Liability Issues

[CoryCop25]

An interesting question came up this evening at the nightly Wawa coffee/FOP meeting. All but 2 patrol rifles in the department are built from parts and not rifles purchased complete. Some are Tier 1 quality and others are slightly less. The two that are complete, are Bushmasters that were purchased by the police department many years ago and all of the other ones are owned by the individual officers and approved by the chief to carry. When the new chief was hired, he was not a current member of the department and he did not like the Bushmasters and changed the policy so he could carry his own rifle and all of us followed suit. The question that came up was that if we were to use one of these "hand built" rifles to defend ourselves or someone else, what kind of scrutiny would we be handed by the other side when they asked why we carried these bad black rifles that were custom built to kill their client (or client's estate)? And why wouldn't an out of the box rifle be good enough to carry?
All of our franken guns were built by either myself or another officer with almost as much experience in building ARs. All of the rifles are built from standard parts and are not altered in any way.

[perna]

I have no real clue, but I do not think it would matter what rifle you use unless you miss and kill an innocent bystander. I thought Bethlehem cops just bothered Northampton students?

[ZDL]

*******

[CoryCop25]

I have no real clue, but I do not think it would matter what rifle you use unless you miss and kill an innocent bystander. I thought Bethlehem cops just bothered Northampton students?

That's Bethlehem Township Police not Bethlehem City. Otherwise, you are correct.

[Iraqgunz]

I am pretty sure that we have had very similar threads in the past and no one can point to any cases where this was a factor. Similar to using an SBR or suppressor to defend ones home. A bad shooting is a bad shooting. That's all there is to it.

Defense attorney to jury:

1. "As you can see, this officer was unsatisfied with the factory model and modified his weapon to kill people with greater ease."

2. "Officer ______, you modified the trigger in your weapon, is this correct?" "Yes" "And this modification made it easier to pull and allow for faster follow up shots, is this correct?" "yes" "So one could say your modified your weapon not to keep the peace but to kill"

And any other ridiculous variation you can imagine in the same vein.

[CoryCop25]

I figured I should have added the fact that for all intensive purposes, this case would be a good shoot. The question is, could the fact that the rifle was hand built, would that point alone bring the situation to court?

[ThirdWatcher]

I am pretty sure that we have had very similar threads in the past and no one can point to any cases where this was a factor. Similar to using an SBR or suppressor to defend ones home. A bad shooting is a bad shooting. That's all there is to it.

I agree. I've never run into an ambulance-chaser that new anything about guns, anyway (but I've known a few savvy deputy prosecutors and judges that pack).

[John_Wayne777]

I figured I should have added the fact that for all intensive purposes, this case would be a good shoot. The question is, could the fact that the rifle was hand built, would that point alone bring the situation to court?

I have never seen evidence of a good shoot that was turned into a bad one because the shooter used customized equipment.

[RSS1911]

I agree. I've never run into an ambulance-chaser that new anything about guns, anyway (but I've known a few savvy deputy prosecutors and judges that pack).

You need to get out more. I've been a trial lawyer for over 25 years.


As stated above, a good shoot is a good shoot. Motions in limine (outside the hearing of the jury) can keep the evidence on point.

Modifications to weapons only become relevant if the shot was not fired intentionally.

[dbrowne1]

Defense attorney to jury:

1. "As you can see, this officer was unsatisfied with the factory model and modified his weapon to kill people with greater ease."

2. "Officer ______, you modified the trigger in your weapon, is this correct?" "Yes" "And this modification made it easier to pull and allow for faster follow up shots, is this correct?" "yes" "So one could say your modified your weapon not to keep the peace but to kill"

And any other ridiculous variation you can imagine in the same vein.

That seems pretty far-fetched to me unless the modification actually made the gun hazardous (and the party pitching that theory had an expert who would say so at trial) and that caused an unintentional shot. These sorts of cases, at least ones that make it to trial, are incredibly rare, but my sense as somebody who has tried cases on both sides of the fence is that this sort of argument is so far out there that most plaintiffs' lawyers wouldn't even bother with it and it likely wouldn't get past a motion in limine.

I agree with what RSS1911 says above (and he's been doing it longer than me).

People get too wound up about trigger weights and modifications. If you meant to pull the trigger, it doesn't matter how many pounds of pressure it takes or how fast it resets. You were either justified or you weren't. If you pressed it unintentionally - again, it doesn't matter if it's a 2 lb trigger or a 20 lb trigger, you ****ed up either way.

P.S. - I do a lot of plaintiff's work now (used to do defense) and there are more than a few of us who are "gun people" and are nowhere close to the liberal stereotype attached to "trial lawyers." I know several just in the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association who have FFLs and/or are very knowledgable about specific types of firearms.