I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this happened. If it happened while he was hosltering, or putting the holster on, why would he put his hand in front of the muzzle? If it happened while the weapon was holstered and say, sitting on a nightstand... well how the hell would that happen? Magical contracting leather? Once again, a gun "discharges", and the only possible answer is an idiot.
Policeman sues store because "his holster shot him"
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
HighVelocity
Member
Sounds to me like he wasn't prefessional enough to handle the Glock Fo-tay.
Stainless Chili
Member
Plain and simple. He ws not taking proper care in handling a loaded firearm.
If I cram a handgun befind my truck seat, and something lodges in the trigger guard, pushing the trigger to cause the gun to fire, who is responsible? Windex®? Whose bottle trigger interfered with my placement of my firearm in a negligent manner into a tight space where I was unable or unwilling to ensure safe storage of my weapon?
If I cram a handgun befind my truck seat, and something lodges in the trigger guard, pushing the trigger to cause the gun to fire, who is responsible? Windex®? Whose bottle trigger interfered with my placement of my firearm in a negligent manner into a tight space where I was unable or unwilling to ensure safe storage of my weapon?
BigFatKen
Member
old law
When I took law, the case was sombody let's call him Mr A, I don't remember, vs. a restaurant. Call them Clam Chowder(CC). "A" vs. "CC"
So A breaks a tooth on a piece of clam shell. CC claims it is impossibe to insure that every piece of sand or shell is not in the chowder. The Court agrees with CC. They hold a person takes an implied risk when they ordered clam chowder.
They futher said that if a plaintiff won in a case like this, no one would make any clam chowder. I was tought this in 1973. Times have changed.
I saw an RV with 27 warning labels once including "Do not injest engine parts".
When I took law, the case was sombody let's call him Mr A, I don't remember, vs. a restaurant. Call them Clam Chowder(CC). "A" vs. "CC"
So A breaks a tooth on a piece of clam shell. CC claims it is impossibe to insure that every piece of sand or shell is not in the chowder. The Court agrees with CC. They hold a person takes an implied risk when they ordered clam chowder.
They futher said that if a plaintiff won in a case like this, no one would make any clam chowder. I was tought this in 1973. Times have changed.
I saw an RV with 27 warning labels once including "Do not injest engine parts".
Regrettibly, Lawers, juries and insurance companies have eliminated the phrase "implied risk" from our vocabulary. I'll give you two good examples:
1) I work in automotive testing. For dripping chemicals on coatings (too test them), oiling intricate portions of machinery and such, a syringe is ideal. We bought two boxes. They came with needles. The safety people freaked. Not only were we told to get rid of the needles, we were told it was unacceptable to remove the needles from the syringes (a person might stick themselves with a steril needle, instead of, say, an oily machining chip), throw them out in the trash or take the needles home to disopose of them. We had to order a "sharps" container, place the (still sealed in the package) syringes in it, and have a hazarous waste disposal company remove it.
2) About 7 years ago, GM got sued over a vehicle fire. It seems said vehicle was rear ended at extreemly high speed, and managed to catch fire. Never mind that the vehicle was about 12 years old at the time of impact, or that the occupants still survived, it caught fire.
In processing the paperwork for the suit, the lawyer found a 1973 memo wherein a GM engineer stated that deaths from fires cost GM only $2.40 a car, and fixing the tank in the Malibu would cost GM as much as $4 to $12 per car.
The jury found GM liable to the amount of $4.9 BILLION.http://money.cnn.com/1999/07/09/home_auto/gm_verdict_a/
Add that to laws that prohibit anyone who is not already a lawyer from being elected as a judge?
Tort reform? Reform doesn't even cover it.
1) I work in automotive testing. For dripping chemicals on coatings (too test them), oiling intricate portions of machinery and such, a syringe is ideal. We bought two boxes. They came with needles. The safety people freaked. Not only were we told to get rid of the needles, we were told it was unacceptable to remove the needles from the syringes (a person might stick themselves with a steril needle, instead of, say, an oily machining chip), throw them out in the trash or take the needles home to disopose of them. We had to order a "sharps" container, place the (still sealed in the package) syringes in it, and have a hazarous waste disposal company remove it.
2) About 7 years ago, GM got sued over a vehicle fire. It seems said vehicle was rear ended at extreemly high speed, and managed to catch fire. Never mind that the vehicle was about 12 years old at the time of impact, or that the occupants still survived, it caught fire.
In processing the paperwork for the suit, the lawyer found a 1973 memo wherein a GM engineer stated that deaths from fires cost GM only $2.40 a car, and fixing the tank in the Malibu would cost GM as much as $4 to $12 per car.
The jury found GM liable to the amount of $4.9 BILLION.http://money.cnn.com/1999/07/09/home_auto/gm_verdict_a/
Add that to laws that prohibit anyone who is not already a lawyer from being elected as a judge?
Tort reform? Reform doesn't even cover it.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
As a lawyer speaking on behalf of the holster who is not yet named in the suit, I have been asked to point out that the holster acted with restraint before being put into a position where the only possible means of resolution was in shooting the officer. The holster did not want to shoot the officer, but as already discussed, the officer was acting is a careless and reckless manner when he repeatedly pointed said gun at the holster in an unsafe manner that the holster could only interpret as an aggressive act.
The holster regrets the injury to the officer, but was acting in self defense against a perceived threat that had define opportunity and ability to cause harm to the holster and the actions of the officer led the holster to believe the officer also had intent, which we now know was not the case.
The holster will be suing the officer for reckless endangerment as well as the store of sale for selling the holster into a dangerous situation.
The holster regrets the injury to the officer, but was acting in self defense against a perceived threat that had define opportunity and ability to cause harm to the holster and the actions of the officer led the holster to believe the officer also had intent, which we now know was not the case.
The holster will be suing the officer for reckless endangerment as well as the store of sale for selling the holster into a dangerous situation.
Richard.Howe
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 887
ROF
+1Owen
Moderator Emeritus
DNS,
That was beautiful.
That was beautiful.
loadedround
Member
I just hope he doesn't breed!
Squawker
Member
This demonstrates the need for IQ tests, along with the physical and written tests required to become a police officer. Seriously, I'm tired of the victimization of America, courtesy of the Jackass party. The sooner that we return to the concept of individual responsibility the better. Injuring yourself because you acted in an unsafe or downright stupid and careless manner does not mean that it's someone else's responsibility to give you lots of cash. I hope that this moron is terminated by the RD. He makes me ashamed to have been born and raised there.
- Status
Similar threads
