Paralyzed Cop Suing Makers Of Glocks after His 3 yr Old Son Shoots Him

Cop Sues Glocks

California’s Second District Court of Appeal said on Tuesday that a paralyzed Los Angeles police officer, who was shot by his 3-year-old son, could move forward with his lawsuit again gun manufacturer Glock.

Enrique Chavez’s lawsuit claimed that the Glock 21 had a light trigger and lacked a grip saftey, both of which could have prevented the shooting.

In 2006, Chavez’s son accidentally shot him in the back after the off-duty officer forgot that he had left the loaded .45-caliber pistol under the front seat of this Ford Ranger. The child was not in a safety seat at the time.

This is the idiot's fault, not the maker's of the glock, but it's going to bring in more "we need more gun control" people out of the woodwork. Truthfully I don't think gun control would have helped this situation. I think a cop with brains would have. A child in a safety seat. A gun with a gun lock, or in a gun safe. Glock didn't paralyze the cop, the cop paralyzed the cop with his own negligence, it's just he wants someone to blame for it.

I don't see what this has to do with controlling guns at all.

The 3 year old didn't go out and buy the glock, his cop father did.

Maybe the 3 year old was just sick of his rights being stepped on by daddy, and decided to give him a taste of his own medicine?

You shouldn't have your gun just sitting on the front seat, that could have gone off and hit the kid or something is it had a so called "light trigger". His stupid mistake, lock it up in the glove box, or even store it in the glove box. We all know and feel the same about the kid not being in a car seat and he should be treated just like a normal person in this situation and be fined for child endangerment.

Originally posted by scottromansky
You shouldn't have your gun just sitting on the front seat, that could have gone off and hit the kid or something is it had a so called "light trigger". His stupid mistake, lock it up in the glove box, or even store it in the glove box. We all know and feel the same about the kid not being in a car seat and he should be treated just like a normal person in this situation and be fined for child endangerment.

Totally agree. If any other person had this happen to them. The book would royally be thrown at them.

reply to post by happyhomemaker29

Enrique Chavez’s lawsuit claimed that the Glock 21 had a light trigger and lacked a grip saftey, both of which could have prevented the shooting.

Trigger safety locks and not "forgetting" where your firearm is are two other ways this could have been averted as well.

Sorry Enrique....

People who own a gun have a responsibility to keep it out of the hands of young children. Anyone who owns a gun and have children, should make it a priority that their children never have easy access to their fire arm. This cop should have known better. It's an unfortunate accident, but it was a careless mistake on his part. Blaming it on the gun manufacturer is only trying to justify his carelessness.

A police officer leaves his loaded firearm in his vehicle, with his child in the vehicle in which the child was not in a safety seat and the officer neglected to put his firearm away in a secure location. His lack of common sense have ruined his life and now he's just trying to point the finger for blame.

This man is incredibly lucky his son didn't accidently shoot himself. I am having a hard time finding any empathy for this police officer. That's just laziness and stupidity to leave a loaded gun ANYWHERE that a 3 year old can access.

He paid the price for it. More anti-gun folks will surely love this, though. Either way the blame is on no one but the officer and his "forgetfulness."

I'd still love to know what a California cop, of all the states for laws on this specific issue, was doing with a loaded firearm NEAR but not IN his control, to the point he'd literally forgotten it was even there? Well, Thank God a teenage banger looking for a hot stereo didn't find it. They could have had an impromtu crime spree all because one cop didn't maintain positive not theoretical control of his friggen weapon.

Now I just know I've seen laws posted out there regarding charges in the felony range for owning the gun a child gets his little hands on for a gun accident. Why isn't this being filed from a cell?

I realize this happened in '06 according to the article. But the first judge smartly denied him the right to sue the manufacturers. Unfortunately, the second court of appeals thought differently and here we are today. Unbelievably, they agree that the grip would have prevented him from being shot. No it wouldn't have! Him putting the gun where it belonged out of the hands of his son would have prevented him from being shot. Sometimes you have to wonder where people's heads are at. Seriously, I wonder. A grip would not have prevented a 3 yr old from shooting. Daddy still would have been paralyzed. Daddy's just another idiot who's sue-happy and thinks he can get rich from his own negligence. This is why crap costs so much nowadays----lawsuits. Chances are they'll end up giving him a settlement just to shut him up and make him go away. It'll be cheaper than to fight him. Though truthfully I wish they'd fight him. Give him a taste of what he's giving.

Is it possible he was a rookie cop at the time?

I wonder how long he was on the force, to the day of his event.

Probably why he made the mistake.

reply to post by happyhomemaker29


I do believe this was this officers fault. Plain and Simple, you do have a responsibility when you own and a gun AND when you have a 3 year old child around that gun. There is a safety on every glock, and much safer places to put it then in arms length of your 3 year old. His kid should have been in a car seat, not the front seat, and HE should have been more careful with his weapon, period. In my opinion, this is this mans fault and he has no right to sue over HIS poor judgment.

reply to post by WeRpeons


You said it- perfectly! To sue a gun company over his carelessness would just be silly.

I'll take the hate but they have a very valid point on the suit for merit. I just think the Cop got off on what would have had any normal shmuck dealing with some good time in prison that way. Figures...

The Glocks are dangerous though. no question in my mind and I'll say why I say that vs. what IS NOT dangerous and how little a difference it takes.

Here is the Glock-21. For all those who don't shoot, that little angle piece on the trigger is the Glock's safety. When that moves back in line in the trigger, it can all be pulled. I've never looked at a glock where that trigger safety wasn't very lose..and about all the good I think it does is prevent a misfire from a falling gun onto a hard surface.




This is what that kind of configuration leads to:

Pilot accidentally discharges gun due to lock

and if anyone wants a laugh, a cringe or just something to consider if you're in direct line to a cockpit wall as they handle this little accident waiting for an excuse.(The holster this time, not the gun)



Now how easy would it be to make it safe? Enormous retooling? Designs to make all kinds of problems? Hmmm

Here is the Springfield XD class.



Now you'll notice this also has that stupid little nubby thing on the trigger....they really are worthless in my opinion. However, the safety that matters and the one that little 3 year old hand WOULD NEVER have properly engages AND reached to pull the trigger at the same time is the bar extruding from the rear of the grip or backstrap. For what it matters, the model sitting in my safe is the Springfield XD-9 Service model which is about the same as what is pictured. Also, for what it matters, it's a surplus Police Duty weapon from the local city. So these being issued or allowed isn't unheard of....Glock gives Police Departments a better deal so...Glock it is for many.

A final note on that grip safety. I have been red faced and embarrassed to go clickity-click on a shooting lane at the worst possible moment...a couple times because these safeties are THAT touchy. They have to be ALL the way in. Just wiggle your hand from a full, straight and solid grip...it's not firing and the slide isn't moving. He ought to sue the LAPD for choosing the Glocks.

Even cops know this isn't Glock's fault. Must be pretty embarassing to eff up like this while holding a job as a police officer. My advice? Just remain paralyzed, pay for it yourself, and most importantly, shut the hell up with this frivolous nonsense.

Completely the cops fault. If anything he should have been charged with endangering a child and jailed period. It was his responsibility as a father not to allow to his child to be in that situation in the first place. IMO

reply to post by happyhomemaker29



clearly this was user error..

this should be dismissed immediately..

If it was a citizen there would be charges of reckless endangerment laid against him. Not to mention a question of whether or not the child is in a safe environment. I can't even think of the charges behind not having the gun secured and in a safe place etc.

But I haven't seen any mention of one charge being brought against the cop. Not even a charge of his kid not being in a seat belt or child carrier. Any one else would have had the book thrown at them before the hospital released them.

Above the law?

One more thing...was the pistol a police issue? I don't know. If so, shouldn't the entire police force be suing the manufactures or how about the father suing the police?

Peace

reply to post by happyhomemaker29

Only in America are people so stupid that they would sue because of being a irresponsible retard.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'll take the hate but they have a very valid point on the suit for merit. I just think the Cop got off on what would have had any normal shmuck dealing with some good time in prison that way. Figures...

The Glocks are dangerous though. no question in my mind and I'll say why I say that vs. what IS NOT dangerous and how little a difference it takes.

Here is the Glock-21. For all those who don't shoot, that little angle piece on the trigger is the Glock's safety. When that moves back in line in the trigger, it can all be pulled. I've never looked at a glock where that trigger safety wasn't very lose..and about all the good I think it does is prevent a misfire from a falling gun onto a hard surface.




This is what that kind of configuration leads to:

Pilot accidentally discharges gun due to lock

and if anyone wants a laugh, a cringe or just something to consider if you're in direct line to a cockpit wall as they handle this little accident waiting for an excuse.(The holster this time, not the gun)



Now how easy would it be to make it safe? Enormous retooling? Designs to make all kinds of problems? Hmmm

Here is the Springfield XD class.



Now you'll notice this also has that stupid little nubby thing on the trigger....they really are worthless in my opinion. However, the safety that matters and the one that little 3 year old hand WOULD NEVER have properly engages AND reached to pull the trigger at the same time is the bar extruding from the rear of the grip or backstrap. For what it matters, the model sitting in my safe is the Springfield XD-9 Service model which is about the same as what is pictured. Also, for what it matters, it's a surplus Police Duty weapon from the local city. So these being issued or allowed isn't unheard of....Glock gives Police Departments a better deal so...Glock it is for many.

A final note on that grip safety. I have been red faced and embarrassed to go clickity-click on a shooting lane at the worst possible moment...a couple times because these safeties are THAT touchy. They have to be ALL the way in. Just wiggle your hand from a full, straight and solid grip...it's not firing and the slide isn't moving. He ought to sue the LAPD for choosing the Glocks.

edit on 26-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Maybe I can give it to you on the safety, but to still have it near a young child, forgetting it was even in the car in the first place, not placing the child in the safety seat. As a cop, how many tickets do you write over that? The child gets to the gun you never put away properly, so you sue the people who made the gun, not yourself because you never put it away. In this society, makes perfect sense to me.

Originally posted by Katharos62191
reply to post by happyhomemaker29

 

I do believe this was this officers fault. Plain and Simple, you do have a responsibility when you own and a gun AND when you have a 3 year old child around that gun. There is a safety on every glock, and much safer places to put it then in arms length of your 3 year old. His kid should have been in a car seat, not the front seat, and HE should have been more careful with his weapon, period. In my opinion, this is this mans fault and he has no right to sue over HIS poor judgment.

Helloooooo any body home take care of your weapon jerk...That's what a trigger lock is for. Where the hell did this cop get his training...Mexico! Geeeez!