Officer hurt in accidental shooting (by 3yr old son) sues gun maker

Scrivener said:
I'm surprised the child could even fire the gun and suspect there may be more to this story. I would love to see the results of a test of the baby's hands for gunshot residue and/or its prints on the gun.

Assuming, of course, that LAPD had the intelligence to actually check.
Click to expand...

Why would they check? One of their OWN told them what happened...
 
When will the senseless Glock slaughter be stopped? People need to buy pistols that have real thumb safeties on them. Putting a trigger in the middle of the trigger is just an incredibly stupid idea for a safety.
 
WAHH I DON'T WANT TO WORK GIMME MONEYZ
Click to expand...

If you bothered to read the article you would have seen that he is paralyzed.

As a side note, Glock has been sued over fifty times for accidential discharges. No idea of the outcome. Glock in the past has settled some suits.
 
Last edited:
rscalzo said:
If you bothered to read the article you would have seen that he is paralyzed.

As a side note, Glock has been sued over fifty times for accidential discharges. No idea of the outcome. Glock in the past has settled some suits.
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't an accident, trigger pulled, gun fired. Too bad it wasn't aimed higher. What a tool.
 
There's only three ways this can have gone down, after thinking about it.

Scenario #1: He left his firearm unattended in the backseat with his kid (still in the holster since he's going after that manufacturer), and the child pulled the trigger. That means he left a loaded pistol with one in the pipe unattended and within reach of a toddler. Conclusion: He's a negligent douche who should have never been graduated out any police academy, nevermind have been allowed to carry a firearm.

Scenario #2: The pistol is on his person in a hip holster, and he allowed a toddler to access and discharge his pistol. Conclusion: See conclusion to scenario #1. He put his firearm within reaching distance of his kid, allowing the child to get his curious fingers inside of the trigger guard. Really? You're carrying while taking care of your kid and you wear a rig that doesn't adequately cover the trigger guard? He's lucky it didn't catch on any available foreign object and hit his child. Let's say he was wearing a back holster, though it's a little less likely because of the added cover a seatback would give against access and the fact that a 21 will never be mistaken as a compact carry pistol. But let's say that was the case... he's wearing it in a placement that's harder for him to guard against a grab, just above eye level to a toddler, with open access to the trigger. An open trigger holster is the only way this could possibly happen IMO since a three year old is going to have one hell of a time gaining possession of, drawing, pointing, and firing over two pounds of pistol at a trained LEO. Wearing an open trigger holster around a child is stupid. Doing so with a pistol that has the safety located in the trigger is incomprehensible.

Scenario #3: The story isn't completely true, and he's attempting to ride that version to the bank. Maybe this is a bit of a stretch, but the level of immorality some people will stoop to can never be taken out of any equation.

Then again it's pretty likely I'm just so jaded that I always expect people to be total morons.
 
Last edited:
How stupid he is suing them because the gun went off when the trigger was pulled [rolleyes].And why the hell is he suing the Holster company what do they have to do with it.
 
Blitz1 said:
What an idiot. [frown][angry]
Click to expand...

that's being to nice..

stupidity should hurt...(in his case,it must have.)not to mention illegal

m44 said:
And why the hell is he suing the Holster company what do they have to do with it.
Click to expand...
well because their holster didn't jump and put itself on the glock and prevent his kid from getting the gun..
 
Last edited:
ok I never call Cops this but I am going to make an exception this time.

"Stupid Pig..."

The Glock has 3 safetys actually (firing pin safety, drop safety and trigger safety) and the gun has nothing to do with why it discharged. If the kid did not get a hold of it and the fool kept it out of his reach, it would not have happend.

Idiot......
 
People need to learn to be responsible for themselves! Why doesn't he sue himself for not locking the gun up away from the kid? Why not sue the kid for playing with daddy's gun? The kid pulled the trigger and the gun fired! WOW! I guess that shouldn't happen.
 
dreppucci007 said:
...but had to blame it on the baby so nobody knows he shot himself. [thinking]
Click to expand...

That's what I often think when I read about shootings were there are adults around but the story points to the kid that's to young to talk. Imagine what guilt that kid will have growing up--even though it's not his fault.

There was a similar story recently locally where a child was blamed for shooting the wife using the husband's gun, who happens to be an ex con for domestic battery and other charges [rolleyes] The story is in the forums somewhere.
 
doobie said:
Too bad people can't be sued by 'The People' for frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

There needs to be a change to the legal system whereby the looser in large civil cases pays a significant portion of the court costs. To make sure payment is made, they should post bond money in advance.

"The People" should be entitled to the legal system but these sue-everybody cases just bleed people dry and most often WE end up paying for it one way or another.
 
There needs to be a change to the legal system whereby the looser in large civil cases pays a significant portion of the court costs. To make sure payment is made, they should post bond money in advance.
Click to expand...

The legal system participants will never back those types of legislation. Anything that would reduce the number of suits being filed is not in their best interest.
 
rscalzo said:
The legal system participants will never back those types of legislation. Anything that would reduce the number of suits being filed is not in their best interest.
Click to expand...

Nor the public's. What AD proposes is the "British System," the effect of which is to intimidate legitimate, but not wealthy, parties by the threat of the costs of the entire trial if their claim is found less than compelling by a preponderance of the evidence.

That system, like the fraudulently-promoted "tort reform," plays to the interests of the wealthy, particularly insurance companies and other major corporations that have the resources to drag out litigation until the injured party dies, goes broke or gives up.

Be careful what you wish for.....
 
Scrivener said:
That system, like the fraudulently-promoted "tort reform," plays to the interests of the wealthy, particularly insurance companies and other major corporations that have the resources to drag out litigation until the injured party dies, goes broke or gives up.

Be careful what you wish for.....
Click to expand...

What about when a richer plaintiff sues a poorer defendant in hopes of dragging out the litigation in hopes of breaking the defendant? Is that any better?
 
There needs to be a change to the legal system whereby the looser in large civil cases pays a significant portion of the court costs. To make sure payment is made, they should post bond money in advance.

"The People" should be entitled to the legal system but these sue-everybody cases just bleed people dry and most often WE end up paying for it one way or another.
Click to expand...

+1 I agree.... Make the people that just sue to sue and have no legitimate reason have to pay for wasting peoples, Justice system and taxpayers time and money for stupid cases that have no business being in court.

Of course I am just venting and I understand that there is no way that would happen and yes everyone is entitled to this but its hard to swallow the dumb, waste of time and money cases like this one.
 
No 3yo shot that gun.. I call BS. Also why would anyone sue a company for making a product that worked exactly as designed?
 
Also why would anyone sue a company for making a product that worked exactly as designed?
Click to expand...

And yet that is exactly what has been done in the legal system for years. Everyone goes after the deep pockets.Why did Bushmaster pay out because the Freeway Sniper used their product? Because that's the way it is in this country. You don't have to look very far to see numerous examples of this type of action.

As far as a three year old pulling the trigger of a Glock? I have no doubt some could. I've seen some hefty three year olds that could easily pull the trigger on mine. But what does that matter in any case. The firearm was stored improperly and a child got access to it. Negligence is not in doubt.
 
m44 said:
How stupid he is suing them because the gun went off when the trigger was pulled [rolleyes].And why the hell is he suing the Holster company what do they have to do with it.
Click to expand...

Glock is going too start making handguns that DONT fire when the trigger is pulled. It's part of their new "Quadruple-Safe-Action."
 
You guys are right about this guy. He's at best negligent and should take responsibility for his injury. But the fact that it happened in California means he's quite likely to win his case [frown]

Pelosi and Boxer will make sure it gets national attention.
 

Similar threads

Uvalde mass shooting victims' families suing Meta, gun manufacturer and video game maker
Replies
11
Views
439
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
"Accidental Discharge" by Cambridge SRO (in bathroom, of course)
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
Rapper BG ordered to have all future songs approved by US government: Glorifying future gun violence/murder while on release
Replies
1
Views
91
Boghog1
Boghog1
Akron - 24 shot, 1 killed in overnight shooting
Replies
22
Views
716
Lank
Lank
CT: Southington gun shop employee accidentally shoots himself, causing self-inflicted wounds
Replies
7
Views
476
Sf Becket
Sf Becket
Back
Top Bottom