PDA

View Full Version : Officer Files Lawsuit Against Glock


ADH
07-26-2012, 12:39 PM
From the article;

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

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/25/paralyzed-cop-suing-glock-after-his-3-year-old-son-shot-him/

I hadn't seen this anywhere on Calguns. Please remove if dupe.

Just because it was making me crazy, www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B230346.PDF,
ENRIQUE HERRERA CHAVEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. GLOCK, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.
B230346 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC394135)
// Librarian

Lugiahua
07-26-2012, 12:41 PM
so he failed to prevent his kids from reaching weapon (and violating CA laws), and sue Glock? :eek:

skyscraper
07-26-2012, 12:43 PM
rule #6: Store your gun safely and securely to prevent unauthorized use.

cjc16
07-26-2012, 12:43 PM
He should sue his son instead.

newglockster
07-26-2012, 12:43 PM
:facepalm:

HowardW56
07-26-2012, 12:43 PM
This was a sad event, but the officer was to blame. He put his son in a postion to have accesss to a firearm...

DFence
07-26-2012, 12:44 PM
Shouldn't this guy be charged with a felony for leaving a weapon loaded and unlocked accessible to a minor? Seems like he is opening himself up for trouble.

45DAVID1
07-26-2012, 12:45 PM
Glock should counter sue him and his old department since they obviously did not train him on how to keep weapons away from children.

Bangzoom
07-26-2012, 12:48 PM
He should sue his son instead.

He should sue the kids dad

paul0660
07-26-2012, 12:49 PM
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.

woah.

postal
07-26-2012, 12:50 PM
old news. Hadnt heard about it moving forward though.

Guy shoulda been charged with child endangerment. Access to the loaded gun, and not in a child safety seat- 2 counts.

huntercf
07-26-2012, 12:51 PM
He didn't secure his weapon and a minor gained access to it, violation of law; he didn't have his son in a car seat, another violation of law. Wonder what would have happened to us if this had happened.
This first judge was correct in dismissing the lawsuit, the 2nd court of appeals needs a drug test, too much MMJ me thinks.

RuskieShooter
07-26-2012, 12:52 PM
Maybe the LEO exemption for "unsafe" off-roster guns needs to be reexamined...

:hide:

-Ruskie

RazzB7
07-26-2012, 12:53 PM
If you let a child get hold of your handgun, YOU are to blame, not Glock, not even the child. Slap yourself for leaving the handgun under the seat, slap your lawyers for even suggesting such a frivolous lawsuit, write a note to your child to be opened on his 18th birthday that says "Slap your daddy for being an idiot"

paul0660
07-26-2012, 12:53 PM
old news. Hadnt heard about it moving forward though.

So, it's news, right?

sully007
07-26-2012, 12:53 PM
One set of laws for them, another set of laws for us. Sad.

Vacaville
07-26-2012, 12:53 PM
Shouldn't this guy be charged with a felony for leaving a weapon loaded and unlocked accessible to a minor? Seems like he is opening himself up for trouble.

Yep. The idiot broke the law that says that we all need to lock up our guns around kids. Maybe we should all mail him our extra gun locks that we haven't ever used.:p

He's a Darwin nominee if you ask me.

P5Ret
07-26-2012, 1:01 PM
Saw this the first time around, when it got dismissed. Kind of shocked that the appellate court agree's with this idiot that Glock has liability for his stupidity. I still don't think it will get anywhere though. Can't remember but I thought the D.A declined to charge him, something about not being in the best interests of the public, or some such.

stix213
07-26-2012, 1:07 PM
3 year old son was loaned a firearm without an HSC. Cop should get in trouble.

SilverTauron
07-26-2012, 1:29 PM
That officer deserves to be jailed himself. Forgetting a .45 ACP pistol is unsecured in a vehicle is criminal negligence to me.Suppose a criminal broke into his car and took the gun;would Glock still be responsible if a criminal thug shot the cop in the back with his own pistol?

IVC
07-26-2012, 1:32 PM
Glock should've sold him an unloaded gun. Oh wait. Should've included a safety manual. Oh wait. Should've explained to keep the gun away from children. Oh wait.

So, what's the Glock's liability here again?

Casual_Shooter
07-26-2012, 1:39 PM
Sounds like he got shot in his common sense.

JackRydden224
07-26-2012, 1:44 PM
What a joke. So the next time a robber gets shot while he is committing a crime he can sue as well? Cop, military or civilian...nobody should leave an loaded handgun with in a child's reach.

2Bear
07-26-2012, 1:54 PM
So, it's news, right?

LOL

jaandrade3rd
07-26-2012, 2:12 PM
Aside from the laws he may have broken maybe there is a point to his lawsuit. Maybe the trigger should have been somewhat child proof--requiring more pressure than a 3 year old child could apply to squeeze the trigger. /endsarcasm

2Bear
07-26-2012, 2:15 PM
Aside from the laws he may have broken maybe there is a point to his lawsuit. Maybe the trigger should have been somewhat child proof--requiring more pressure than a 3 year old child could apply to squeeze the trigger.

Uhhhh... No. :o

We can't have match grade triggers?

