Ex-officer sues over malfunctioning gun (Glock)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
2,290
Location
Arlington, VA
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=1636&u_sid=1061365

BY TODD COOPER

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Moments after being shot during a botched bank heist, Omaha Police Officer Jeffrey Holland trained his gun at a robber and found himself experiencing the kind of horror typically reserved for Hollywood endings.

He pulled the trigger - and nothing happened.

In the mad scramble that ensued, Holland frantically failed to get his gun to fire. He used one robber as a shield while he tackled the other. He bit. He punched. He kicked. And he was shot twice more.

All, Holland said, because his Glock handgun wouldn't fire after being hit by a bullet during the March 2000 robbery attempt at the Great Western Bank, 4718 L St.

For that, Holland filed a federal lawsuit last week against Glock, the gun manufacturing giant, saying he wouldn't have been shot the second and third times and wouldn't have been severely injured if his gun hadn't malfunctioned.

The lawsuit, in which Holland asks for general damages for pain, suffering and medical bills, will center on the question: Should handguns be bulletproof?

The lawsuit contends that Glock billed its handgun as "virtually indestructible, stronger than steel and (able to) withstand torturous abuse and still function."

Holland relied on those guarantees when he purchased the Glock to replace his Smith & Wesson police sidearm, his attorney, Matthew Miller, wrote in the lawsuit.

Miller contends that Holland's gun was only "nicked" - damage that shouldn't have disabled it.

An attorney for Glock didn't return repeated calls seeking comment. Glock is one of the best-selling handguns in the nation and is often the standard gun for law enforcement agencies, including Omaha police.

Dan Brado, a weapons expert with the Omaha Police Department's crime laboratory, said no gun is indestructible. Any gun can be disabled if hit in the right place, he said.

Holland, now an instructor at Missouri Western State College in St. Joseph, has testified about his scramble to apprehend the robbers without his gun - an effort that earned him national officer of the year honors.

After being ordered to hand over his gun and handcuff himself, Holland whipped one of the robbers with handcuffs and struck him in the sternum. The officer drew his gun and was kneeling over the robber when he spotted a second robber entering the bank.

Holland, who was working security at the bank, pointed his gun at the second robber. The two fired simultaneously, and bullets hit Holland's gun and his chest, under his heart.

Holland tried to fire again, but nothing came out. So he picked up the first robber and used him as a shield until he could get close enough to tackle the second robber.

The officer and the two robbers ended up in a pile, with one of the robbers screaming at the other one: "Kill him! Just kill him!"

Holland overpowered the two and took control.

"I reached down, grabbed the Glock and put it to the second party's head and pulled the trigger," Holland has said. "Nothing happened."

One of the men escaped but was arrested later. Both are serving lengthy prison sentences.
 
How about a photo of the gun ? I'd like to see what he calls "just nicked".
 
I would think that it would have to be pretty messed up not to be able to fire even one round. If he had previously fired a round i can see how a hit to the slide/rail area could keep it from cycling back into battery. But, it sounds like he just drew it and it didnt work. It could be that the impact jarred the stryker loose and reset it. SO that the slide would have to be operated in order to "reset/cock" it again.

On the other hand it could also be said that his glock gave its life to stop a potentially life threatening bullet from hitting him.
 
The lawsuit contends that Glock billed its handgun as "virtually indestructible, stronger than steel and (able to) withstand torturous abuse and still function."
Misrepresentation? False advertising?

Glock marketing practices border on it.
 
Misrepresentation? False advertising?

How so? I didn't read anything saying that Glocks ARE indestructible. Who's to say what constitutes torturous abuse. Virtually is one of those weasel words like improved. It makes a product more attractive but it usually doesn't mean anything. If anyone believes that a pistol being "virtually indestructible" means that it truly is indestructible then they should probably have their head examined. Glock is guilty of nothing here. Apparently this officer is guily of believing the hype surrounding Glocks.
 
laywers,guns & money make a bad cocktail, ive heard of having faith in your gun but a leo with no backup gun in todays world is asking for this kind of results,i dont see the brand of gun being at fault here. :scrutiny:
 
You know, common sense should reign supreme here... oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that we live in the Age of Litigation.:fire: :banghead:
 
I see nothing is said about the pistol being tested after the gunfight to see if it really doesn't fire.
It's also funny how they both fired similtaneously when his pistol was struck and not fired the second time, but he said he reached down and grabbed the Glcok and put it to the guys head and pulled the trigger and nothing happened. Did the gun get knocked out his hand when it got shot and the robber actually just stood there as he reached down and got it to return fire? Sounds like someone is tip toeing thru the cow pasture.
 
malfunctioning gun (Glock)

Everybody's got an opinion. Opinions are usually like arm pits. Everybody's got at least two and they usually stink. Did anybody stop to think that a lot of police departments have policies (that'll get you fired) against back up weapons? No manufacturer should make the claim if their not willing to back it up. More power to the officer.
 
