Red dot sights in court

Self-Defense
64

I believe your comment that Red Dot Sights aren’t an issue in courts anymore is correct.

HOWEVER, there is this wise advice on a particular modification that can cause the Good Guy enormous problems in court >

Hair Trigger Precautions

Massad Ayoob advises against using aftermarket triggers that create a “hair trigger” on firearms intended for self-defense or duty use, as they can lead to significant legal liabilities in both criminal and civil cases. He emphasizes that a lightened trigger pull, while potentially easier to shoot, increases the risk of unintentional discharges under stress, which can be exploited by prosecutors or plaintiffs. In politically motivated criminal prosecutions, a light trigger can be used to argue that a deliberate self-defense shot was actually an accidental, negligent discharge, making a manslaughter charge more plausible than murder. Similarly, in civil lawsuits, plaintiffs’ attorneys may target the light trigger as evidence of negligence to access deep-pocket insurance coverage, as liability policies typically do not cover intentional acts (willful torts) but do cover negligence.

Ayoob cites multiple real cases where officers and civilians faced severe consequences due to aftermarket trigger modifications. For example, a Texas police officer with a 3.5/4.5-pound connector in his Glock 21 faced a $450,000 legal and settlement cost, while a Louisiana deputy with a Travis Haley Skimmer trigger system saw his settlement amount “add a zero” due to the trigger modification. He notes that Glock itself specifies a minimum 5.5-pound trigger pull for duty use, and recommends adhering to factory specifications or common custom and practice among professionals. For single-action semi-autos, he suggests a minimum of 4 pounds, and for revolvers, recommends modifying them to double-action only to prevent accidental discharges.

Ayoob warns that even if an individual is acquitted in a criminal trial, the ordeal and associated legal costs can be immense, and the civil lawsuit can still result in substantial financial loss. He advises against modifying triggers unless done by a professional for smoothness, not for lightening the pull, and stresses that the perception of a “hair trigger” in court can be more damaging than the actual mechanics of the firearm. He concludes that a trigger pull of 3.5 to 5.5 pounds should be tested in timed drills to determine if a lighter pull is truly necessary, but cautions that the legal risks outweigh the potential benefits.

I Asked Massad Ayoob About Modified Triggers

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

65

Trigger modifications were discussed on another thread.

“Red Dot in court” is not an issue anymore. This thread should be closed by @moderators 11 months ago….

1 Like
66

@Discourse_ai :grinning_face:

1 Like
67

On courts’ views of firearms, and accessories, how do you think the caliber size is viewed?

Although I think the accessory or caliber should not matter, what the jury thinks is something I ought consider.

Consider finding out if the police in your city carry a certain accessory or caliber? Are more manufacturers already selling “arms” with preinstalled accessories such as dots? Might that make a difference, or not?

Paul Harrell (RIP) discusses caliber views in courts, at the time marker, 6 min., 20 sec, mentioning the famous legal case of Harold Fish, 2004:

1 Like
68

That case actually proved that it’s a smart idea to carry firearms and ammo with configuration used by local LEOs.

2 Likes
69

I think what is important is saving lives. I should say innocent lives, I think that is understood. What it boils down to for me is what I think not what the jury thinks. If you think it is important what the jury thinks that is on you.

1 Like