Sadly, the officer is likely not covered for this accident, so he's doing whatever he can to try to provide for the son who shot him. Tragic and ironic.

missiondude
07-26-2012, 2:17 PM
Aside from the laws he may have broken maybe there is a point to his lawsuit. Maybe the trigger should have been somewhat child proof--requiring more pressure than a 3 year old child could apply to squeeze the trigger.

3 yr olds are not supposed to get access to handguns, after all, it is the law. Maybe the trigger had modifications. You or I did this we would have gone from the hospital to court to prison...

skyscraper
07-26-2012, 2:19 PM
Aside from the laws he may have broken maybe there is a point to his lawsuit. Maybe the trigger should have been somewhat child proof--requiring more pressure than a 3 year old child could apply to squeeze the trigger.

Very true. Then we can give children guns without worrying if they will shoot someone.

(surely Im kidding, and I hope you were too) ;)

FalconLair
07-26-2012, 2:21 PM
Glock should've sold him an unloaded gun. Oh wait. Should've included a safety manual. Oh wait. Should've explained to keep the gun away from children. Oh wait.

So, what's the Glock's liability here again?

Glock's liability here is that they are the "deep pockets" in this whole mess

As much as I feel for the guys situation, his own neglect, including not having his own son in a child safety seat were the major factors of this tragedy

I still can't get over the fact that a supposedly well trained individual could be so neglectful in his DUTY to keep a firearm secured safely in the presense of children

illen_eb
07-26-2012, 2:22 PM
This is ridiculous! What a joke. This cop should loose his right to own firearms. What an incompetent person. It's just like driving drunk , hitting and killing someone and turning around and suing Budweiser for making the beer too strong. When will people, courts and media, slap the hand of the wrong-doer and not the innocent person/color operation. That guys lucky his kid didn't kill him.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-26-2012, 2:23 PM
...DUTY to keep a firearm secured safely in the presense of children

Which as we all know, if this officer responded to a call involving any of us and our children, we would be jailed for the crime.

A.W.D.

William The Patriot
07-26-2012, 2:25 PM
Having owned a G21 myself - the trigger pull is FAR from light.....not that it matters.

The assjack didn't deserve to be a cop.

pdq_wizzard
07-26-2012, 2:25 PM
If you let a child get hold of your handgun, YOU are to blame, not Glock, not even the child. Slap yourself for leaving the handgun under the seat, slap your lawyers for even suggesting such a frivolous lawsuit, write a note to your child to be opened on his 18th birthday that says "Slap your daddy for being an idiot"

Well played sir +100 to you :D

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

postal
07-26-2012, 3:01 PM
So, it's news, right?

:o:o:o Yeah... I guess!!!!!


Just keep us updated when/if the judge slaps him upside the head.

I'd love to hear the oral arguements. Especially the lawyer representing Glock.

nicki
07-26-2012, 3:53 PM
He choose to carry a gun in his car, I can respect that.

He choose to leave his gun where his 3 year old kid could access it, that was his mistake.

The only thing Glock is guilty of is selling firearms to his police department which is supposedly responsible for his training.

I am sorry that he can't walk, but he created the events that led to his situation. This wasn't so much an accident, it was negligence on his part.

If he had OBEYED California law regarding safe storage from minors, he wouldn't be in this position in the first place.

I guess if he left keys in his car with the engine running while the car was parked and his 3 year old put the car into drive and it rolled, hit and pinned him and broke his back he would be suing the car maker.

Nicki

trew10
07-26-2012, 4:07 PM
He should be happy that it was him who got shot and not his 3year old son. This could have ended worst.

trew10
07-26-2012, 4:07 PM
He should be happy that it was him who got shot and not his 3year old son. This could have ended worst.

trew10
07-26-2012, 4:07 PM
He should be happy that it was him who got shot and not his 3year old son. This could have ended worst.

The Shadow
07-26-2012, 4:15 PM
He's a highly trained peace officer. It couldn't possibly his fault. :rolleyes:

1911Vince
07-26-2012, 4:19 PM
I hope Glock's Lawyers make this guy look the *****-TARD he is!! I would be embarrassed filing this lawsuit!!!

GMG
07-26-2012, 4:42 PM
Lets see, 3 year old picks up dads service pistol. And racks the slide putting a round in the chamber. Then shoots his dad in the back.

Whats wrong with this picture? I know, a 3 year old can't rack the slide. Dad racked it for him and put it under the seat. It's a sad story, but dad was negligent for not stowing the pistol properly.

Kukuforguns
07-26-2012, 4:55 PM
First of all, yes the officer is claiming that the Glock was defective because it had a light trigger. You can read the opinion here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm (opinion was issued by the Second District and the defendant's name is Glock). He's also claiming that the weapon was defective because it did not have a handle safety.

As to everyone that wants this guy to do prison time, I'd like you to consider the following points: (1) he is a paraplegic as a result of this incident; and (2) paraplegics require expensive medical care. From these two facts I form the following opinions: (1) he has already been sufficiently punished for his stupidity; and (2) I do not want to pay for his medical care while he spends time in prison. You are, of course, free to form different opinions. But, at least consider those facts before forming an opinion. Also, this child will certainly feel an enormous amount of guilt at some point in his life. An argument could be made that taking away his father would further punish this child for something that was not his fault. He may not be much, but he's the only father this child will ever have. I freely acknowledge that a person could reasonably believe the child is safer with the dad out of the picture.

