Hammered gun in court.

[PeterJLH09]

I was wondering if someone could help me with a question regarding a handgun that has a hammer being a possible detriment if/when fired while on duty. (security officer) Obviously if there is a need to discharge my weapon and use lethal force, there will at least be a court hearing, if not a trial. Does the presence of a hammer on the handgun make me more susceptible to being charged with manslaughter or worse? Regardless of the situation?

 

[RichardR]

Not that I am aware of.

 

[rmabrey]

No, Why would it?

 

[groovatron]

I don't see why it would. Out of curiosity, what made you think of this question? Did you hear that from some other source? .....Just trying to understand your concern further.

 

[LEaSH]

Having a shrouded hammer or DAO handgun eliminates only one of many liabilities that a lawyer may try to pin on a defensive shooter.
I've never known of a specific case. I imagine that there have been shootings where the shooter pulled the hammer back and didn't intend to pull the trigger - or claimed that it had "just gone off" not realizing the lightness of a single action pull at that point.
So depending on the exact situation, it is only ONE element of many that an aggresive prosecuter might used to paint a picture that may not be true.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Massad Ayoob tends to think that an exposed hammer is a liability but his experience is from a court case in which a witness who really didn't witness anything said an officer "cocked" the hammer on his Glock pistol before shooting someone execution style.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't see how that can be relevant.

 

[groovatron]

I say, if you have to shoot someone in the line of duty in a courtroom, shoot them. Carry what's comfortable and sort out the details later.

 

[LawDog76]

Chances are if it's a justified shoot, it's not going to even make it to court. Only way it will goto court is if there is reason to believe it was a wrongful shooting such are you shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, he really didn't have a weapon, he surrendered his weapon before you fired, or something along those lines.

 

[printcraft]

Massad Ayoob tends to think that an exposed hammer is a liability but his experience is from a court case in which a witness who really didn't witness anything said an officer "cocked" the hammer on his Glock pistol before shooting someone execution style.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that courtroom.

 

[sloughfoot]

A former prosecutor in Allen County once made a public statement that "I don't care if a bazooka is used to stop a bad guy, as long as lethal force is justified". At least that is how I remember what he said.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that courtroom.

I have to reread the book but if I remember the story right, he had the "witness" repeat these details 3 times and physical act it out, cocking the hammer on a Glock and all.

 

[rmabrey]

I have to reread the book but if I remember the story right, he had the "witness" repeat these details 3 times and physical act it out, cocking the hammer on a Glock and all.

Your glock doesnt have a hammer

 

[indyjoe]

Your glock doesnt have a hammer

That is why the Glock 7 is invisible to metal detectors. Hammers have tons of metal in them (especially framing hammers).

 

[Hammerhead]

My gun is never hammered in court. I make sure it's totally sober before going to the courthouse.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Sort of the gunstore BS story about if you have a revolver and you go single action instead of double action it , as one nit wit told me, counts as premeditation.

Pure gibberish: Type of weapon, unless illegal under US or Indiana laws, is okay to use without fear of "liability" or "premeditation". Unless it is a matchlock, you gotta have an hour before it finally fires after match applied. That COULD be premeditation

 

[noday]

What I have been told is that reguardless of trial results> A person that is defending themself would still be exposed to a tort claim or personal liabily litigation....I do not know for sure but it sounded like a possibility.

 

[rmabrey]

What I have been told is that reguardless of trial results> A person that is defending themself would still be exposed to a tort claim or personal liabily litigation....I do not know for sure but it sounded like a possibility.

Not in the great state of Indiana, it is a "stand your ground" or "no duty to retreat" state. The "stand your ground' clause also has a clause that provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force.

 

[Fargo]

Massad Ayoob tends to think that an exposed hammer is a liability but his experience is from a court case in which a witness who really didn't witness anything said an officer "cocked" the hammer on his Glock pistol before shooting someone execution style.

I think you are thinking of the Magliato case from New York in 1984. The facts there aren't quite as you describe:

Make Ready Forum ? the Panteao Productions Bulletin Board

Joe

 

[melensdad]

What I have been told is that reguardless of trial results> A person that is defending themself would still be exposed to a tort claim or personal liabily litigation....

Not in the great state of Indiana, it is a "stand your ground" or "no duty to retreat" state. The "stand your ground' clause also has a clause that provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force.

Yup, Indiana, and many other states, have laws on the books that actually protect justified self defense actions. If you use a gun/knife/etc to protect yourself/family member/etc and that results in the death/injury of your/their attacker and your action is considered to be justified (ie: No charges filed against you) then you are held harmless and you cannot be sued by the family of the attacker you killed/injured.

This protection falls under what is loosely termed the "Castle Doctrine" type laws. Many states have changed their laws recently (last 10 years) and incorporated some form of Castle Doctrine. These can include a "no duty to retreat" clause. Further these laws can also protect your justified actions OUTSIDE of your home and OFF your property. In some states they include your vehicle, in some states (like Indiana) they include "any place where you are legally allowed to be" but in every case that I know of they also make it clear that you cannot be the aggressor/in the process of committing a crime/etc when you claim to shoot in self-defense.