If you shoot someone with a revolver, then one of the first questions you will be asked is, "Did you cock the hammer?"

You will be asked this by Internal Affairs, and you will be asked this in the criminal case that might follow and in the civil torte action that could follow.

If you answer yes, or if they have a reason to doubt your no answer, you're pretty much dead meat.

It's better to be able to say no, you didn't cock the hammer because it is impossible.

My opinion is that if you are going to carry a gun, you must be trained to exhibit the kind of determination and training necessary for it to be a foregone conclusion that there was no accident involved and that you did exactly what you meant to do in any case involving deadly force.

The stakes are the highest they could possibly ever be. You need to be absolutely sure in your course of action, and you need to be able to show people that you were absolutely sure about what you were doing.

Weapons that are deep cover, last ditch up close resorts to personal protection need double action triggers that cannot be fired by accident.

 

I follow every shooting case I come across, a macabe hobby of mine. Of special interest are cases where there are claims of undue force or malfeasance of some type against a defensive shooter.

I have never seen a case or even heard a whisper of a case where cocking the hammer figured in. In fact, I have never even read of the question being asked in a transcript.

Can you provide backup for this claim? I won't say it's bullshit, but it sounds awfully like urban legend to me.

 

Chuck Taylor, Masaad Ayoob and Ed Sanow have all written of this.

I'm surprised that you've followed cases so dilligently and not run across their names as expert witnesses. (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really surprised.)

A quick call to a Virginia BCI official (personal acquaintance) also suggested that in a shooting case where a revolver is the weapon, the shooter will be asked as a matter of course whether or not he cocked the gun, and the questioning could proceed based on that answer if it is in the affirmative.

There has to be some common sense involved. It's possible that it would be entirely obvious to the investigator that there had been an intrusion and that the shooter was in fear for his life.

However, there could also be circumstances that would lead the investigator to wonder whether the gun had been deliberately cocked and aimed in an abuscade or whether the gun had been cocked as a threat and then inadvertently discharged.

By any chance, do you have access to Westlaw?

 

I don't even see the significance of the hammer being cocked or not anyway.

So what, I heard a noise and cocked it. Then I shot him when I was threatened.
or
I heared a noise, pointed, then when I was threatened I pull the DA trigger and shot him.

I see no difference.

 

The reason we continue to produce double action triggers in this day and age, and the reason that the Glock automatic trigger has been twice modified since guns of that ilk hit the scene, is because we need to make it harder to pull the trigger.

In a nut shell, shootings tend to happen at close range in highly stressful environments that are instantly filled with tremor proudcing adrenaline.

We would need to know that, in that kind of environment, when confronted with that awful choice, that it was actually your decision and intention to shoot.

Although people are issued excellent .357 SiG automatics with an excellent single action trigger pull, they are trained to use the longer double action trigger on the all important first shot.

 

Yeah, you need to decide if it was an accidental or not, I understand that...

However, to me; if someone cocked the hammer back and THEN fired, it means they were aware of the situation for a significant amount of time and then decided at the last moment to use the force necessary.

Just my 0.02, that's how I'd write the report if I was handed it by my instructors...

 

I've heard of all three, read their stuff and yet I have never seen a case where this is an issue.

I don't recall Chuck Taylor or Masaad Ayoob ever saying anything of the sort. Chuck Taylor used to teach revolver shooting and it seems unlikely that he would espouse this idea. Saying that it is a bad idea to cock a revolver first is like saying it is a bad idea to jack a round into the chamber of a 12ga... the sound alone is a deterrent.

The only time I have seen issues over procedure, ammo, etc come up are in Officer involved shootings, never once in a civilian defensive shooting case.

I discussed similar issues via email not too long ago with Dave Workman who writes for several of the gun mags and is the un-offical court reporter for several more. He has testified in numerous court cases as an expert witness and even, if I remember correctly, before Congress and yet has never had these issues raised.

The issues that get raised are shoot/no-shoot (situational and evironmental), justifiable use of force, expectation of deadly harm, alternatives to firearms etc.

 

The point is, once you cock the hammer back to threaten the "bad guy," the trigger is much more sensitive then it was prior to cocking it. If you are fimiliar with the difference between a DA and SA trigger, you'd know that it is a lot easier to accidentally fire a set SA trigger.

However, if you think about it, the same arguement can be used against a lot of automatics (PPK, 1911, 92F/FS, etc.)

 

With the PPK and the 92F, I think you could probably assume that the people who carry them are trained to fire the first shot DA. That is how our SiG carriers are trained, anyway.

I can't think of a major army that still carries the 1911, but you might be shocked to know that in the old days US MP's would carry their guns with the hammer down and unchambered, which necessitated (in addition to lawfully and correctly determining a gun-draw situation) their having to unhook the holster, get the gun out, and rack the slide before it could even be pointed.

There must have been some kind of protocol involved, because I recall an MP clearly carrying his gun with the hammer back and the safety on. I guess in this case you'd draw the gun with the safety still engaged.

Perhaps our Preacher friend can tell us when US MP's carried in what condition.

 

1988 was the last time I carried a 1911 in the service. The Berettas were already being phased in and replacing the venerable old .45s.

When I switched services in 88, I was issued a 1911 but had to swap it out (under protest!) for a Beretta about 3 months later.