From the opinion one could also form the opinion that the officer is a liar. In addition to suing Glock, he is suing the manufacturer and retailer of the holster (IWB) on the grounds that the holster was defective because it did not protect the trigger. He testified that after his son blew out his spine, he reached around the seat, took the weapon from his son, and after he grabbed the gun it fell out of its holster (in other words, the gun was in the holster when it was fired). Well, an expert examined the holster and determined that there was no gunpowder residue on the holster. No problem for our incompetent plaintiff, he hired competent counsel who found an expert willing to testify that gunpowder residue cannot be detected until a weapon has been discharged multiple times inside the holster. No. Really. The trial court excluded this evidence. Court of appeal said that the evidence should have been allowed and therefore created an issue of fact for a jury to decide.

The plaintiff also somehow managed to switch his pistol for that of his partner.

Read the opinion if you want even more evidence that Darwin got something wrong in his theory.

paul0660
07-26-2012, 5:00 PM
Read the opinion if you want even more evidence that Darwin got something wrong in his theory.

I am not sure what he got wrong. Isn't this an affirmation?

The fact that this would not have happened with most handguns still does not mean that Glock should pay this man for his ineptitude.

FX-05 Xiuhcoatl
07-26-2012, 5:00 PM
hahahahahahaha

wildhawker
07-26-2012, 5:09 PM
Read the opinion if you want even more evidence that Darwin got something wrong in his theory.

Concur. Darwin's error was assuming that the weak would perish as a result of natural selection. Instead, "enlightened" humans would forego his forecasted outcome by hiring the weak and calling them "public servants".

-Brandon

five.five-six
07-26-2012, 5:16 PM
One set of laws for them, another set of laws
enforcement for us. Sad.

FTFY

Connor P Price
07-26-2012, 5:27 PM
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.

Both of which are features he was fully aware the glock did not possess when he chose to carry it. If he wanted those features, he should have gotten a gun that had them.

It's a bit ironic that California law states that if an individual leaves a firearm in an area where it is accessible to a child and a child harms someone with it, that individual is liable for whatever harm the child caused. In this case CA statute seems quite clear that he is the one liable for his own injuries.

Ron-Solo
07-26-2012, 5:32 PM
This guy makes all gun owners look bad, not just cops. But he makes cops look bad too.

If I remember correctly, he was under investigation or review for incompetence before this happened.

SanPedroShooter
07-26-2012, 5:33 PM
Having done a bit of research on legal action against Glock, it seems like they know how to deal with these types of suits.

They have been incredibly successful at paying out and fighting back depending. If there is a sympathetic plaintiff, they will get the gun back (rule number 1 apparently) and pay out with non-disclosure agreements. If the plaintiff is a douche like this guy, they will make the 'full court press'.

Gaston Glock has testified at least one of these types of trials, and they won.

This guy is a real piece of work, I think Glock will nail him in court. The gun worked exactly as advertised. Is Glock responsible for the fact he 'forgot' his handgun in the car, let his kid climb all over the back seat, find it and shoot him in the back...? I think a juries sympathy for a police office only goes so far.

Wherryj
07-26-2012, 5:53 PM
From the article;



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/25/paralyzed-cop-suing-glock-after-his-3-year-old-son-shot-him/


I hadn't seen this anywhere on Calguns. Please remove if dupe.

"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."

How many laws does this officer have to break before he accepts his own responsibility in the matter? Son allowed access to the gun, son not in a safety seat (sorry, but I'm assuming that meant that he SHOULD have been or it is rather irrelevant to mention it).

five.five-six
07-26-2012, 5:54 PM
Having done a bit of research on legal action against Glock, it seems like they know how to deal with these types of suits..

you would have to, anyone that makes guns without safeties would have to figure something out for suit mitigation.

dantodd
07-26-2012, 6:12 PM
Shouldn't this guy be charged with a felony for leaving a weapon loaded and unlocked accessible to a minor? Seems like he is opening himself up for trouble.

Which part of "police officer" didn't you understand?

dantodd
07-26-2012, 6:19 PM
Isn't this covered by fopa? Oops I mean Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

Josh.Ollar
07-26-2012, 6:30 PM
I hope Glock's Lawyers make this guy look the *****-TARD he is!! I would be embarrassed filing this lawsuit!!!

nicely put :detective:

this guy makes me sick he should be brought up on charges What FATHER/GUN OWNER leaves a loaded gun anywhere near a 3 year old

artoaster
07-26-2012, 6:47 PM
What! The taxpayers aren't paying enough already with the disability claim and pension when that comes.

He's lucky he had a job and insurance and not some poor other guy who did the same stupid thing.

Bangzoom
07-26-2012, 7:47 PM
I hope the Judge or Jury realizes he doesnt have a leg to stand on with this law suit

Ron-Solo
07-26-2012, 8:02 PM
What! The taxpayers aren't paying enough already with the disability claim and pension when that comes.

He's lucky he had a job and insurance and not some poor other guy who did the same stupid thing.

