LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

Lawsuits like this one are the reason that gun makers should refuse to deal their products in certain liberal/socialist states and metropolitan areas. So, you're from Chicago, New Yawk, Detroit, Los Angeles, Taxachusetts or Washington, D.C., and you bought my gun? Gee, we don't do business in those areas so you're out of luck. In fact, all of our paperwork says that if you take our firearm into a socialist/liberal areas all agreements, warranties and legal rights to use our product in any way is null and completely void. You are on your own, dipstick. Too bad you shot yourself but you were warned that injury could occur if you illegally or stupidly misused our product.
 
One of the reasons everything costs so much, including guns ... too many lawyers and too many people unwilling to accept responsibility for what happens to them when it's obviously their fault ... leaving a loaded gun in reach of a child is a recipe for disaster, and this guy is now dealing with the results of his own stupidity ...
 
Jules used a 1911, with both a grip safety, and a thumb safety. I'd like to see a 3 year old figure that out, and fire it...
Click to expand...
Actually the 1911 was one of the first autos mentioned and it was pointed out that it was able to be fired by ALL the children in the study. Grip safeties require no effort and an obvious thumb safety provided little obstacle for a curious child.

The gun they had the most trouble with was a hammerless revolver. You used to be able to find it on youtube until recently but it is gone now. It must have been an NBC program.
 
I'm sure that some of you might feel differently if you were the cop and instead of you being shot by the three year old, the three year old had his brains blown out by his own use of the stupid Glock.

...

There have been defective guns manufactured over the years. Through litigation and accidents, many design or manufacturing defects have been corrected. Unfortunately, this is usually the result of some tragedy.

Stop always trying to blame the shooter for each and every mishap. No doubt many of youse have stock in Glock and are biased, or look at every attempt to discredit a gun manufacturer as an assault on the 2nd Amendment.

However, this is not a sparkling case of fault on the part of Glock. I've said that from the outset.

But the gun is more dangerous IMO, than others of similar manufacture, due to lack of a true safety and a #5 trigger pull.

I once owned a 17 about 17 years ago. It's the ugliest POS for a gun and I sold it promptly and haven't looked back. It's a great, dependable, gun, but it's all a matter of personal preference.

Now those of you should really consider getting off your 'high horse' for there but for the grace of..."
 
While I agree that it's the officer's fault, I'm just enough of a liberal to think it might not hurt Glock financially to help this guy out, just a little.
Click to expand...

I think Microsoft should help the guy out instead. They are just as responsible for this incident as Glock, and have more money.
 
But the gun is more dangerous IMO, than others of similar manufacture, due to lack of a true safety and a #5 trigger pull.
Click to expand...
Okay, it is put up or shut up time now. :)

Show some evidence that Glocks are more dangerous than other guns. Seems to me all you have to do is keep it unloaded, or never point it at anything you do not want to kill, or just keep your finger off the trigger, and maybe keep it away from infants. Sounds very simple to me. Doesn't seem like anything there should be beyond the ability of a competent parent.

I sat here and did a websearch on accidental shootings and I am not seeing a disproportionate number of Glocks involved. In fact, I am seeing more rifles involved than I am handguns of any kind. I see some Glocks mentioned, some revolvers, multiple .32 caliber guns, some Berettas, some Taurus, etc.

The only time I am seeing a disproportionate number of Glocks involved is when I do a search for accidental shootings involving police officers...and that can easily be attributed to the fact that a disproportionate number of police officers have Glocks over other guns.

The liability here is not that the gun did what it was supposed to do when the trigger was pulled. The liability is that of a parent placing a child in a dangerous situation with a dangerous weapon. Stop trying to deflect the blame from the person to an inanimate object. Inanimate objects are not capable of poor judgement or criminally negligent behavior.
 
the company that built my vacuum cleaner is liable if I take it outside and beat my neighbor to death with it.
Click to expand...

Is it a Dyson? They dont have safety's.......

seriously, why are folks surprised this idiot and his lawyer are suing? Remeber the lady that got $millions from Mcdonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself? (the cup didnt have a warning the the coffee was hot!!)
Its the american way, why work hard to achieve success when its easier to sue someone!

Oh, and BTW, this is another reason why i dont keep one in the pipe. I know, I know, that 1/2 second more it takes me to draw and fire will be my undoing... Yeah, right.
JMHO
tom
 
seriously, why are folks surprised this idiot and his lawyer are suing? Remeber the lady that got $millions from Mcdonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself? (the cup didnt have a warning the the coffee was hot!!)
Its the american way, why work hard to achieve success when its easier to sue someone!
Click to expand...

I agree people are way to sue happy... however this is an example I wish would go away. Please do some research on the McDonalds case and you will find that they were indeed negligent. They were warned several times by the health inspectors that the coffee was being kept too hot. The woman had 3rd degree burns on her thighs and genitals that required skin grafts. She was hospitalized for over a week. I like my coffee just as hot as anyone, but when its hot enough to burn away thick leg skin... its not drinkable.

Another interesting tidbit about that case... the woman originally asked out of court for them to merely cover her medical expense, they refused. When she sued, the jury awarded her significantly more than she sued for.

Please take the time to read this article before making it out to be a case of unjust personal greed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
 
Glocks, 1911's and all other guns share one thing in common. They are as safe as the owner is. Period. As for this idiot cop, sometimes being stupid hurts. As it should.
 
