Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 7/22/2008 6:35:24 AM EST
Hopefully not a dupe:

Link


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.



Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:36:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Silver-Gun_Superman:
Hopefully not a dupe:

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:38:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 6:39:50 AM EST by dbmers]

Originally Posted By Silver-Gun_Superman:
Hopefully not a dupe:

Link


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.





Yeah...that'll get far in court..what a moron
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:39:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:40:39 AM EST
Yey! More ammunition for the anti gun people to use
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:41:23 AM EST
Since when does somebody deserve money for being an idiot?

I feel sorry for him that he's paralyzed, but c'mon, whose fucking fault is it really?
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:41:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Silver-Gun_Superman:

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.



I just love that part
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:42:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 6:42:46 AM EST by evo462]

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'd have to agree with this...

The safety device was busy driving a truck and not paying attention to a 3 year old playing with a gun.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:43:09 AM EST
Where's the part where he gets charged with child endangerment for leaving a loaded firearm accessible to his 3 year old?
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:44:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By dbmers:
Where's the part where he gets charged with child endangerment for leaving a loaded firearm accessible to his 3 year old?


Mentioned several times in the dupe thread.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:44:23 AM EST
So when will charges be filed on him for endangering a child?

-Fixxz
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:44:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:46:46 AM EST
Prime Cripple Douche.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:47:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 6:48:51 AM EST by BKC1869]

Originally Posted By Rosenrot:

Originally Posted By Silver-Gun_Superman:

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.



I just love that part


Correct me if I'm wrong but it's supposed to discharge at 5.5 lbs of pull on the trigger isn't it. Or am I missing somehing.

Instead of suing Glock why isn't the State of CA charging him for allowing a loaded weapon to get into the hands of a child? Just curious. Or do they figure his being paralyzed was punishment enough. Either way if they charged him that would nullify the lawsuit or give Glock alot of ammo against him. Somehow I doubt if was not a LEO in CA he would have been charged, paralyzed or not.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:48:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rosenrot:

Originally Posted By Silver-Gun_Superman:

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.



I just love that part


My truck is defective. When I press on the gas it goes faster, up to reckless speeds.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:50:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By Rosenrot:

Originally Posted By Silver-Gun_Superman:

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.



I just love that part


My truck is defective. When I press on the gas it goes faster, up to reckless speeds.


Which results in frequent accidental collisions
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:02:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By evo462:

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'd have to agree with this...

The safety device was busy driving a truck and not paying attention to a 3 year old playing with a gun.


Exactly. The gun did what it was supposed to do. The owner did not.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:04:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By dirksterG30:

Originally Posted By evo462:

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'd have to agree with this...

The safety device was busy driving a truck and not paying attention to a 3 year old playing with a gun.


Exactly. The gun did what it was supposed to do. The owner did not.


And I'm guessing based on the fact that he's suing the holster manufacturer that the kid managed to disarm the officer to shoot him.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:09:47 AM EST
PATHETIC


Just pathetic.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:09:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By evo462:

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'd have to agree with this...

The safety device was busy driving a truck and not paying attention to a 3 year old playing with a gun.


very well put.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:12:35 AM EST
So, a government employee from a major metropolitan area is suing a private company because of his own negligence and claiming a design flaw?


Typical.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:16:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By mcculver5:
So, a government employee from a major metropolitan area is suing a private company because of his own negligence and claiming a design flaw?


Typical.


Because private citizens never do the same thing? I guess Toyota, Ford, GM, Yamaha, Honda, etc, etc can get rid of their legal/engineering teams that defend against this stuff......

Brian
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:24:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By brian4wd:

Originally Posted By mcculver5:
So, a government employee from a major metropolitan area is suing a private company because of his own negligence and claiming a design flaw?


Typical.


Because private citizens never do the same thing? I guess Toyota, Ford, GM, Yamaha, Honda, etc, etc can get rid of their legal/engineering teams that defend against this stuff......

Brian


Isn't this guy a sub set of private citizen known as a government worker?

Perhaps your experience varies. But, IME government workers (particularly those who also have a union) are some of the more "entitled" people with whom I speak or for whom I work.

IME they are so used to shifting blame and never accepting responsibility, they express shock and dismay when their own behavior causes them grief. Then comes the blame shifting.

The phrase "too long at the trough" did not spring ex nilo into the common lexicon.

Again, YMMV.
Top Top