He was denied a disability pension by LAPD (rightfully so) because he was not in compliance with policy and it was deemed to not be work related. He did not have enough time to be vested in the retirement system.


Which part of "police officer" didn't you understand?

Rarely are charges filed in cases like this, regardless of peace officer status or not.

infamous1979
07-26-2012, 8:08 PM
The guys desperate and this lawsuit has no merit IMO.

dantodd
07-26-2012, 8:12 PM
Rarely are charges filed in cases like this, regardless of peace officer status or not.

I don't care about him doing time, as others have said being paralyzed via his own stupidity is more than adequate punishment. I do wish he'd have that record to keep him from ever owning a firearm again.

penguinofsleep
07-26-2012, 8:15 PM
Sounds like he got shot in his common sense.

this

durandal
07-26-2012, 8:47 PM
He's irresponsible, AND in denial, great. I feel safer already.

mossy
07-26-2012, 9:04 PM
poor guy, this will be the second time he will look like a complete idiot.

kaligaran
07-26-2012, 9:20 PM
How was this guy not brought up on charges for having a gun not properly secured where a minor could access it?

I really wish our state laws would say that breaking the law would prevent you from suing anyone (such as suing the homeowner that shot you during your attempted burglary or suing the company for the gun you let your 3 year old have access to).

Anchors
07-26-2012, 9:31 PM
Isn't this covered by fopa? Oops I mean Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92.
The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004 after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
The final bill passed only after an amendment was added that mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal had been prevented from being added onto the bill.
The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.

Emphasis mine.
He is alleging that his Glock was defective...because it fired when the trigger was pulled...:confused:

SmallShark
07-26-2012, 9:43 PM
i dont even want to read the article. i guess people can just sue anyone for any reason.

DFence
07-26-2012, 10:17 PM
First of all, yes the officer is claiming that the Glock was defective because it had a light trigger. You can read the opinion here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm (opinion was issued by the Second District and the defendant's name is Glock). He's also claiming that the weapon was defective because it did not have a handle safety.

As to everyone that wants this guy to do prison time, I'd like you to consider the following points: (1) he is a paraplegic as a result of this incident; and (2) paraplegics require expensive medical care. From these two facts I form the following opinions: (1) he has already been sufficiently punished for his stupidity; and (2) I do not want to pay for his medical care while he spends time in prison. You are, of course, free to form different opinions. But, at least consider those facts before forming an opinion. Also, this child will certainly feel an enormous amount of guilt at some point in his life. An argument could be made that taking away his father would further punish this child for something that was not his fault. He may not be much, but he's the only father this child will ever have. I freely acknowledge that a person could reasonably believe the child is safer with the dad out of the picture.

From the opinion one could also form the opinion that the officer is a liar. In addition to suing Glock, he is suing the manufacturer and retailer of the holster (IWB) on the grounds that the holster was defective because it did not protect the trigger. He testified that after his son blew out his spine, he reached around the seat, took the weapon from his son, and after he grabbed the gun it fell out of its holster (in other words, the gun was in the holster when it was fired). Well, an expert examined the holster and determined that there was no gunpowder residue on the holster. No problem for our incompetent plaintiff, he hired competent counsel who found an expert willing to testify that gunpowder residue cannot be detected until a weapon has been discharged multiple times inside the holster. No. Really. The trial court excluded this evidence. Court of appeal said that the evidence should have been allowed and therefore created an issue of fact for a jury to decide.

The plaintiff also somehow managed to switch his pistol for that of his partner.

Read the opinion if you want even more evidence that Darwin got something wrong in his theory.

I would much rather him not waste tax payer dollars in this lawsuit then do jail time. Yes I am sure he has suffered enough and will continue to do so, but he completely put himself in this position. No one else.

I own holsters that don't completely cover the trigger and I'm aware of that. But I also don't leave them loaded in and in the reach of children.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 10:57 PM
3 year old son was loaned a firearm without an HSC. Cop should get in trouble.

:rofl:

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 10:58 PM
I would much rather him not waste tax payer dollars in this lawsuit then do jail time. Yes I am sure he has suffered enough and will continue to do so, but he completely put himself in this position. No one else.

I own holsters that don't completely cover the trigger and I'm aware of that. But I also don't leave them loaded in and in the reach of children.

^ this

same laws for each human.

FalconLair
07-26-2012, 11:10 PM
i guess people can just sue anyone for any reason.yes, you can but more frivolous cases are thrown out of court then people realize, they just aren't covered by the media

hk-p2000
07-26-2012, 11:21 PM
maybe his kid didn't like cops!

Sir Stunna Lot
07-27-2012, 12:20 AM
surprised no one said this yet, so i will:

He should of had a 1911
:hide:

glockman19
07-27-2012, 8:19 AM
Sad... So much for personal responsibility... And...equal protection.

SWMP15
07-27-2012, 8:39 AM
Just another story of just how poor most cops are with guns. The public is lead to believe that all police officers are bonafide experts with weapons. Just not true. The general public would s#!t a brick if they ever saw police qualifications! Yes, I have been there many times.

There are some very skilled police officers with weapons, but they are in the minority of cops.

The general public would be horrified if they new the foolish and unsafe things cops do on and off duty with guns. Especially if they knew about the number of ND's cops have!

Just look at this LAPD officer, and the cops that their small children have shot themselves with their parents duty weapon. Remember the SWAT Sgt a couple of years ago up north in CA who's 3 year old son shot and killed himself, with his dad's duty weapon? The Sgt is still on duty, and not in jail like a civilian would be. It is very sad.

I hope this goes to court and the officer gets exposed and then charged for not keeping his weapon in a safe manner prescribed to the rest of us by the law. This same cop would have arrested anyone of us, if our child got access to a gun and shot someone.

And it is these same cops who can buy any handgun in the state of CA because of their professionalism and training. The handgun roster only pertains to us civilians, the nonprofessionals...

Does make one wonder.

donstarr
07-27-2012, 8:56 AM
How was this guy not brought up on charges for having a gun not properly secured where a minor could access it?



If I was the cop, I'd hope my attorney would claim that having the gun under the front seat satisfied PC 12035(c)(3):
[i](c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(3) The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto so that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.

Kukuforguns
07-27-2012, 8:59 AM
same laws for each human.I agree that the laws should be applied impartially with respect to political issues. Strongly so. As RonSolo indicated, prosecutors frequently do not press charges in cases like this regardless of whether or not the violator is a police officer. For example, when a mother is doing 55 in a residential area and then runs a red light and ends up in a collision that kills the mother's child, prosecutors could bring charges against the mother. Usually (but not always) the prosecutors choose not to prosecute. Moreover, in this case the police department referred the case to the D.A.'s office. It was the D.A.'s office that elected not to proceed. The police department wants nothing to do with the plaintiff . . . being associated with him lessens its own reputation. I do not think the lack of charges had anything to do with him being a police officer. Rather, I see the prosecutor saying: (1) the guy's already been punished; (2) he does not pose a future risk of recidivism; (3) a jury won't want to convict a paraplegic for the crime that left the defendant a paraplegic.

Kukuforguns
07-27-2012, 9:01 AM
Concur. Darwin's error was assuming that the weak would perish as a result of natural selection. Instead, "enlightened" humans would forego his forecasted outcome by hiring the weak and calling them "public servants".

-Brandon

Wow. Someone even more disillusioned than me. I salute you sir.

morfeeis
07-27-2012, 9:07 AM
One set of laws for them, another set of laws for us. Sad.
That about sums it up, i better not say anything or i'll end up in trouble.

donstarr
07-27-2012, 10:25 AM
I've seen several posts in this thread inferring that Chavez (the elder) should be charged with a crime. Apart from not securing the tike in an approved child restraint, what California code did he violate?

Yes, Chavez is a moron. By his own stupidity, he has demonstrated that he should never again possess - much less carry around other people - a firearm. He should consider himself fortunate that he only lost the use of his legs, instead of his life, his son's, or that of a 3rd party. He certainly shouldn't be blaming the manufacturer of a product which performed precisely as advertised - especially when he [presumably] received training in the use of that product.

haveyourmile
07-27-2012, 5:39 PM
I've seen several posts in this thread inferring that Chavez (the elder) should be charged with a crime. Apart from not securing the tike in an approved child restraint, what California code did he violate?

Yes, Chavez is a moron. By his own stupidity, he has demonstrated that he should never again possess - much less carry around other people - a firearm. He should consider himself fortunate that he only lost the use of his legs, instead of his life, his son's, or that of a 3rd party. He certainly shouldn't be blaming the manufacturer of a product which performed precisely as advertised - especially when he [presumably] received training in the use of that product.

He left his loaded firearm where a child had access to it, and DID access it.

wildhawker
07-27-2012, 5:43 PM
Wow. Someone even more disillusioned than me. I salute you sir.

Salute accepted and appreciated.

-Brandon

donstarr
07-27-2012, 5:43 PM
He left his loaded firearm where a child had access to it, and DID access it.

No crime, so far. Unless you know of a PC section?

haveyourmile
07-27-2012, 5:46 PM
PC Section 12035-12036

223556
07-27-2012, 5:48 PM
That is insane. How can they even make a legal case out of this?
Chavez deserves the Darwin award...

donstarr
07-27-2012, 5:50 PM
PC Section 12035-12036

"Under the front seat" of the truck he was driving almost certainly satisfies 12035(c)(3).

12036 only applies to taking a firearm off-premises without parental consent. Even if it didn't, "under the front seat" of the truck he was driving almost certainly satisfies 12036(e)(4).

njineermike
07-27-2012, 5:57 PM
There are not enough facepalms in the entire universe to convey the complete idiocy of this entire situation.

What could his argument POSSIBLY be? That there was no child safety trigger on the gun? Or that they they negligently let an idiot get a gun that didn't have an idiot proof mechanism?

donstarr
07-27-2012, 6:02 PM
There are not enough facepalms in the entire universe to convey the complete idiocy of this entire situation.

What could his argument POSSIBLY be? That there was no child safety trigger on the gun? Or that they they negligently let an idiot get a gun that didn't have an idiot proof mechanism?

About the only one I can think of is that the LAPD either a) doesn't adequately train their officers in the proper use of the weapons issued to them or b) if they allow officers to choose their own weapons, they don't make sure the officers are competent in the weapons' operation. (This based on reports that it was his "service weapon".)

haveyourmile
07-27-2012, 6:05 PM
"Under the front seat" of the truck he was driving almost certainly satisfies 12035(c)(3).

