I think Sigma has it right--having to deal with 4 nephews (the oldest is 8) and a 90 pound chocolate Labrador--intense curiosity and a very active imagination (coupled with all of them having the heredity for very high intelligence) are factors that have to be taken into account when any of them are around or Murphy will have a very painful field day.
LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
MyGunsJammed
New member
i havent read thru any of these posts, but the think the cop is negligent and should not have left the 3 year old in the back seat with a loaded gun....
I would throw the case out of court....
I would throw the case out of court....
rampage841512
New member
Yep. I agree. A friend of mine put into words better than I could, though:
Socrates: Where I live, you cannot leave a loaded firearm, unattended, around a child. This man did tragically.
You are going a long way around the barn to say, basically IMHO, that you dislike Glock and they should be punished when, in reality, a full-grown man left a loaded gun around a child unattended. And he was a policeman for Godsakes.
Those are the facts as we know them and although Glocks don't have all the safety mechanisms of other handguns, a full-grown adult cannot leave a loaded firearm around a child unattended.
At least that's the law in Michigan.
If this case was tried in Michigan, I don't think he would stand a chance IMHO. He chose to own a Glock, he chose to carry a loaded Glock in his vehicle, he is a policeman and he knows the dangers of leaving a loaded firearm around a child unattended.
I feel extremely sorry for this man but he is totally to blame IMHO.
If a jury in California decides otherwise, I would seriously advise Glock to stop all sales to California residents. (I do admit though that Michigan is a VASTLY more gun friendly State than California - so who knows?)
You are going a long way around the barn to say, basically IMHO, that you dislike Glock and they should be punished when, in reality, a full-grown man left a loaded gun around a child unattended. And he was a policeman for Godsakes.
Those are the facts as we know them and although Glocks don't have all the safety mechanisms of other handguns, a full-grown adult cannot leave a loaded firearm around a child unattended.
At least that's the law in Michigan.
If this case was tried in Michigan, I don't think he would stand a chance IMHO. He chose to own a Glock, he chose to carry a loaded Glock in his vehicle, he is a policeman and he knows the dangers of leaving a loaded firearm around a child unattended.
I feel extremely sorry for this man but he is totally to blame IMHO.
If a jury in California decides otherwise, I would seriously advise Glock to stop all sales to California residents. (I do admit though that Michigan is a VASTLY more gun friendly State than California - so who knows?)
RDak:
I'm offering, for no fee, a hypothetical approach that I would take to this incident. If you read what I put down, you would see a bit about how products liability, implied warranty of marketability, and a few other tort theories apply to this case.
This is a civil suit, and, is tried under a contributory negligence concept. Yes, the man is at fault. The way you would approach it is to show the gun was as well. Not put at issue is if the gun was at fault. My friend, our former police armour in this area, picked Sig Sauer P220's because, as a certified gunsmith, he found the glocks were not as safe, nor as reliable as the Sig Sauers. That's an expert's opinion, and, that would be one of the things that you would have at trial, one expert saying the glock doesn't meet the industry standard, and that the 'safety' isn't that at all, and, another saying it does. Both paid a LOT.
In some states, a violation of the law stops recovery in a civil suit. That is not the case in Kalifornia. You can have your child out of the car seat, the gun in his hand, and those are issues that will diminish the recovery on a % basis, but, if the gun contributed to the injury, fault can be found with that, as well. Heck, the car could have contributed to the discharge, we don't know.
Everyone in this forum is jumping to a conclusion. I just presented the other side. Often the 'facts' are selectively reported to get an emotional rise out of the newspaper readers, and, to sell more papers. I have NEVER won an argument in law school over a newspaper fact pattern. It has ALWAYS been that the facts are reported in a sensationalized way,
and the truth comes out later in either deposition, or trial.
I'll give you an example. The LA Times reported that criminal children had been trying to break into a school, and, had fallen through the roof. Their parents sued the school. Think of the outrage!! Burglars having the audacity to sue the people they were breaking into, and, it's a poor public school.
I went off the deep end, and, my law professor bet me something like lunch that the story was completely wrong. He was a famous tort lawyer, Richard Blumberg.
