LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

If Glock sees this and stops all sales to CA LEO's, then there might be a silver lining to all of this. Ideally all companies will cease to supply sidearms to them to make them finally feel pain for the idiocy they push on all of the rest of us.
 
What is all this garbage about people crying about how unsafe Glocks are? I don't even like them but as I understand the mechanics of how a firearm functions they are as safe as anything else if you follow the rules of handgun safety.

Short of a keyed or biometric safety of some sort anyone can figure out how to make a gun go bang quickly.

I think the cop should be facing charges of at least child endangerment. You never leave a loaded gun or an unloaded gun around a kid. Period.

My son figured out how to turn on my Playstation 3, change my TV to the appropriate video input, and how to play GTA IV (much to my shock and horror) while I was taking a nap on the couch (about an hour or so). He's 4 years old, I never played it around him.

Kids are not innocent little angels who are drawn to evil things. They are curious little suckers who want to figure out how EVERYTHING works. They are way smarter and intuitive than most adults give them credit for.

So I guess to make kids safe we need to allow only 5 shot revolvers with a keyed safety and thumbprint scanner on them?
 
He baught a tool.
The tool works as advertized.
Case closed.

I'd just pat the guy on the back and mention that his gun works perfectly.
And that he has a future engineer in his very smart kid.
 
If this story is true, what should happen is he gets a nice ride up north to the bay area. Next, he is placed at the edge of a cliff, and one goes to the back of his head, he drops into the bay, and that's pretty much it.
 
:(

Guess this hits a little to close to home. One of my uncles, a former bike racer, faced with the amputation of his second leg, decided on a solution similar to yours. Maybe I'm a bit to o close to this issue, and, should bow out.
 
Ok, nobody has said it yet, so I guess I have to.
Except for the fact that this guy has somehow already figured out how to reproduce, He now qualifies for the Darwin award.
How many errors do you get to make and still think you have a right to collect?
Yes, I really feel sorry for somebody in a wheelchair. I'm even more sorry for the kid. Way more.
But an unrestrained 3 year old in a car with access to a loaded gun?
 
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.

Retraction of story on page 27, 1 size type.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Wishful, revisionist thinking at best. I doubt he was doing any high speed chases in his civilian truck. :)
 
The short version of a couple of us on Glocks is they are an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

But some of us don't like or trust "safeties" on guns. To me, muzzle control and keeping that darn finger OFF the trigger are the only reliable safeties, and those silly little levers are more likely to delay me shooting when I want to shoot than they are likely to prevent an accident.
 
He should be thankful to be in that wheelchair.

I'll take being in a wheelchair over a dead 3yo son anyday.

He has been given a 2nd chance to both be alive and still have a son. Thats something many people who make the same stupid mistake never get. All he has done with this lawsuit is show that he doesn't deserve it.
 
Normally, I would like to think that the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) would prevent such a lawsuit (and it still may), but there is some merit to the suit, as much as I hate to say it. This id-jut is suing on the grounds of an actual defect. That may get around the protections of the PLCAA.

From this article:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

It would appear that the child may have been restrained, but that wouldn't help a thing if the gun slid over to his carseat.
 
Creature said:
Where is the actual defect?
Click to expand...
The 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.

Sorry, but that is how the system works.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

As with knives, pointy sticks, and other inherently dangerous items; the need for performance over safety takes prevalence (meaning you can't make all knives dull with no point or they will not perform as knives) and the "safety" of the item is the assumed responsibility of the user. One example I read was were a woman tried to sue the makers of a frozen corndog because she stepped on and impaled her foot with the sharp stick. the court pretty much said (I am paraphrsing since it has been awhile since I read this) that there is a need in the world for pointy sticks. It is the responsibility of the individual to not misuse them.

I used to collect knives and you see the same thing there. People suing knife companies because the blades were too sharp or other reasons. Time and time again courts have set a precedent that knives are supposed to be dangerous and handling one involves assuming certain risks. I remember reading on the knife boards a court decision that made a lot of sense and would probably apply here. The ruling said that placing a child safety on every knife made is outside the scope of feasibility...but a parent placing a child lock on the drawer they keep the knives in makes perfect sense. :)

The real test will be if this case makes it to court. Which I doubt it will.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I quite agree with you, PBP.

However, we must keep in mind the political nature of Courts (yeah, that's not supposed to play a part, but we all know it does) in general, and this venue in particular.
 
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.
Click to expand...

More of a feature selection instead of a defect. Everyone knows the Glock does not come with a manual safety. If you desire a gun with a manual safety, you must buy something else. It is like choosing a car without anti-locking breaks or no air bag. You cannot sue the manfucturer after the crash because you ate the steering wheel. It was your decision up front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top