The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Hazcat on July 11, 2008, 10:43:22 PM
-
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 07/09/2008 10:39:23 PM PDT
LOS ANGELES—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.
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.
Chavez, 35, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun's holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and the holster. He bought the gun at the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club and purchased a holster made by Uncle Mike's and Bushnell Outdoor Products from Turner's Outdoorsman.
The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.
The lawsuit alleges product liability, breach of warranty and loss of consortium, and seeks general, special and punitive damages, and attorneys fees.
Calls made after business hours to the defendants were not immediately returned Wednesday night.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9834513?nclick_check=1
-
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.
Why was the gun left where a child could get to it. Isn't that one of the main "safety" rules. I'm sorry the guy was shot but this is in no way Glock's fault this was due to his own negligence. And beside's that he is a law enforcement officer he should know better than anybody not to leave a gun where a child can get it.
-
If I remember correctly, the kid pulled it out of his holster that was on his hip. Its been awhile so don't hold me too that.
If that was the case, why hasn't he been charged with child endangerment?
-
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.
Why was the gun left where a child could get to it. Isn't that one of the main "safety" rules. I'm sorry the guy was shot but this is in no way Clock's fault this was due to his own negligence. And besides that he is a law enforcement officer he should know better than anybody not to leave a gun where a child can get it.
People who do not follow safety rules are the reasons for dumb lawsuits, just ask Ruger firearms, the did not have to pay any monetary cost but they did have to put that ugly warning on their guns. The legand of Forrest Gump lives on! ;D
-
The man is desperate, Glock has deep pockets and there are lawyers.
Mac.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not an accidental discharge if someone actually puts their finger intentionally on the trigger and pulls. Right? Even if it is a kid.
More "I'm a victim" crap from La-La land. Sadly, it will take the case going beyond the 9th Circuit (loons that they are) before reason and the actual law prevails.
-
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 07/09/2008 10:39:23 PM PDT
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.
I bet that after he looses the lawsuit against Glock he will then file a new lawsuit against Durex for failing to provide the appropriate prophylactic to him...
Ocin
-
I feel sorry for him being paralyzed (maybe) and everything. But instead of going to court he ought to be going to church to say thank you it was not his son.
-
His condition is the direct result in his failure to properly parent. And Rastus is right, could have been worse.
Mac.
-
I feel sorry for him being paralyzed (maybe) and everything. But instead of going to court he ought to be going to church to say thank you it was not his son.
Thing is Rastus, Gia only cares about the earth! ;D
-
This nimrod and his legal team have have put together a strategy that will take advantage of a political climate where he is most likely to gain a favorable ruling. After all, is there a gun manufacturer in the world who stands a chance in a courtroom in California? It's a disgrace that a case like this should be entertained......the officer should be charged with endangering the welfare of a child.
Should they lose this case, maybe Glock should consider following STI's lead in pulling out of the great state of California....completely, including law enforcement.
-
As I recall from my time spent in the land of fruits and nuts, it is a crime to leave a gun of any kind where a child can gain access to it. Case law, nationwide, states that if you are injured or suffer a loss in the commission of a crime you forfeit your right to sue or receive compensation from that act. Outside of our anti-gun court system rewriting the laws every other day, explain to me how this man
has a leg to stand on (have to rephrase this, because I do care about his injuries and feel for him) can stand a chance of getting anything.
-
ANTI's will jump on this + support. It's for the children rember.
-
Everyone has said pretty much what I am thinking, wow did I read that right, his 3 year old son was riding in the backseat with a .45 cal handgun in arms reach. It doesn't matter if it was a Glock, Springfield, or S&W, and it doesnt matter if has an external safety or like any other striker fire pistol, a 3 year old boy was able to pick up a firearm that was loaded and un-supervised.
Where is child protective services at on this one? Glock should counter sue says he put his son and everyone else in danger that the was around. What if the child shot the gun and it went out the side window into the car next to it. An external safety would have done nothing in this situation because the guy probably wouldnt have had it engaged anyway. If he is willing to let his 3 year old son sit next to a loaded handgun, then he probably would walk around with a live weapon. He has no care for safety
Wow, this is why licenses\background checks need to be required to have children. Not everyone is parent material. To buy a firearm you must go through so many checks and balances and to have a child all you need is a bottle of wine and Marvin Gay.
What is more dangerous, a firearm, or a person not raised right by his parents? (What makes the firearm go bang?)
-
I'm not even going to waste my time writing how stuipid this is.
-
Hawk,
It's from the land of whiners (CA), what do you expect? ;D
-
We're getting ready to start a Firearm Safety class tomorrow, and this is one more example of something we stress. Beyond the basic rules of firearm safety and everything else MN DNR requires us to teach and the students to pass tests on, we stress that with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms comes the responsibility for those arms. There are cases where we can lose control of our guns that are excusable, however this officer did everything wrong and deserves to be punished for what he did not rewarded because someone built and sold him a valuable tool.
Haz, have you read anything on this concerning whether there have been child endangerment charges filed against this officer?
-
Rastus was dead on with his comments.
My first thought was that he should have been shot in the nuts so he couldn't reproduce. We have enough bad parents and dumbasses.
-
The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.
5.5 lbs... accidental? I thought accidental was like maybe drop it and it goes bang, or just touch the trigger and it goes bang, but 5.5 lbs. Hopefully his genes are no longer in the gene pool.
-
My first thought was that he should have been shot in the nuts so he couldn't reproduce.
Too late. Same reason you cannot win the Darwin award, no matter what stupid thing you did, if you have actually reproduced.
We have enough bad parents and dumbasses.
Amen, brother, amen. Way too many.
-
Haz, have you read anything on this concerning whether there have been child endangerment charges filed against this officer?
Haven't seen anything yet. But I am keeping my eyes open.
-
The guy should be in the prison hospital for child endangerment, but he's LEO so he gets a different deal.
It just goes to show you that if you look around there's a lawyer that will take ANY case.
-
This reminds me way too much of the McDonald's coffee event...or Lawnboy (I think) where the guy picked up his mower to trim the hedges and cut his fingers off. They sue...win because of the liberal view that "nothing is your fault"...then another stupid regulation goes in to effect to protect the stupid people. We are defeating natural selection by not letting stupid rectify itself.
-
Ocin hit it right with his comment on page one. He's going to sue someone somehow.
This guy ... and I am sorry this happened to him ... is a victim of his own stupidity.
-
In Ca. if your firearm is involved in an accident YOU GO TO JAIL. (unless your a cop.)
In Ca. if you leave your fire arm where a child can get hold of it, YOU GO TO JAIL.
The reason for this lawsuit is probably to keep his stupid crippled ass out of jail.
And just in case anyone was wondering, NO, I do not feel sorry for this dumb sh!t, I'm just glad the poor kid did not get hurt by his fathers stupidity.