I officially declare publius42 the winner of this thread.
OK, but Nate posted the best pic!
I officially declare publius42 the winner of this thread.
Wishful, revisionist thinking at best. I doubt he was doing any high speed chases in his civilian truck.I can't help but think we'll find out later the officer was in high speed pursuit of a murder/bank robber/, managed to stop, contain, and arrest the suspect, and, put the gun down while doing his paper work, and forgot it. On his way home...
etc.
The short version of a couple of us on Glocks is they are an accident waiting to happen.
In my mind, the larger issues are 1) Why wasn't the firearm under this officers direct control? and 2) Why, since the firearm wasn't in his control, was it placed on the back seat of the truck, next to the toddler?An off-duty Los Angeles police officer who was paralyzed after his young son accidentally shot him in 2006 filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the manufacturer of the gun involved in the accident.
Enrique Chavez of Anaheim was shot in the back by his 3-year-old son after the boy grabbed his father’s Glock 21 — a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol — from the back seat of his pickup truck.
This id-jut is suing on the grounds of an actual defect.
but there is some merit to the suit, as much as I hate to say it.
The claim is that there is no manual safety, as found on countless other semi-automatic handguns.Creature said:Where is the actual defect?
Not unless the court has the ability to redefine the english language. A defect means a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection. They would have to somehow show that the lack of safety fell into these categories in regards to the purpose for which the gun was created. Meaning does the lack of safety make the gun less effective as a firearm.he claim is that there is no manual safety, as found on countless other semi-automatic handguns.
Is that an actual defect? Kinda depends upon the court, doesn't it? If the court agrees that a defect exists (even theoreticly), then the suit has merit.
Is that an actual defect? Kinda depends upon the court, doesn't it? If the court agrees that a defect exists (even theoreticly), then the suit has merit.