12036 only applies to taking a firearm off-premises without parental consent. Even if it didn't, "under the front seat" of the truck he was driving almost certainly satisfies 12036(e)(4).

Well according to the CA AGs office: "Under the Children’s Firearm Accident Prevention Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded
firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, may be fined or sent to prison. (Penal Code
§§ 12035, 12036, 12071.)"

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

redcliff
07-27-2012, 6:13 PM
Desperate times lead to desperate measures. It sounds like the plaintiff is pretty desperate and to be honest while I don't agree with his law suit I do have sympathy for his lifetime of disability he's facing. He's paid a steep price for a mistake.

Most people with businesses that deal with the public have, or will, experience law suits like this at some time or another. It's often cheaper for your insurance company to settle claims than to actually litigate and prevail and litigation runs the risk of losing. Failing to settle a case for less than the policy limit which then proceeds to trial and has an award that exceeds your policy limit can put the insurance company on the hook for the additional amount. So they settle these types of cases and the cycle of frivolous litigation continues.

glbtrottr
07-27-2012, 6:18 PM
What a waste of a human being.

This is the kind of person that our law enforcement management is hiring into their ranks. For that matter, his judgment or lack thereof was employed and celebrated by a paycheck by them for over 10 years. I wonder what his arrest record was like.

Here's how he as treated like a true celebrity after leaving a gun out, amongst other toy guns (gotta train them early), for his son to shoot him with:


http://www.lapdonline.org/july_2006/news_view/32973

Officer Enrique Chavez' BBQ Fundraiser and Blood Drive

Los Angeles: A fundraiser is planned in support of Police Officer Enrique Chavez, who was seriously wounded in an accidental shooting on July 11, 2006.

On Thursday, July 20, 2006, Officer Chavez had surgery and a metal rod was placed in his spine. As result of this unfortunate accident, Officer Chavez will be paralyzed from the waist down.

The Media is invited to attend the event. Any advance promotion of this event is greatly appreciated.

Mrs. Chavez will be at the event to thank the officers and the community for all the support given to her family.

This is truly a family event with entertainment and children activities. All proceeds raised will go to the Blue Ribbon Fund Account or Los Angeles Police Federal Credit Union for Officer Enrique Chavez. The money will be used for his rehabilitation and acclimation to his injuries.

Friday, August 4, 2006
BBQ Fundraiser
10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Blood Drive
11:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.
Los Angeles Police Academy
Picnic Area
1880 North Academy Road
Los Angeles, CA 90014

"Blue Ribbon Trust Account for Officer Chavez"
C/O Steve Getzoff,
17404 Ventura Boulevard
Encino, CA 91316

Los Angeles Police Federal Credit Union
Po Box 10188
Van Nuys, Ca 91410
Attn: Officer Enrique Chavez Trustee Donation Account

If you have any questions, please call Media Relations Section at 213-485-3586."

The thin blue line isn't so thin.

And what did he do? Sue every organization in the room - Glock, Uncle Mike's (really? An Uncle Mike's Holster?), Bushnell, Turners, the LA PRC...

Must make you really bitter to know that you're the most stupid idiot in the room, and rather than own it, take your asininity out on everyone around you in full display by trying to be the fake tough and the phony brave from a wheelchair, all while showing your son who shot you how to mismanage your own dignity.

donstarr
07-27-2012, 6:20 PM
Well according to the CA AGs office: "Under the Children’s Firearm Accident Prevention Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded
firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, may be fined or sent to prison. (Penal Code
§§ 12035, 12036, 12071.)"

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

Right. MAY be fined or sent to prison - presuming they don't fall under the exceptions listed in 12035(c) or 12036(e).

Based on the reports I've read, any competent attorney should argue that Chavez' weapon, under the front seat of the truck he was driving, was within such close proximity to Chavez that Chavez could've readily retrieved and used it as if it was carried on his person. That is, the conditions satisfied 12035(c)(3).

Theseus
07-27-2012, 7:25 PM
I thought the law doesn't require the guns be locked up, but that you are liable to any damages and criminal action if the child did gain access...Am I wrong on this?

Sent from my Razr Maxx using Tapatalk 2

donstarr
07-27-2012, 7:31 PM
I thought the law doesn't require the guns be locked up, but that you are liable to any damages and criminal action if the child did gain access...Am I wrong on this?

That's right - but there are exceptions (i.e. cases where you're not liable).

BigDogatPlay
07-27-2012, 7:36 PM
Well according to the CA AGs office: "Under the Children’s Firearm Accident Prevention Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded
firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, may be fined or sent to prison. (Penal Code
§§ 12035, 12036, 12071.)"

Emphasis added.

Prosecutors get discretion. The guy is going to be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life because he had a stupid moment. Common sense would seem to indicate that he has been punished pretty severely already. And his son is going to eventually know and understand that he did that to his father. So what purpose would a fine or jail time serve in this case?

As Ron-Solo noted on a previous page these charges are very rarely pursued, peace officer or not.

efillc
08-03-2012, 11:05 AM
If Glock loses it should issue a product safety recall to every LE agency in CA for all of its pistols, and return them with 20 pound triggers.

