LAPD Officer sues Glock after 3yo son accidentally shoots and paralyzes him

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - LAPD Officer sues Glock after 3yo son accidentally shoots and paralyzes him

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:35:24 AM EDT

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:36:44 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
~~Hopefully not a~~ dupe:

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:38:53 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
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

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:39:39 AM EDT

[#3]

Dumbass.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:40:39 AM EDT

[#4]

Yey! More ammunition for the anti gun people to use

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:41:23 AM EDT

[#5]

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?

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:41:36 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

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

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:42:20 AM EDT

[#7]

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:43:09 AM EDT

[#8]

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

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:44:05 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:44:23 AM EDT

[#10]

So when will charges be filed on him for endangering a child?

-Fixxz

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:44:53 AM EDT

[#11]

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

Won't happen. Do not want to assume the cost for his medical care.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:46:46 AM EDT

[#12]

Prime Cripple Douche.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:47:03 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:48:55 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 7:50:18 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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

Posted: 7/22/2008 8:02:37 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 8:04:15 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 8:09:47 AM EDT

[#18]

PATHETIC

Just pathetic.

Posted: 7/22/2008 8:09:55 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 8:12:35 AM EDT

[#20]

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.

Posted: 7/22/2008 8:16:43 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
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

Posted: 7/22/2008 8:24:50 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - LAPD Officer sues Glock after 3yo son accidentally shoots and paralyzes him

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us