There are two definitions of “hair trigger,” one or both of which can be discussed in court. One is “lighter than factory specifications” and the other differs “from the usual custom and practice among those who use such machines daily.” In fact, as if there had been a workplace accident or a car accident with machines allegedly settled negligently, with injury or death. Avoid trigger shots that are lighter than factory specifications for service weapons. Jargon alarm here: When I say “service weapons,” I mean firearms intended for police/military service or self-defense, as opposed to targeted handguns. “Factory Specification” means the specifications of the manufacturer of the weapon itself, not the company that manufactured the aftermarket trigger kit. Why would a prosecutor claim that you fired unintentionally when you intentionally used your weapon to save your life? If it is a politically motivated law enforcement, it is because an established case of self-defense is what is called in court a “perfect defense,” but there is no such thing as a “justified accident” or “accidental self-defense.” You`re not going to have gun experts on your jury, you`re going to have a dozen people chosen by the accusing party because of their lack of knowledge about guns and self-defense laws and tactics. Opposing lawyers know that it`s much easier to convince a jury of good people that you did something reckless and stupid that resulted in death or injury than it is to convince them that a nice person like them suddenly turned into a murderous monster. A so-called “hair trigger” directly fuels their false claim of an untenable and unintentional shooting. You wouldn`t give your opponent a loaded gun on the street. Don`t give the equivalent of a politically motivated or clueless prosecutor or a plaintiff lawyer motivated by greed. Using a lighter trigger than recommended by the manufacturer on the weapon you are carrying to protect your life and the community you serve does just that. Rob Hauck joined the LAPD in 1988 and received a DAO S&W Model 67.38.
In more than two decades, he became commander of the Metro Division and SWAT, the latter armed with 1911 stretched and locked with triggers over 4 pounds. In this bustling boutique, where entire law firms have dedicated their practices to prosecuting police officers, Hauck learned about civil liability. When he began his second career as a chef in Tomball, Texas, he inherited the Santibane case, which was discussed this month in Ayoob Files. Before joining Tomball, Hauck was a master-class IPSC shooter, with a cannon jump filled with STI competitions from 1911 with trigger moves so light they were virtually telekinetic. In the Ayoob cases in this issue, we focus on a case in Texas where an unintentional firing of a private service pistol with a trigger “lighter than the manufacturer`s recommended service specification” paralyzed a suspect for life, deeply affecting the officer involved and his department. The plaintiff`s lawsuit alleged negligence because the officer with the best of intentions had created a lighter trigger than what the weapon manufacturer had declared for use on duty/self-defense. Let`s look at some of the questions that arise when this topic is discussed. “Oh, it only matters if the shooting was actually accidental.” False. Thirty years ago, I presented my first case as an expert witness in which this allegation was the cornerstone of the manslaughter charge against Constable Florida v. Luis Alvarez. We proved – after a two-month trial – that the officer deliberately and rightly shot a man who was trying to shoot a gun at him and his young rookie partner. Janet Reno, the prosecutor, claimed that he hitched the hammer of his .38 duty and squeezed the resulting “hairprint” by predictable and negligent accident.
This would not be the last false accusation of this kind that I would face. Why would a plaintiff`s lawyer use the same false argument in a lawsuit? Another reason. In a civil trial, they are looking for deep pockets. They know that if they win a seven-figure verdict against most people, the money just isn`t there to collect. But they know that most of us have at least a million dollars in liability insurance and auto liability insurance. If you shot an intruder or burglar who approached you when you caught him red-handed, the homeowner`s insurance company has the money! If you shot the car hijacker or assailant in self-defense on the highway, auto liability insurance has the money! But when they claim you did it intentionally, they`ve sewn deep pockets because most, if not all, of these policies explicitly exempt insurance companies from having to pay for what`s called an intentional offense, that is, your intentional act that harmed others. (See Terry Graham v. Texas Farm Bureau for an example.) Self-defense is, by definition, a deliberate act: a false claim of the “hair trigger” gives them the element of negligence for which liability insurance exists. The motive and again the “hair trigger” therefore enter into this statement. Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for hair trigger The reason for this is that at the time when the double-action revolver was the norm in law enforcement, it became almost a cottage industry among unscrupulous lawyers to falsely claim that the weapon was “negligently armed, creating a hair triggering effect.” There have been, of course, cases where this has actually happened (see New York v. Frank Magliato), but there have also been cases where it has been falsely claimed (see Florida v.
Luis Alvarez). That`s why, in the era of service revolvers, so many police departments (such as LAPD, NYPD, Miami, Montreal) modified their service revolvers so that they only work twice. It would be foolish to ignore the decades of institutional history and tragedies on both sides of the gun that led to these policy decisions. Miami only took over the Glock after the ATF declared it a double-action car and even then, demanded 8-pound trains. By the time they went to the cars, the NYPD departments in Montreal had converted their revolvers to double-action only (DAO), and everyone was demanding CAD cars if they went to 9mm. The NYPD Glocks have “NY-2” triggers of nearly 12 pounds of draw weight. But he knew enough to carry a Glock with a factory standard, “common custom and practice,” 5.5-pound “FBI-approved” trigger train in service. After the $450,000 cost of the Santibanes trial, he and the police officers he commanded – who had seen their officer brother go through the nightmare of a “hair-raising” trial for alleged negligence, and the community to which he owed fiduciary responsibility – understood. “The other party” knows that there is no such thing as a “justified accident” and that deep-pocketed insurance companies usually only cover negligence, not wilful harm to others, which in civil law is called an “intentional tort”. A lighter trigger than “service specifications” plays into their unsubstantiated claims of “hairtrigger gun equals hair trigger personality, equals careless discharge, equals guilt.” Note that I`m not saying you shouldn`t modify your weapon or even its trigger in any way.