LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man... It seems like there is a certain percentage of forumites here who derive a rather nasty bit of satisfaction that this officer got paralyzed. He may not have been a firearms enthusiast, but he may very well be a great guy - the kind you would want as your neighbor and share backyard BBQs with.

That being said, everyone should be grateful that if someone was to get hurt out of this incident, it was the father and not the child. That little boy could just as easily ended up splattered all over the back seat.

That would have been a real tragedy.

It just goes to show you that even one moments laxness in our vigilance in ensuring the safe storage and holstering of our firearms could have dire repercussions. I'm sorry he got paralyzed. I'm sorrier for the child knowing he hurt his daddy - even though it wasn't his fault. The pistol functioned as designed. The fault lay in the poor choice of holsters, the improper and unsafe storage of a firearm, and not buckling that child into his safety seat. My heart goes out to the officer's family, but I think Glock doesn't need to settle - nor should they. This is a case of contributory negligence at the very least.
 
Isn't the G21 the LAPD service weapon?

No, I believe it's an optional carry that the officer must purchase. I'm fairly certain their issued duty weapon is a Glock in .40 cal but I can't remember the model number.


If this is the officer's service weapon and it is defective, sounds like a civil liability to the unit armorer's office.

Not really. Again the the G21 is an optional carry purchased by the individual officer. Even if it was an issued gun it would be difficult to lay blame with the armory office. LAPD has at least a few full time gun pounders whom I have met yet they have around 10,000 officers. Kinda hard to keep up with those numbers. It's a fact that sometimes guns just break. In this case I place the blame on the officer who left his weapon in close proximity to his 3 year old son. :banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Last edited:
Man... It seems like there is a certain percentage of forumites here who derive a rather nasty bit of satisfaction that this officer got paralyzed. He may not have been a firearms enthusiast, but he may very well be a great guy - the kind you would want as your neighbor and share backyard BBQs with.

Dave, I hear what you are saying, but....

I don't see people doing cartwheels over the fact this guy is in the shape he is in. I think everyone here thinks this is a sad story, and it is too bad someone was shot by accident, by a 3 year old no less. However, the officer would obviously get more sympathy and respect if he manned up and accepted responsibility instead of suing everyone and everything for HIS mistake. Nobody screwed up here but him.

When a person does what he is doing, they lose credibility, respect, and sympathy. Let's hear it for some personal responsibility, what do you think?
 
legally the mcdonalds was a solid case, this one is frivolous

micky Dee's knew they had a problem, they had been warned.
the lawsuit fixed it.
The glock worked perfectly, no design flaw.
The trigger was pulled and it went bang.
 
I suspect that the officer's lawsuit is one born of desperation.

He knows that his ability to make a living has been shattered along with his spine. His medical bills will be sky high (unless the city pays for it.) He's looking to find a way to ensure that his family isn't financially S.O.L.

I suspect that he realizes that he was at fault. However, I bet his attorney is urging this action because of the political climate of where he lives and works.

Just a guess.

Cops do get breaks that the rest of us don't. That sucks. However, my heart really goes out to his family.
 
I'm hostile to a court system that encourages and rewards frivolous and pernicious lawsuits that cause the defendant to pay thousands of dollars EVEN IF HE WINS.

When someone can use the legal system to destroy another person for no other reason than he was angered by the defendant (see the infamous "Million dollar pants" lawsuit from Washington D.C.) which then leads to most cases, even frivilous ones such as this, being settled out of court to the benefit of the plantiff, THERE IS NO JUSTICE.

Of course our lawyers love this system: no matter what happens, they win because there are more lawsuits and at least two lawyers get paid in every one.
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

To which I must respond, give me a break. Was the coffee hot? Obviously. So is any soup or hot beverage I prepare, with full knowledge that if it drops on me, IT IS GOING TO BURN!

Where do you draw the line? Where does personal responsibility come into play? This lady knew she was getting coffee, she knew it was hot, but apparently, it was just too damn hot. It isn't like she was ordering a frosty coca-cola and got burned.
Ding, ding, ding.......Our contestants are in rare form today, arent they Johnny?:D
 
My personal feeling is that even if the gun were somehow HORRIBLY defective, it still isnt glock's fault he was shot and paralyzed. The fault is his, and his alone, as the incident was 100% casued by him alowing his child access to a loaded gun. end of story. If the gun was defective and he shot himself, or it blew up on him, that's a different story, but that isnt what happened. He had the gun loaded, round chambered, and in a place his 3 year old was able to access it, either bu having it within his reach while in a child seat, or by not having him in a child seat, and the gun was fired by the child handling it, regardless of if it somehow fired without the child touching the trigger. IMHO, it still wouldnt matter, as the child should never have been able to touch the gun, and if he hadnt, it never would have happened the way it did, defective or not.

He should get nothing from Glock, in my opinion. He honestly should count himself lucky he isnt being cited for not having the kid in a child seat (if that turns out to be the case), or some charge involving the child being able to access the gun regardless, on top of being paralyzed, or that his kid wasnt hurt or killed also.
 
An old girlfriend was sued when her daughter was in an accident. The daughter's friend was riding in the daughter's car and was told to put her seat belt on. The friend did not and was brain damaged in an accident. The family sued Ford, the other car owner, my girlfriend and her daughter.

They tried to stick it to Ford thinking they had deep pockets and that a jury would think so also. But in the end only the daughter was found negligent because she should not have driven the car since her passenger was not buckled up. To say the parents were disappointed would be an understatement. Its kind of hard to collect a judgement against a 19year old girl in college.

Personally I thought the passenger was at fault for not putting on her seatbelt, but 12 jurors thought otherwise.
That might explain those :cuss: automatic seatbelts in my mother's escort that tried to tear my head off a few times...

It's possible that the child was able to undo the car seat,
Not likely.

A three year old that properly buckled into a child seat wont be able to reach the release button, and even then, the release buttons generally have too much tension for them to push.

Assuming his son was a big three year old, and had outgrown the belts on the carseat, or the seat itself, a belt positioning booster seat would be required until his son grows enough so that the lap and shoulder belts fit properly. And when properly buckled into one of those, they cant reach the seat belt buckle.

A lot of forward-facing car seats have the belt positioning stuff on it already, so when the child outgrows the three or five point harness included with the seat you dont have to buy a third car seat until the child outgrows the seat itself, then there's the booster until they're about 8 years old.

I'm no expert, but I've learned a lot about car seats in the past year, month, and ten days. If his son got out of his car seat then he didn't RTFM, or the stickers they put all over the seat.

Its a parent's job to make sure the seat is used properly, and in this father's opinion, he got what he deserved for half-assing his son's safety.
 
My alternate headline:
Negligent discharge being blamed on gun maker as accidental discharge.
The owner does not secure his gun, does not secure his three year old in a moving vehicle. He should sue himself a just and perfect world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top