Last edited:
I turn safeties off and leave 'em that way. Is there a safety device to prevent me from being me? ;)

Col. Jeff Cooper's four famous rules mention the safety zero times.
 
LOL, this sounds like that bimbo from McDonald's that spilled her HOT coffee in her lap. Handling a weapon you always have to assume that Murphy is hanging around ready to spring, but in the case of this officer, he should be fired for being so stupid, and child protective services should take a real close look at him. I wonder what his departments OPR had to say about this incident.
 
But the gun is more dangerous IMO, than others of similar manufacture, due to lack of a true safety and a #5 trigger pull.
Click to expand...

There are two dangerous things in this discussion. First, it is dangerous and totally stupid to leave a loaded firearm where a child can get it in their hands without supervision.

The second dangerous thing is some people think that Glock, simply because they are a successful business, should cough up some money to pay this guy off. Glock did nothing wrong. They made a product that functions exactly as designed. Police agencies buy them because they are less likely to have ADs than semi-autos with double action first shot, single action second shot triggers. Millions of Glock owners have successfully kept their Glocks out of the hands of children and avoided being shot in the back. I have carried a Glock every day for the last 22 years. No ADs. No children accidents.

This guy screwed up. His fault. His problem.
 
why not sue FORD for not making bullet proof car seats? This guy is retarded. Guys like this have no right to call themselves Americans. Go find a bridge and jump off it, or in his case have someone push him off it.
5.5 pounds of pressure will cause the gun to go off?? HmMMM, I like mine alot less than 5.5 pounds. Oh, My 3 year old gets strapped in seatbelts and wears a "I love me vest " while in the car. its safer for all of us that way, trust me! I passed on the muzzle for him. For some odd reason, i have not been shot by my own son while in the car and i have drove perhaps 50,000 miles with him and a pistol in the car. It must be because i dont live i California and I buckle him ina carseat and keep the pistol under the seat.
 
May the 'righteous ones' of you be struck down with all of the Biblical wrath that Samuel L. Jackson uttered in 'Pulp Fiction'.

Get off your high horse's for God's sake! GGGeeeesssshhhh...disgusting...Some people are just naive about human nature and have little knowledge of the role that Human Factors play in such situations.
Click to expand...

I think some of us on the board, including myself, haven't criticized him for making mistakes for which he's paid a heavy price.

We've criticized him for blaiming others for his mistakes.
 
Very sad story, but the bottom line is that the gun should have been secured away from the three year old.

Now the guy is paralyzed, has no means of making a living, and wants to cash out through a frivolous lawsuit. It'd be very tempting for me too, I think. I'm not sure what I'd do, though.

If that gun had been pointing the other way, his son would be dead, and that cop would no longer be a cop. He'd be in isolation at Tehachapi state prison.
 
I am not saying glock should pay it, or has a responsibility to pay, just that if I was in a wheel chair running out of money to pay for my care I would probably kick into survival mode, kiss my pride goodbye, and sue whoever was closest. There is a reason this guy waited two years to file the suit.
 
The idea that 'somebody must pay' everytime there's an unfortunate incident or accident (even one cause by stupidity or carelessness) is an inane concept that has become ingrained in our society.

Legal beagles delight in these suits, in the interest of protecting consumers of course (the thought of at least a 33-1/3% piece of the action couldn't possible influence their willingness to participate - or could it).

Yeah, the cop made a very serious mistake and is paying dearly for it but does that mean everyone who buys a Glock should pay (and they will indirectly if Glock pays - costs get passed along!!!)
 
The short version of a couple of us on Glocks is they are an accident waiting to happen. They are a cheap, high production gun, sold cheaply to public agencies who foolishly by the Glock Safety line. If you read the legal argument I presented, you may, or may not be convinced. However, this is certainly an argument that should be made, and, in a state that determines fault by the contribution of the different participants, Glocks' design may well be found to be contributory to the incident.

Sorry about the movie gun mistake. I figured the gun was a 1911 that had the barrel reduced, so it would work better with blanks...
 
Hmm. You can take a glock, load it, and put it on a table. Leave if there for 100 years, it won't fire. It is as safe as the person who owns / controls it. For anyone to think its ok to sue glock, needs to take a deep breath and read what happened again. An idiot cop left a loaded gun (just happened to be a glock) in a vehicle were the firearm was not under his control and where a 3 year old could gain access to the weapon. Now, unless someone proves that Gaston Glock himself put that weapon in that vehicle for that child to get a hold of it, I fail to see where glock is at fault. To even suggest a gun maker would be at fault in a situation like this is at best naive stupidity and at worst closet anti gun.
 
I think Microsoft should help the guy out instead. They are just as responsible for this incident as Glock, and have more money.
Click to expand...

I officially declare publius42 the winner of this thread.

An 8" chefs knife has absolutely NO SAFETY. If I leave one in the backseat with my unrestrained child and they accidentally cut a major artery and die... is the knife maker responsible?

EDIT: and for the record... I hate Glocks. However as much as I dislike them, this wasn't their fault. Lawsuits like this just result in stupid laws. Any of you defending this guy better keep quiet the next time some safety requirement makes it impossible to get a good trigger, or if the gov. mandates all trigger pulls be 20#.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top