Did anybody stop to think that a lot of police departments have policies (that'll get you fired) against back up weapons?
Hadn't considered that. Every police officer around here that I've spoken with about backup weapons carries at least one spare on his body and another spare full-size in his car (from my unscientific survey, baby glocks appear to be favorites as ankle guns when the issue arm is a glock).
No manufacturer should make the claim if their not willing to back it up.
Had Glock said "Our gun can take a bullet and keep doing its job" (like Masterlock says about their locks) then you'd have a point. As it is, how the listener defines "virtually indestructable" for a handgun kind of makes or breaks the case.

I remember way back when, my dad used to drive a Volvo. To us, the Volvo was "virtually indestructable". All the same, a little sugar in the gas tank would've put it out of comission. Or shooting it in the engine with a decent rifle. That's because it was "virtually indestructible" in the context of what a car is supposed to hold up to. I don't think Glock considers their pistol to double as "virtually indestructable" swinging targets or body armor, thus I don't see how they should be held responsible for the officer being shot.

The article seems to be written pretty poorly. It implies that after he overpowered the two robbers and "took control", he put his pistol to one of their heads and tried to shoot again.
 
Havent heard f departs haveing rules against a back up all of the cops i know here carry backups seem to be 357 pocket snubbies is pretty popular with stated troopers ive talked to .
 
I think the key to "virtually indestructable" is the "virtually" part. "Virtually" is not the same as "absolutely."

Now, had the gun been frozen in ice, dunked in river mud, and run over by a vehicle several times during the fight and then not fired, then the officer might have an argument. In no place on a Glock is there a ballistic protection rating.
 
Interesting that the Glock Haters out there lose all common sense when an opportunity to bash Glock presents itself.

This is clearly a frivolous lawsuit. There are very few manufacturers who have ever claimed their product can be shot and still remain fully functional.

There are many products that are claimed to be rugged, reliable, and hard to mess up, and yet everyone knows if you try you can mess just about anything up.
 
Did anybody stop to think that a lot of police departments have policies (that'll get you fired) against back up weapons?

Why on earth do police departments have policies like that? That's totally nuts.
 
Holland, who was working security at the bank

It's a bit of a confusing article, but doesn't it read like he was moonlighting at the bank as a security guard as opposed to being on duty?

The details are a bit fuzzy in the article, but it doesn't take a superior IQ to realize that a mechanical device may fail to function properly after being shot... <sigh>

It does say ex-cop, and if his side job lacked any type of disabilty protection, he may just be digging for $$.

Leo
 
Even a "bullet proof" vest isn't fit for further use after being shot.

Amazing that this case hasn't already been dismissed.

For most this thread is further proof that our justice system is badly messed up. For a few, it seems to be an opportunity to snipe at Glock.

Interesting to see how some folks minds work.
it doesn't take a superior IQ to realize that a mechanical device may fail to function properly after being shot...
Yeah, maybe that's closer to what I wanted to say...
If anyone believes that a pistol being "virtually indestructible" means that it truly is indestructible then they should probably have their head examined.
YEAH, that's EXACTLY what I wanted to say!
 
So, let me get this straight.
A cop. A professional, has his gun take a bullet and he does not even take it to a certified Glock armorer to have it checked out?? Then :cuss: and moans when he discovers it actually is broken?? Now the putz wants money because of his own stupidity!!!
These guys are here to protect us from the bad guys??
GOTT IM HIMMEL!!! We're DOOMED!!!!! :rolleyes:
 
The writer should be ashamed to have his name on that mess of an article. I'd be really interested in see camera footage and such to see what really happened. The part where he puts the gun to one of their heads and pulls the trigger sounds pretty fishy.

If he does pull this off maybe I'll finally be able to file my lawsuit against those "unbreakable comb" people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top