TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:I think a light trigger pull is only a problem if a person has not practiced enough with their weapon. But that is just my experience with it. Similar to a person moving directly from a Glock type pull to a 1911 pull. The first few rounds will probably get touched off quicker than expected.

Like any other occupation. There are those that practice with the tools of their trade and there are those who just try to get by.

The NYPD and a few other depts in NY changed to what is called the NY2 trigger which has a trigger pull of 12lbs. while the normal trigger pull for a Glock would be about 5.5lbs. Double action only. The NY1 trigger id 8lbs. just for added info.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/0 ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can’t throw money at a problem that needs to be fixed through training, but you shouldn’t use equipment that holds you back when you know you can do better, either. And in this case, it seems like the NYPD needs to do both; get some help training their officers AND stop requiring the “ND-proof” 12 pound trigger. Unless they like their cops shooting bystanders, that is.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So, if I miss and hit innocent bystanders, I can blame the bad trigger on my gun to avoid prosecution or liability?

Who is saying that!! Anyone!! Where is there even the slightest hint of someone saying that? But if the trigger on a gun is horrible and makes it harder to shoot it's worth noting don't you think? God forbid we try and actually understand an issue rather than just making sure you can pin the blame on someone.

EEllis
Post subject: Re: NYPD shoots bystanders; suspect chargedPostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:33 am
Online
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:54 pm
Posts: 806
gigag04 wrote:
NYPD still have those stupid heavy triggers on their Glocks?


The one's that make them almost impossible to shoot accurately? Yep.

Impossible to shoot accurately now equals OK to shoot bystanders? I'm done and out.

mojo84 wrote:So, if I miss and hit innocent bystanders, I can blame the bad trigger on my gun to avoid prosecution or liability?

Who is saying that!! Anyone!! Where is there even the slightest hint of someone saying that? But if the trigger on a gun is horrible and makes it harder to shoot it's worth noting don't you think? God forbid we try and actually understand an issue rather than just making sure you can pin the blame on someone.

Alf wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between bullseye shooting and shooting human size targets. I just don't accept the triggers as being an acceptable excuse for shooting bystanders.

I don't think there is ever an "acceptable" reason but that doesn't mean you stop looking at what may of played a part.

If a driver rear-ends another car, it's probably operator error. If he tries to blame it on the company car being a 4-door sedan instead of a sports car with better brakes, that only makes me more convinced it's operator error.

I'm not trying to argue with people who care more about making a point than acknowledging reality. You rear end a car your at fault but pretending that it doesn't matter if the car has bad breaks or not seems stupid to me.

mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between bullseye shooting and shooting human size targets. I just don't accept the triggers as being an acceptable excuse for shooting bystanders.

I don't think there is ever an "acceptable" reason but that doesn't mean you stop looking at what may of played a part.

NYPD glock trigger is 12 lbs. A normal DA is less than that and can be under 6 lbs. Think about the worst DA trigger you have ever fired and NYPD triggers are most likely worse.

cb1000rider wrote:It's crazy how firearm incidents are treated differently depending on where you are and who you are:

http://thegrio.com/2013/12/04/us-airman ... -25-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This guy was protecting himself from an unprovoked attack. He fired, hit his attacker and also managed to hit 2 other people via fragments.

The DA had to say:

“The evidence is clear here that the act of pointing a gun into a group of people, even if you’re not specifically deciding to kill them, is a crime,” said Assistant State Attorney Jack Campbell in his closing statements during the trial...

20-year mandatory minimum sentence for this guy. 10 years of it was for "brandishing". Sheesh. Not worth owning a gun in FL.

That's not how it works. Florida has a 10-20-life mandated sentencing for gun crimes. Any felony involving a gun is 10 years, firing a gun is 20 years, shooting someone is 25 or life. So, no 10 years wasn't for brandishing but what you would get if you didn't fire the gun but had it during a felony criminal act. He actually shot someone which is why he got the mandated 25.

And as an aside this was another, or should I say earlier "warning shot" case. He hit the guy with his "Warning shot" and by calling it a warning shot you are almost automatically going to get charged.

gigag04 wrote:NYPD still have those stupid heavy triggers on their Glocks?

The one's that make them almost impossible to shoot accurately? Yep.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Yes, it is a fair question. The bottom line seems to be that you seem to feel that if a person commits any offense, regardless of the severity, then they should be criminally responsible for any and all outcomes regardless if intervening causes.

OK now I have no doubt you are much better versed on the law than I am but..... You asked why I didn't reply and I told you.. Sure, disagree all you want, but that is why I didn't reply and not only did your reply not address that beyond "Yes it is". You then progress to tell me what I think , and surprisingly enough you are wrong.

I was discussing the actual law not my personal preference and since the GJ charged the crime I must assume the precursor crime rises to the level that attaches criminal liability for the consequences for activity surrounding both the commission and the police reaction to that crime. If so then we have no info that would indicate charging the suspect with the shootings was legally incorrect. As to if he should be found guilty I would say that if it were the law of the State and I were on the jury that I could find someone guilty of such a charge. I don't find the law so egregious that I couldn't in good faith find someone guilty but have no idea if in this case the conduct rises to the level which would support that. As to if I believe that any any offense, regardless of the severity, is grounds for being criminally responsible for any and all outcomes regardless if intervening causes. No. Never even came close to that. Which is why I thought the example was absurd and didn't answer. It wasnt worth answering.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: In this case, the intervening causes would be the reckless conduct and incompetency of the responding officers. In civil cases, the injuries must be "reasonably foreseeable" to hold a defendant liable in damages. I think the reason Texas law requires the commission of a felony and a related death before charging a defendant with murder is to somewhat extend this same concept to criminal law.

I don't think reckless conduct is automatically established by the limited facts given here. That the officers fired even tho the suspect was found not to have a gun doesn't mean the officers were acting in a reckless or incompetent manner. Heck the bystanders getting hit doesn't either. If the suspect was acting in a manner which a normal person would think would get them shot then, well, there you go. Can they prove it? How would we know.
And this is NY criminal law right?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

EEllis wrote:The theory of legal liability for events as a consequence of illegal activity is well established. Your main issue is that Texas law requires a felony and you think it lets cops off the hook right?

Wrong! Try reading my posts before you start attributing position statements on my behalf. My complaint is with the charges that were filed against the defendant, i.e. assault charges due to the reckless conduct of the officers. I'm not saying one thing about charging the officers, or letting them "off the hook" as you say. Why do you feel the need to rush to the officers' defense when I'm not saying they should be prosecuted?

I actually laughed out loud to read how offended you seem by my asking what your issue was when you actually are "Telling" me what I think/feel earlier in your post. Come on now. OK though, I think I understand. You believe that the officers were acting in a reckless or incompetent manner and as such any consequences should be blamed on them not the suspect. Correct? Ok I see that point but I don't think that article establishes those facts. There is also the issue that would there have been a foreseeable risk even with the officers acting "correctly"? If so I'm not sure that the fact that the officers acted incorrectly automatically removes all liability anyway. I think it might be one of those "I'll know it when I see it" type of situations where you can't draw a clear line. If someone purposely startles a horse and the rider is unseated of course there is liability but what if any even basic rider should be able to stay on and the rider only fell off due to their own incompetence? There is an obvious difference between a firecracker and a slight slap to the rump to start a horse moving but that's where courts come in to find where that fine line is between the two. I don't feel a big need to rush to anyone defense I just feel that there have been some assumptions that get parroted as facts in this case that just are not warranted by what we know right now.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You apparently don't know what NY law is either, but NY and NJ have a very poor track record in terms of filing frivolous charges. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is involved in at least three cases where peace officers from others states were arrested by NY COPs for unlawfully carrying handgun. When the officers said LEOSA makes it legal, the response in all three cases was, "this is New York and we don't [care] about federal law." More importantly I made it clear I'm talking about Texas law and the absurdity of charging the subject in NYC if that State's law allows for such charges.

Chas.

