.

    Does that mean never change anything on your Glock ? No. But it does mean you need to stick to Trigger systems like APEX which retain the function of the internal safeties.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    And didn't a Frenchman say that a fine single action was a big asset of the MR73 for their applications?
    He was the founder of GIGN, a near-peer to the SAS, HRT, and similar organizations. Apples and oranges.



    Okie John
    “The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
    "Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex8056 View Post
    My question boils down to, is it wise to carry a stock DA/SA revolver if you only plan to use it in DA? So I wouldn't want to pull the hammer back in a defensive situation.

    I know many people carry a DA/SA revolver, so I'm definitely wanting to tread lightly, and not accuse anyone of being unwise.

    The cases mentioned elsewhere on the internet do appear to be mostly over 30 years old, when revolver useage was more prevelent. As BehindBlueI's said, they seem to be before Glock's were really in use.

    I'm hearing that a person should be fine if they use an un-modified DA/SA revolver in DA only.

    I appreciate the information!
    If you're this worried don't use a gun. Period. If you use hollow points you're a murderer, if you use FMJ you're a murderer. If you use a semi auto you obviously want to kill everyone. An argument can literally be made for anything you use. A hunting rifle is a sniper rifle! Big bullets are magnums and dangerous! Why do you have a 38 special magnum? A 9mm is smaller so if you have a 38 special you obv meant to kill someone! Why do you have a 9mm? It's for police and military. Are you roaming the streets at night with deadly military gear? If you didn't want to kill people you could have gotten a smaller caliber. Why do you need suck a big gun? Do you think you're Rambo? Robocop? Dirty Harry? Obviously you have fantasies of killing people!

    Anything!

    Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •