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.
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. 
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 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 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).
I have never seen evidence of a good shoot that was turned into a bad one because the shooter used customized equipment.
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.
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 fucked 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.
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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not that simple…
True.
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.