Truth came out two weeks later, on the back pages of the LA Times. This public school has a roof that children could easily hop up onto, with little or no effort. Rather then fix the roof, or, post signs, put up a fence, station a person there, anything to protect the children that the court holds the school district responsible for, and the law, they just let the kids, and, these were 4-5 grade kids, real criminals, play on the roof after school, with no supervision.
The kids weren't breaking into the school. The darn roof gave out, and they fell into the classroom, while they played, after school, waiting for the bus.
That's REAL close to criminal negligence on the part of the school district, and, the children and their parents had every right and justification to sue, and, it was settled very quickly by the school district's lawyers, and, insurance company.
I'm offering, for no fee, a hypothetical approach that I would take to this incident. If you read what I put down, you would see a bit about how products liability, implied warranty of marketability, and a few other tort theories apply to this case.
This is a civil suit, and, is tried under a contributory negligence concept. Yes, the man is at fault. The way you would approach it is to show the gun was as well. Not put at issue is if the gun was at fault. My friend, our former police armour in this area, picked Sig Sauer P220's because, as a certified gunsmith, he found the glocks were not as safe, nor as reliable as the Sig Sauers. That's an expert's opinion, and, that would be one of the things that you would have at trial, one expert saying the glock doesn't meet the industry standard, and that the 'safety' isn't that at all, and, another saying it does. Both paid a LOT.
In some states, a violation of the law stops recovery in a civil suit. That is not the case in Kalifornia. You can have your child out of the car seat, the gun in his hand, and those are issues that will diminish the recovery on a % basis, but, if the gun contributed to the injury, fault can be found with that, as well. Heck, the car could have contributed to the discharge, we don't know.
Everyone in this forum is jumping to a conclusion. I just presented the other side. Often the 'facts' are selectively reported to get an emotional rise out of the newspaper readers, and, to sell more papers. I have NEVER won an argument in law school over a newspaper fact pattern. It has ALWAYS been that the facts are reported in a sensationalized way,
and the truth comes out later in either deposition, or trial.
I'll give you an example. The LA Times reported that criminal children had been trying to break into a school, and, had fallen through the roof. Their parents sued the school. Think of the outrage!! Burglars having the audacity to sue the people they were breaking into, and, it's a poor public school.
I went off the deep end, and, my law professor bet me something like lunch that the story was completely wrong. He was a famous tort lawyer, Richard Blumberg.Truth came out two weeks later, on the back pages of the LA Times. This public school has a roof that children could easily hop up onto, with little or no effort. Rather then fix the roof, or, post signs, put up a fence, station a person there, anything to protect the children that the court holds the school district responsible for, and the law, they just let the kids, and, these were 4-5 grade kids, real criminals, play on the roof after school, with no supervision.
The kids weren't breaking into the school. The darn roof gave out, and they fell into the classroom, while they played, after school, waiting for the bus.
That's REAL close to criminal negligence on the part of the school district, and, the children and their parents had every right and justification to sue, and, it was settled very quickly by the school district's lawyers, and, insurance company.applesanity
New member
I'm fairly confident that the case will be laughed out of court.
I'm somewhat confident that we can expect 27 pound triggers on Glocks in the future. Okay maybe 8 to 10 pounds.
I'm somewhat confident that we can expect 27 pound triggers on Glocks in the future. Okay maybe 8 to 10 pounds.
Ok Socrates, if you're coming at it that way I can only say "I don't know".
All I know is what was told in the article.
Contributory negligence on the part of Glock is zero IMHO based on the facts given in the article. I know a jury could decide otherwise, especially in a rabidly anti-gun State like California.
All I know is what was told in the article.
Contributory negligence on the part of Glock is zero IMHO based on the facts given in the article. I know a jury could decide otherwise, especially in a rabidly anti-gun State like California.
It's not just Kali.
Freedom Arms, and I think it was in their home state, was found in part responsible for a guy shooting himself in the leg with a FA 83 454, IIRC.
The lawsuit alleged that the gun was unsafe, because it lacks a transfer bar safety, or, any sort of safety to keep the gun from going off when the gun is dropped, with the hammer down on a loaded round.
Since Ruger and S&@ have set the industry standard, by having transfer bars that mean you can safely carry a loaded round under the hammer, FA was found to be
partially negligent, and, their insurance company paid up.