XD40SUBBIE
08-03-2012, 1:14 PM
This seems to me another case of blaming the gun and not taking personal responsibility for the tragic events of your 3 year old son and a deadly tool/weapon. Am I missing something here? Sorry that the LEO was shot, but he would not have been shot, had he put his gun away. Why sue Glock?

MrTokarev
08-03-2012, 1:33 PM
Just watch, now they're going to add a "3 year old trigger safety test" to the drop test for handguns sold in CA.

GREASY357
08-03-2012, 3:00 PM
how can this guy seriously think that it's glocks fault that he forgot his loaded 45 under his seat where his child sits. either really stupid or really needs some cash? (actually stupid no matter what since he left a loaded firearm under a car seat and forgot about it....)

Tubbie
08-03-2012, 4:27 PM
The truly sad tragedy from this event is that he didn't die. The silver lining, on the other hand, is he will never walk again.

NoHeavyHitter
08-03-2012, 4:32 PM
Shouldn't this guy be charged with a felony for leaving a weapon loaded and unlocked accessible to a minor?

Yep... If any of us left a firearm unsecured and in reach of a minor and they hurt someone - you can bet that such negligence would be rewarded with criminal prosecution.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
08-03-2012, 4:40 PM
i guess people can just sue anyone for any reason.

In CA, at least, that's pretty much the case. Just because the suit is filed doesn't guarantee a verdict or settlement. When a suit like this is filed, the attorneys pretty much name everyone they can think of, however tenuous their connection might be, and then for good measure, they add John Does 1 though 99 in case they think of someone else along the way. That's just how the game is played; there's no special significance to the gun industry or anyone else that Glock was named in this suit.

IMO, this suit isn't going anywhere... speaking from about 17 years of courtroom experience. If Glock rolls over and settles, they're crazy. Just my .02 on a tragic and unfortunate case.

The truly sad tragedy from this event is that he didn't die. The silver lining, on the other hand, is he will never walk again.

I certainly hope that you get just that much sympathy when you do something stupid and hurt yourself. Karma is a you-know-what and you've just earned yourself some. Just don't take anyone else with you, hm? :rolleyes:

M1NM
08-03-2012, 4:53 PM
Thought LAPD issued 9mm. If so this is a personal firearm otherwise he'd be suing the city for issuing him an unsafe gun. While the city's pocket depth is less than Glock's they do pay out a lot of $ to people who do stupid things.

FourLoko
08-03-2012, 5:05 PM
They get sued a lot. I think they'll be fine on this one.

Connor P Price
08-03-2012, 5:34 PM
Emphasis added.

Prosecutors get discretion. The guy is going to be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life because he had a stupid moment. Common sense would seem to indicate that he has been punished pretty severely already. And his son is going to eventually know and understand that he did that to his father. So what purpose would a fine or jail time serve in this case?

As Ron-Solo noted on a previous page these charges are very rarely pursued, peace officer or not.

Even though the charges won't be filed the fact that he is still likely guilty is relevant and would likely be brought up by Glocks defense.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

cannon
08-03-2012, 6:08 PM
Sad situation for the child. An experience like shooting and crippling your dad has to leave an emotional mark.

Hopefully the trial court throws this case out the window on a defendants pre trial motion.

bohoki
08-03-2012, 6:29 PM
what could glock have done to prevent this

he picked this gun knowing it does not have a manual saftey catch

Ledbetter
08-03-2012, 8:34 PM
Entitlement mentality--It's not just for welfare recipients anymore.

FalconLair
08-03-2012, 9:33 PM
I feel badly for the child...his road will be filled with guilt

Arkangel
08-03-2012, 10:07 PM
I certainly hope that you get just that much sympathy when you do something stupid and hurt yourself. Karma is a you-know-what and you've just earned yourself some. Just don't take anyone else with you, hm? :rolleyes:

He deserves no sympathy, he continues to be a bad example for his kid by showing him that blaming others for your stupidity is OK and that there is no need to learn personal responsibility. He did several stupid things and paid for it. Call me cold harted or jaded but its the truth.

The_Tinman
08-03-2012, 10:49 PM
I started my kids around 18 months with Eddie. My 4 year old is almost ready for her first rifle.

Mr. Chavez, a link for you sir.

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Gunsmith Dan
08-04-2012, 2:11 AM
Actually this would open a can of worms for the anti gunners if this lawsuit actually wins against Glock.


If Glock can be sued for this situation then every anti gun organization that wants firearms taken away from the private citizen can be sued when that citizen gets robbed, raped or murdered because they had no access to a firearm.

The groups and politicians that pushed for, lobbied and passed the laws would be liable for the injuries or deaths as a result or not being able to protect themselves.

That if a organization can be sued for the actions of another that puts them at risk of their safety and well being because of providing a service or product. That also means the opposite could be applied when the product or service is denied use that puts the person at risk of their health and safety ( a current example would be not providing safety gear in a dangerous work enviroment ).

Just my humble opinion.

E Pluribus Unum
08-04-2012, 2:17 AM
This is a DUPE

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=322258

pdq_wizzard
08-04-2012, 5:08 AM
This is a DUPE

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=322258

This one has more posts :p

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

mille806
08-04-2012, 12:37 PM
He got nailed hard by that 45 he is lucky to have survived just imagine if the kid would have shot himself this guy needs to be in prison plain and simple

E Pluribus Unum
08-04-2012, 3:17 PM
He got nailed hard by that 45 he is lucky to have survived just imagine if the kid would have shot himself this guy needs to be in prison plain and simple

The idea of prison is not punishment; it is rehabilitation. I think he learned his lesson, and will never do it again.

It would better serve the community for this guy to do public speaking on the issue.

Prowler
08-04-2012, 3:31 PM
He's a dumb a#%. His irresponsibility should not allow him to get free money. Nice...

Arkangel
08-04-2012, 3:31 PM
The idea of prison is not punishment; it is rehabilitation. I think he learned his lesson, and will never do it again.

It would better serve the community for this guy to do public speaking on the issue.

I think we have enough people flapping their gums and blaming guns for the actions of the idiots wielding them.

Mr. Pain
08-04-2012, 3:46 PM
If you let a child get hold of your handgun, YOU are to blame, not Glock, not even the child. Slap yourself for leaving the handgun under the seat, slap your lawyers for even suggesting such a frivolous lawsuit, write a note to your child to be opened on his 18th birthday that says "Slap your daddy for being an idiot"

:thumbsup:

hermosabeach
08-04-2012, 4:13 PM
... And people still post rants on Cal Guns about how XYZ company will not sell to them as they live in California

As the courts rarely award damages to companies when they get hit with nusance lawsuits, it is a no brainer to sue
Win a judgement from 12 people not smart enough to get out of Jury Duty is like winning the lotto in CA

Get a big fat settlement as Glock wont risk what a CA jury will decide-

Or lose and pay nothing as the attorney took the case on contingement

I understand the contgency allows poorer people to sue when they were wronged... If not many people could never afford the 50k to start the process in a case of this size

The problem as I see it is that too many sue on contingency as it is a no lose situation.

We need to change our mindsets back to those that take responsibility for our actions.

Sorry for the rant

mbt
08-04-2012, 10:14 PM
If he is facing financial probs due to his incredible inexcusable stupidity, his only real option is to load another round and ....

I mean clearly he is unfit to be a father let alone a cop so he might as well do the honorable thing for his family..

TempleKnight
08-04-2012, 10:48 PM
Obviously IANAL. Can someone tell me why this doesn't get tossed under
SB.397 - Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill from '05?

It was supposed to be "a bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others"

Tiberius
08-04-2012, 11:30 PM
This poor guy got shot in the spine by his own 3 year old. He's in a special sort of hell already and there's no need to pile on. I doubt being prosecuted would make his life significantly worse. He made a mistake, and something terrible happened.

In the interest of trying to take something good from this, incidents like this are a strong argument for having some type of grip safety or other external safety, so that if through inattention someone who shouldn't have the gun gets ahold of it, it takes more than imitating TV and pulling the trigger. If the kid was holding it but a safety lever was engaged, he might have seen it before the kid managed to flick the lever. Or maybe the kid would have given up. Or maybe the kid would have shot the same shot two seconds later, after disabling the safety.

I'm not taking sides in the safety debate; its an individual decision. The Calguns consensus is usually that safeties are problems, but they have certain benefits as well.

T

illen_eb
08-05-2012, 11:39 AM
This poor guy got shot in the spine by his own 3 year old. He's in a special sort of hell already and there's no need to pile on. I doubt being prosecuted would make his life significantly worse. He made a mistake, and something terrible happened.

In the interest of trying to take something good from this, incidents like this are a strong argument for having some type of grip safety or other external safety, so that if through inattention someone who shouldn't have the gun gets ahold of it, it takes more than imitating TV and pulling the trigger. If the kid was holding it but a safety lever was engaged, he might have seen it before the kid managed to flick the lever. Or maybe the kid would have given up. Or maybe the kid would have shot the same shot two seconds later, after disabling the safety.

I'm not taking sides in the safety debate; its an individual decision. The Calguns consensus is usually that safeties are problems, but they have certain benefits as well.

T

At the end of the day. There is personal responsibility on his part. The fact that he knew the gun, and it's flaws, should have been a reminder not to leave the gun where a child should get it. Hes suing Glock, for his misfortune. Theres no excuse for this. He an idiot that should never have a firearm around him. Hes the guy that makes responsible gun owners look bad . I am taking sides and this guy should loose all rights . I like the Glock and the fact that it's safety is the way it is. In fact I made a trigger that has no safety shoe.

illen_eb
08-05-2012, 11:49 AM
I hope the Judge or Jury realizes he doesnt have a leg to stand on with this law suit

literally . HaHA Ha

Grumpyoldretiredcop
08-06-2012, 8:56 PM
He deserves no sympathy, he continues to be a bad example for his kid by showing him that blaming others for your stupidity is OK and that there is no need to learn personal responsibility. He did several stupid things and paid for it. Call me cold harted or jaded but its the truth.

One more added to the ignore list. After all, I'm not perfect like Arkangel and am therefore unworthy to hear his wisdom. :rolleyes: