Liability Issues

[dbrowne1]

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

Neither have I, and a couple years back I spent several hours on Lexis searching the opinions of every single court in the country and came up with zero support for the notion that this is an issue. I found exactly one case, in California, where a modified long gun went off unintentionally inside a vehicle. Nobody pressed the trigger, it had been modified in a grossly negligent manner and the vehicle's movement set it off.

[ToddG]

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.

THIS.

If you are legally justified to use lethal force, you are legally justified to use it with a knife, stock pistol, highly-modified assault rifle, or Mack truck.

OTOH, the more stuff your lawyer needs to argue during a motion in limine, the more you're going to be paying your lawyer.

And if the only witness to the shooting is you, then your credibility becomes a major issue... and who knows what a particular judge or juror might think when they hear of a highly modified gun?

OTOH^2, if you can demonstrate and justify the purpose for your modifications, you're probably fine. Many of my guns have been modified for a different trigger pull than factory standard. I'm quite confident I can explain what was done, why, and how it allows me to control my weapon better under stress.

Nothing in the above post is intended as legal advice. Always consult a competent, licensed attorney in your jurisdiction when faced with legal questions.

[Chameleox]

+1
The accessories and modifications will be questioned if
A) the gun goes off accidentally/unintentionally (trigger or safety modifications), or
B) the wrong person gets shot (sights, lights)

We're going through a transition at our agency from general pool rifles to individual issue and purchase. We're getting to the accessorizing and modification issue. The liability issue pops up, but for our powers that be, its more of an issue of the department training staff and armorers not knowing how to run an AR or set it up for duty use.

edited: That's not to say that trigger mods are dangerous; just make sure you or whoever is doing the work knows what they're doing.

[ST911]

Agencies and officers can mitigate whatever potential for problem exists by ensuring that they have trained, certified, competent, and experienced armorers on staff that can credibly attest to the serviceable condition and suitability of firearms in LE service.

Relying solely upon the "gun guy" in your department is NOT acceptable.

The issue can be further mitigated by ensuring that policies clearly establish which components and assemblies may be used, the standards to which they are held, and what configurations are allowable. Those that are allowable should be common in LE service and clearly established as suitable for LE service.

[kwelz]

I think Liability comes into play more if something goes wrong. If a factory gun fails to function if is on the company. If a Frankengun fails, it is on whoever assembled it.

[dbrowne1]

Agencies and officers can mitigate whatever potential for problem exists by ensuring that they have trained, certified, competent, and experienced armorers on staff that can credibly attest to the serviceable condition and suitability of firearms in LE service.

And the names and phone numbers for well-credentialed armorers/experts who don't work for the agency and can say the same, but won't be viewed as a shill for the home team.

[dbrowne1]

I think Liability comes into play more if something goes wrong. If a factory gun fails to function if is on the company. If a Frankengun fails, it is on whoever assembled it.

It's not that simple...

[ThirdWatcher]

You need to get out more.

True.

[tracker722]

******

[dbrowne1]

Basically, what it comes down to is department rules and regulations. Do you have the qualified training cadre in your department? Can they back up the qualifications you and your officers possess to carry the weapons? Is the ammunition standardized for training and street use?

These are issues that will come up in any civil suit that is brought about by a shooting. Not so much what fired the round but what type of round, was it approved, and what type of training the troops received and whether or not it was P.O.S.T. certified.

The mere fact that you did or did not follow internal department regulations doesn't matter and, in fact, those regulations may not even be admissible. The standards that govern whether you or your agency were negligent are not found in the rules and regs that you wrote, and frankly that's the way it should be. If that were the standard, you could simply write incredibly broad and lenient regs, or have none at all, and never be liable. I can also assure you that none of the plaintiff's bar cares if you followed internal regulations that nobody but your agency knows about, if you nonetheless committed a tort in doing so.

Whether a training program or practice is POST certified would probably be relevant and admissible (but not dispositive) on whether the practice or training element was defective.

Agency regs (and whether you followed them) also don't help you if a credible expert says that what you did pursuant to those regulations is dangerous/not within industry standards/etc., and this the regulation itself is flawed.

You need to look at agency rules as something that guides internal behavior and should be written in accordance with what the rest of the world and the law view as negligent, as a way to have detailed guidelines that are more specific and user friendly than the law in general but ensure that practices fall within the law. They are not yardstick or an authority in themselves.