I think they paid half the guys medical bills, about 300k.
The catch 22 on this one for Bob Baker is that even though
he states over and over again that the gun should not be carried with a loaded round in the chamber, people like myself included, figure it's just lawyer speak, and, that the gun is actually safe with a full cylinder, and the hammer down.
Odd that they would find that way. Wonder what they would have done with a SAA Colt? Guess since that's an antique, and not the state of the art, best in class, the standard might be different...
Freedom Arms, and I think it was in their home state, was found in part responsible for a guy shooting himself in the leg with a FA 83 454, IIRC.
The lawsuit alleged that the gun was unsafe, because it lacks a transfer bar safety, or, any sort of safety to keep the gun from going off when the gun is dropped, with the hammer down on a loaded round.
Since Ruger and S&@ have set the industry standard, by having transfer bars that mean you can safely carry a loaded round under the hammer, FA was found to be
partially negligent, and, their insurance company paid up.
I think they paid half the guys medical bills, about 300k.
The catch 22 on this one for Bob Baker is that even though
he states over and over again that the gun should not be carried with a loaded round in the chamber, people like myself included, figure it's just lawyer speak, and, that the gun is actually safe with a full cylinder, and the hammer down.
Odd that they would find that way. Wonder what they would have done with a SAA Colt? Guess since that's an antique, and not the state of the art, best in class, the standard might be different...
Playboypenguin
Moderator
That gun went off without pulling the trigger. That is a defect. The Glock did not go off when it was not supposed to go off. It went off when the trigger was pulled. It functioned as design and advertised. Big difference.
It is like the difference between buying a new car and having the steering fail and drivng into a tree because of it and simply not looking where you are going and driving into a tree. One is a mechanical error and a defect. The other an operator error and no fault of the vehicle.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
If there were any circumstances outside of a light trigger pull and lack of manual safety the plaintiff's attorney would have clearly spelled them out in it's initial charge against the manufacturer.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Every single report has cited the same claim. The claim that "The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court, alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "non-existent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot."
Are you somehow holding out hope that the plaintiff has information as to an actual failure but is holding it back until the trial and not using it as his primary charge? That he has chosen to lead with a weak and laughable charge when he has an actual case that he chooses not to put forth?
Are you somehow holding out hope that the plaintiff has information as to an actual failure but is holding it back until the trial and not using it as his primary charge? That he has chosen to lead with a weak and laughable charge when he has an actual case that he chooses not to put forth?
No, Consistent evidence that the news media is incapable, or unwilling to present what the key issues really are in a tort filing.
A pleading is usually a guess on what happened. Only when you get into serious investigation do you really get to what happened, as a general rule.
A pleading is usually a guess on what happened. Only when you get into serious investigation do you really get to what happened, as a general rule.
44capnball
New member
Yes, but we're talking about guns, a subject the media have a consistent stance on. If anything, the media will distort the story to shift blame to the inanimate object and its maker, with the underlying suggestion that a retired LEO, by their definition a firearms expert, couldn't possibly be at fault, and this is just more proof why 'civilians' shouldn't have guns.
Forgetting all the while that the guy did something so negligent that it could land any of us mere mortals in real hot water and get our kids taken away if we did it.
What he did was like saying, gee I think I'll stroll in front of that 18-wheeler and then sue the company when the driver can't stop on a dime. They should have a had a safety mechanism!
Last edited:
"Retired"
Remember, this guy is almost assuredly on medical retirement as a result of his own flesh and blood putting a round into his back because he didn't have the good sense (never mind what the law requires!) to secure his weapon or his kid! That is the central and most pertinent theme here. He screwed up and now wants someone else to pay for his screw-up and that will eventually raise the cost of firearms for all of us, not just Glock purchasers and/or Californians. :barf:
Remember, this guy is almost assuredly on medical retirement as a result of his own flesh and blood putting a round into his back because he didn't have the good sense (never mind what the law requires!) to secure his weapon or his kid! That is the central and most pertinent theme here. He screwed up and now wants someone else to pay for his screw-up and that will eventually raise the cost of firearms for all of us, not just Glock purchasers and/or Californians. :barf: