LAPD officer shot by his own 3-year-old son sues gun maker, holster maker, gun store

[slackmaster]

LOS ANGELES – An off-duty Los Angeles police officer who was paralyzed after his young son accidentally shot him in 2006 filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the manufacturer of the gun involved in the accident.

Enrique Chavez of Anaheim was shot in the back by his 3-year-old son after the boy grabbed his father's Glock 21 – a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol – from the back seat of his pickup truck.

The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court, alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was “non-existent or ineffective” at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, 35, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun's holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and the 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....

Full article at http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9834513

A few major problems with the suit IMO:

1. The state of California has repeatedly certified the Glock 21 as a safe handgun, 5.5-pound trigger pull and all. See http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

2. Section 12035 (b) of the California Penal Code makes it a crime to allow a child to get hold of your gun, if the child or anyone else gets injured or killed as a result. See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12020-12040

3. The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed in 2005. That may also put the kibosh on the suit against Glock and the gun dealer.

The guy knew what kind of gun and holster he was buying. He knew the law. Unless he can prove that his particular gun was defective, his suit should rightfully go nowhere.

He could even be charged with a crime, although California's Child Access Prevention law is rarely enforced when the victim is a family member (or the gun owner himself or herself).

[eleny]

1. My FIL was a NYC cop

My husband never even knew where dad kept his guns. The only time he ever saw them was when dad had control of them. And it's not like the three boys didn't look for them.

I'm sorry for this police officer's disability. This could have been prevented.

Btw, I'm a gun owner.

[tburnsten]

6. Could have been prevented by him.

Could not have been prevented by anyone else, his own irresponsibility is what caused his predicament, and while it is sad that humans are capable of sustaining injury at all, no one is responsible for this except him.

[eleny]

9. That's how it appears

[virginia mountainman]

2. Let me get this straight...

He left a loaded Glock, in the back seat, with his 3 year old...

And somehow, it is the manufacture's fault that HE, got shot in the back??


YEAAAAA.... RIGHTTTTTTT...

[AtheistCrusader]

4. No, I think

the kid was sitting in the back seat of the truck, and grabbed his pistol off his hip. I think...

[eleny]

10. That's even worse

He wasn't in full control of his weapon around his child.

[tburnsten]

12. The pistol was in the back seat

It must have been in the back seat with him, how else could he have gotten it out and aimed, fired straight through his back?



"Full Story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 186| Recommend 9

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.
"

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Seems pretty simple to me.

Imagine the kid in the passenger side of the rear seat. Reaches across with his right hand, grabs the gun out of the holster on the officer's right hip. If the pistol fired as it left the holster, it would have at least got him in the leg. Continue that motion back, around the edge of the front passenger seat, and the barrel will sweep across the driver's body.

I can't find an article that definitively puts the gun either on the officers hip, or in a belt/hoslter sitting in the back seat.

Either way, the officer was 100% responsible, carrying condition 0, and failing to retain control of his weapon, or even seatbelt in his kid. That alone can probably be used as prima facie evidence that had the pistol been equipped with a manual safety, or even a keylock, he would not have used it.

[Irreverend IX]

3. The chief safety device for any gun is the user's brain...

I'd definitely say it was "non-existent or ineffective" in this case.

[tburnsten]

5. He's an idiot, lucky his son didn't get hurt.

I will be seriously blown away if Glcok or Uncle Mike's gives him ANY money, what kind of tool leaves his charged pistol in reach of his three year old in the back seat while he is driving anyway? What is he suing Uncle Mike's for, failing to prevent him from leaving the holster in reach of the child? And Glock, is he going to try and prove that Glock should have known better than to make a firearm with a working trigger? How about the store, is he upset that they sold someone obviously mentally incompetent a firearm?

The three safeties built into a Glock pistol are all passive, they only prevent the pistol from discharging unintentionally, like if someone drops theirs or slams it into an object. What they don't and can't do is prevent a negligent discharge, when someone is pulling the trigger when they shouldn't be. No gun has a mind barrier that can determine if an individual should be allowed to fire.

This man is an idiot and it is unfortunate that he will be wasting not only taxpayer money but the money of a company that has excellent customer service and a superb product like Glock. And it is unfortunate that anyone took him seriously enough to allow his lawsuit to get this far. Or it is unfortunate that he was taken advantage of so badly by someone pressing him to try and milk some money out of the companies he bought from.

[Tejas]

16. Hope the 3yr old's hearing wasn't damaged n/t

[wtmusic]

7. And he's letting the pickup truck manufacturer off scot-free? nt

[TPaine7]

14. I agree, LOL

And if he was on a public road, he should sue the city, county, state, . . .

It's really too bad, but I can't get too excited about self inflicted injuries.

[TomInTib]

8. He oughta be suing his own dumb ass.

Leaving that Glock within reach of that kid.

And how the hell did the kid grab his gun out of the holster while restrained by a seatbelt? Unless, that is, there was no seatbelt engaged.

[damntexdem]

11. Guns don't shoot people ...

3-year-olds do.

;-)

[GOPBasher]

13. I agree with you about the lawsuit, but that is a really sad story.

:-(

[krispos42]

17. When sufficient pressure was applied to the trigger, the gun went off

Like it's suppose to.


When insufficient or no pressure is applied to the trigger, the gun will NOT go off.


Like it's suppose to.


Sounds like a good design to me. Which is why I one day want to get a Springfield Armory XD.

[Real_Talk]

20. That is why I like the XD

it would be hard for a three year old to activate the grip safety and pull the trigger. This guy's problems run deeper than gun choice, if the child was restrained in a child seat then this would not have happened...sad.

[lepus]

18. I have a glock-21

The same model this thread is about.

It is a very fine firearm. The thing that makes it different from many autoloaders is the fact that it only has one safety in condition zero, and that is on the trigger. Do not put your finger in the trigger well if you do not want the gun to make a big boom.

The cop was carrying in condition zero. It was his responsibility to ensure that nothing pulled the trigger.

I do not have my ccw yet. I open carry on my own property fairly often. As I do not expect to have to respond extremely quickly to emergencies, I do not carry chambered.

Did the firearm malfunction? That is the only liability I can see for the manufacturer in this story.

[jody]

19. Is this a lawyer motivated suit hoping to settle out of court? n/t

[TPaine7]

21. If so, it should meet with a contempt of court citation

when filed.

That way, when someone wants to file something like this, the opposing counsel can snicker "go ahead, pay a fine."

[iiibbb]

22. Big assumptions

"The guy knew what kind of gun and holster he was buying. He knew the law. Unless he can prove that his particular gun was defective, his suit should rightfully go nowhere."


There are plenty of cops that are numbnuts. That's why I always think it's asinine that anti-gun folks think I'm inherently less-responsible and less-safe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Does California have a child safety seat law?

I can't imagine a kid properly restrained in a safety seat could reach anything that wasn't sitting right beside the safety seat.

David

[petronius]

24. CA requires car seats for children weighing less than 60 lbs or under 6 y.o.

(There is an exception if the child is over 40 lbs and in the rear seat of a car with lap belts only.) The article says that this child was not in a safety seat - no surprise, with Captain Dumbass for a father...

[Greyhound]

25. Hey, it's California. Playing the lawsuit lottery is a cherished way of life. n/t

[Endangered Specie]

26. While I think the lawsuit is mostly B.S., GLOCKS are not safe pistols

they do not have a true safety of any kind (either a decock or manual safety option). This goes to prove that their 'trigger safety' isn't.

If I had to carry a GLOCK I would carry it without one in the pipe.

[tburnsten]

27. They aren't unsafe, just require discipline.

Glocks are safe, they have a firing pin safety and a trigger disconnect to prevent them from firing out of battery. the trigger in trigger safety is somewhat effective at preventing the trigger from snagging, but some snags straight through the trigger guard would defeat that safety as well.

They are perfectly safe as long as excellent trigger discipline is followed, when it isn't you get guys like this-








Glocks aren't the best starter pistols unless they are only used on a range, but with a little bit of practice they are perfectly safe. I carry a Glock 27 most of the time, especially in warm weather.

[Callisto32]

28. This is different from any tuned revolver how?

Glocks are very safe. What they are not is tolerant of poor handling. The safeties are passive, they are designed to keep the weapon from firing in the event of a drop, or slam against the wall, or whatever may befall a weapon. They are not designed to prevent the weapon from firing if the trigger is deliberately pulled. In all, I would call that pretty good engineering: Pull trigger=bang, don't pull trigger=no bang. Easy. If you pull the trigger, and there is a round in the chamber, the weapon will fire. Any double action revolver is the same way.

Many Glocks are carried everyday by both private citizens and the members of various law enforcement and military agencies without incident.

If you do not like the idea of an auto without a manual safety or a decocker, and you are a private citizen or operating in a private capacity do not buy and use a Glock. It is just that simple. If it is the issue weapon of whatever organization of which you happen to be a part, it is a bit more complicated.

If you really want to, a number of things can be done to add a more traditional level of autopistol mechanical safeties to the Glock series A manual safety can be had for the Glock pistols that, if installed by a professional gunsmith, does not even void the factory warranty. Further, there is this little device ( http://www.glockworld.com/gwo_edit.htm ) with which I am personally familiar and think is a good addition to any duty or carry Glock. Of course, as with all weapons the final safety is the person who is, or at least SHOULD, be in charge of his weapon

I don't particularly like Glocks, I don't like the feel of a polymer frame, I don't like the grip angle, and the trigger feels weird to me. However, I don't think they can be faulted as anymore inherently unsafe than the DA revolver. Also note that the long, heavy trigger pulls of those revolvers has caused them to long be considered very safe, if handled properly. A Glock can be brought up to DA revolver trigger pull weight pretty easily with a relatively simply swapping of a few choice internal parts, specifically the connector and trigger spring. One such combination of these parts, known as the NY-2 module is supposed to provide a pull of about 12 pounds.

Well, this is a lot longer than originally intended, and is really only meant to show that the Glock is not any less safe than anything else. Like all guns, it just requires the engagement of the operators gray matter.

Edit: Corrected spelling error.

[Endangered Specie]

29. Except most people will keep the trigger pull at factory

which is way to light to be considered DA (IMHO). I feel quite safe around a DA revolver or a semiauto with the hammer down.

I think GLOCKS try to give the impression they are simple and "anyone can use them", leading perhaps to a false sense of security. To me there is no such thing as a 'simple' autoloading pistol, if you want simple, you should get a revolver, end of story!

[tburnsten]

30. Have you ever had to clean a Glock?

After a good long range trip, my 27 is STILL the easiest gun I have ever cleaned. The Tennifer finish and parkerization combo just seems to repel fouling like nothing I've ever seen, cleaning it is almost disappointing. It's like the pistol is challenging me to REALLY work it out! My Mossberg also required a surprisingly small amount of cleaning after 110 shells.

They do kind of overemphasize the Glock's safety, I really think that some form of warning that they need to remain in a good holster if they are loaded away from the range should be included with them, or maybe a word of caution from dealers would go a long way as well. I love their trigger, I love their (relative) simplicity, I love their strong finish, but you are right, they are very light for a non-manual safety equipped pistol for new shooters. My Glock is the fifth auto I've owned, so I was not a total newbie when I bought it.

[Endangered Specie]

32. I own a CZ-75 in 9mm with a hammer drop

instead of traditional safety. The DA is around 8lbs which feels 'about right' to me. I havent tried to clean a GLOCK, but the CZ is no chore to clean. GLOCKS just do not fit my hand and I am a 'no polymer' snob. To each his own I suppose, I do feel GLOCK needs to address the light trigger pull, it should be made at least 7lbs or just go ahead and make it like an SA and add a thumb safety.

[tburnsten]

34. I love CZ

I've got a PCR, it's excellent. Got a Kadet kit two days ago and tried it out yesterday, it was too much fun. Then I launched the guide rod and can't find it.

I do agree though that at least the option of a thumb safety on Glocks would appeal greatly to me.

[Endangered Specie]

36. mmm I have launched that bugger too, the only thing I wish for in the Kadet

is a 15 or 20rd mag... it is way too easy to empty all your mags in about 1/5 the time it takes to load them!

[tburnsten]

38. It's terrible!

I ordered a new one from them today, but it is backordered. I think I will look again, it is behind my mother in laws refrigerator or somewhere but it is nearly impossible to get back there.

Yeah there is no reason at all they couldn't have used the entire magazine for ammo, but overall the Kadet is a solid win in every category.

[slackmaster]

31. In California, claiming that a Glock is unsafe by design would be a non-starter

As I mentioned in the OP, the state has officially certified them as "safe".

That is an unintended consequence of the state making itself the arbiter of what handguns can and cannot be sold here.

[Endangered Specie]

33. Well shoot they allow Hi-Points on there!

:P

[slackmaster]

35. I regard my Glock as something of a "beater" piece

It's the one I put in my knapsack (in condition 3) when I go hiking in less-safe areas.

[Endangered Specie]

37. what makes it unsafe? two-legged or four-legged creatures?

[slackmaster]

39. Two-legged

Border bandits. I don't go near the border often, but when I do I am usually armed.