Yes but I'm not putting my opinion on what NY law is ahead of the DA. And I'm sorry if NY has a lot of crappy DA's but that doesn't automatically cause me to think that this case is bad. Are the courts so bad that more than half the cases involving cops are frivolous? Then that really isn't evidence of anything in this case. It may be a great reason to reserve ones opinion or to give a closer look to the case, but not, to me, prejudge this case.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: Let's take this a step further. You are going 7mph over the speed limit. An officer is parked on the side of the road. As he pulls onto the road to stop you he pulls out in front of a car and kills the driver in the other car. You are now charged with vehicular manslaughter? Where does this line of logic stop? Very dangerous thought process. Hope the judge tells the DA he's an idiot.

But why don't we leave it where it is. The officer doesn't pull out in the street and hits anyone but instead crashed into a car in minute 5 of your police chase that occurred when you failed to pull over. Where does the logic stop? With the Jury. We need to trust the jury can understand the difference between the two scenarios and apply the law reasonable and correctly.

Why didn't you answer the question that was asked?

Chas.

Because I don't think it was a fair question. It's like asking when you stopped hitting your wife. The question is framed based on assumptions and in such a manner as to elicit a given response not actually have something answered. The question shouldn't be is it fair if we take it to an absurd limit but is it fair as is or in comparison to a situation of a more equal basis. The theory of legal liability for events as a consequence of illegal activity is well established. Your main issue is that Texas law requires a felony and you think it lets cops off the hook right? Well it happened in NY so unless there is some incite into NY state law I'm not sure how one can castigate the DA for operating under NY law and the fact that one can ascribe legal liability to a lawbreaker does not prevent the DA from holding police officers accountable. There is no legal bar that I know of them to prevent both parties from being charged. Yes I understand that would make both cases infinitely harder to win but that does not prevent anyone from trying AFAIK

jmra wrote:
I don't think so. If the judge has any sense whatsoever this charge never makes it to a jury.

That isn't and shouldn't be how it works. Now we don't have all the details so it's hard to speak to this particular case but it's clear that a person can act n such a way that they should know, and that they even want, cops to act using deadly force. If a person does so in a manner and location that results in bystanders being hurt or killed then they are of course legally liable. Unless a judge rules that there is in no possible way a jury could ever find that someone acted in such a manner they shouldn't dismiss such a case. In this case while the article is clearly written with the obvious belief of the reporter that the shooting was unjustified no real evidence or proof is given. And the prosecution, if they are at all ethical, can't really talk about their case or the reasoning behind their decisions until after the case has been tried.

jmra wrote: Let's take this a step further. You are going 7mph over the speed limit. An officer is parked on the side of the road. As he pulls onto the road to stop you he pulls out in front of a car and kills the driver in the other car. You are now charged with vehicular manslaughter? Where does this line of logic stop? Very dangerous thought process. Hope the judge tells the DA he's an idiot.

But why don't we leave it where it is. The officer doesn't pull out in the street and hits anyone but instead crashed into a car in minute 5 of your police chase that occurred when you failed to pull over. Where does the logic stop? With the Jury. We need to trust the jury can understand the difference between the two scenarios and apply the law reasonable and correctly.

cb1000rider wrote:
I don't understand why you take a shot at someone that you haven't confirmed as a deadly threat with a backdrop full of people. Maybe it's because I haven't been in that adrenalin fueled type of event? Before you even raise a gun, aren't you going to think about the backdrop?

Because it you wait until you see and confirm it's a gun you will be shot. It's been shown to be true time and time again. Get a friend and try out some scenarios. Have him use a couple of different items and you only shoot when you "know" it's a gun. He should get you most of the time.

And lastly, I don't understand a criminal justice system that charges an unarmed guy with assault when he clearly was not a deadly threat. If you follow that to it's logical conclusion, any action that I might take that results in LEO gunfire, I'm inherently responsible for, regardless of how justified or unjustified that use of force was. It's no different than having an offer club me and accidentally hurting someone else, then charging me with two crimes.

I'm calmed down by recognizing that hopefully this is a pretty isolated incident in day to day public/police interaction.

You are making an argument based on a logical fallacy here. You say "when he clearly was not a deadly threat" but that is not a given so the rest of your statement does not follow. What if the guy was doing something like trying to commit suicide by cop? Making moves that were designed to make others believe he had a firearm when he didn't? He then would be trying to look like he was a deadly threat to induce the suicide by cop so obviously a person can be unarmed and still present like a deadly threat.