Snub Training – DAO vs. Accusations of Negligent Discharge

There have also been cases where the shooter has been accused of cocking the weapon and creating a hair-trigger condition when no such action took place.  The ability to cock the revolver creates two post shooting dangers. 

First the shooter has to prove he did not cock the weapon in order to preserve his claim of self-defense.  As Massad Ayoob has said “The cocked revolver can and has been viewed by the court as being in a condition of hair-trigger single action status.”  This alone can be argued as proof of negligence and can negate a claim of self-defense.”

The second danger comes from the civil attorney representing your attacker. Many civil case attorneys knows that your home owner’s policy is not liable for an intentional act (deliberate shootings) but they are liable for any at home accident.  You attacker’s attorney is motivated to try and make the argument that you cocked the hammer and the snub went off accidently.  You will be again in the position of having to prove you never cocked the snub.  Would it not be better to have rendered the snub double action only ahead of time and avoid both problems?


One Response to Snub Training – DAO vs. Accusations of Negligent Discharge

  1. Nelle says:

    I have been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
    It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all webmasters and
    bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be much more useful than ever

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: