LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

Status
Not open for further replies.
CountGlockula

CountGlockula

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,527
Location
In a Los Angeles coffin.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

No CA bashing PLEASE.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_2089579.php

Thursday, July 10, 2008
LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
Lawsuit alleges gun has inadequate safety provisions.
By ERIC NEFF
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments 73| Recommend 2

A retired Los Angeles police officer paralyzed when his 3-year-old son fired his father's handgun while riding in the family pickup in Anaheim two years ago filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the gun's manufacturer.

Enrique Chavez, 37, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports. The son was not restrained in a safety seat.

The lawsuit alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "nonexistent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, a 10-year veteran of the LAPD, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and 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 attorney fees.

A Glock spokesperson declined to comment, saying that the company has not yet seen or heard of the complaint.

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
why isn't the officer being charged with child endangerment on two counts - unrestrained in a moving vehicle and leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a young child?

:scrutiny:
 
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.
Click to expand...

5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in discharges. Thats what it is supposed to do.
 
why isn't the officer being charged with child endangerment on two counts - unrestrained in a moving vehicle and leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a young child?
Click to expand...
Who wants to go after a paralyzed guy?
 
I see a moron who's trying to blame someone else for his own mistakes...typical. He really should have taught the kid how to doubletap. Maybe when he gets done with the gun manufacturer, he can sue the automobile manufacturer for not installing bulletproof seats...or maybe his mom for raising such an idiot.
 
I see a moron who's trying to blame someone else for his own mistakes...typical. He really should have taught the kid how to doubletap. Maybe when he gets done with the gun manufacturer, he can sue the automobile manufacturer for not installing bulletproof seats...or maybe his mom for raising such an idiot.
Click to expand...
No doubt his lawyer is telling him this is a way to potentially get set for life. A paralyzed guy does not have as many options as the rest of us, and even such a patently silly lawsuit like this has some chance of success.
 
Did the officer leave the weapon in the backseat or did the 3 year old somehow get the weapon out of the holster without the officer bothering to notice?

In any event, Glock's lawyers probably flinched when hearing this case was on its way, then relaxed when they saw the facts.
 
So the gun functioned exactly as it's supposed to, and the defective part was the guy allowing his kid access to the gun. It's idiots like this that force manufacturers to incorporate features that endanger your safety when you actually need to use the gun.
Glock: Stop selling to the LAPD. That should make him popular with the officers that aren't mentally deficient.
 
This lawsuit, and the cop filing it, are in my opinion unbelievable in the scope of their arrogance. It is absolutely amazing that the courts would even entertain a suit like this, but hey, that's America.
 
This is just a money soak. Hit up all the parties and hope for a settlement. The retail stores can't afford to fight it and the guys lawyer knows a guy in a wheelchair on the stand makes for good PR. They are hoping Glock coughs up a few hundred grand.

I will drive to Smyrna personally to buy a Glock if this goes to trial. Actually, can I do that anyway? Do they have a FFL on site? I would love to get a G30 straight from the womb...:p
 
It'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out, especially since gun manufacturers are shielded from frivolous lawsuits just like this.
 
Too bad he did not take it in the back of the skull. It would save glock some money.

He should take some personal responsibility, but that is astonishingly rare in California.

-T
 
The only reason this is even allowed is because is because we don't have common sense laws about lawsuits like this. Looser should have to pay all legal bills of the winner.
 
why isn't the officer being charged with child endangerment on two counts - unrestrained in a moving vehicle and leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a young child?
Click to expand...


Exactly.



And can't you not win legal damages if what you did was in commission of a crime?
Since he was committing the act of child endangerment and unrestrained child in a motor vehicle, shouldn't he not be allowed to profit by law?


Similar to you rob a bank at gun point, and fall and break your leg in the bank vault, you can't sue the bank for the broken leg, because you were in comission of a crime.



And, his son pulled the trigger, it went off, that's what it's supposed to do.

When he bought the gun, he knew that there wasn't any safety on it (besides the Glock's Mickey Mouse trigger safety).


Not like his son dropped it on the ground and it fired.


.
 
Similar to you rob a bank at gun point, and fall and break your leg in the bank vault, you can't sue the bank for the broken leg, because you were in comission of a crime.
Click to expand...
criminals have successfully sued homeowners when they have hurt themselves while engaged in burglarizing a home.
 
Probably looking for the hush-hush out of court bucks.
 
A paralyzed guy does not have as many options as the rest of us, and even such a patently silly lawsuit like this has some chance of success.
Click to expand...

You say that as though patently silly lawsuits don't USUALLY have a chance of success in our country.

I'm sorry- are you a new to the legal system? We reward stupidity regularly.
 
I don't think Glock will play the settlement game, they have too much to lose on their reputation. Frankly, it couldn't be easier for them to win this case.

"The gun is designed so that when the trigger is pulled, the gun discharges. Our firearm performed precisely as designed, and precisely as advertised. Defense motions for dismissal."
 
On a pessimistic note, I predict the moron will win.

Anyone care to make a bet on this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

coloradokevin
  • Locked
If you're irresponsible, that's on you!
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
boatme99
B
C
  • Locked
LAPD officer shot today...by his son
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
50 Freak
5
E
  • Locked
Off Duty Police Officer accidently shot by 4 year old son
Replies
1
Views
399
SLCDave
S
P
  • Locked
Policeman sues store because "his holster shot him"
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
Squawker
S
G
  • Locked
weed and guns don't mix (Hutch man arrested after accidentally shooting son in leg)
Replies
6
Views
472
mr_dove
M
Back
Top