LOS ANGELES—An off-duty Los Angeles police officer who was hurt 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.
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 attorneys fees.
Calls made after business hours to the defendants were not immediately returned Wednesday night.
im sorry but if there is any kid in my home that is too young to comprehend gun safety, in my opinion 10 or under generally...then the gun is either ON me or in a gun safe... That is 100% his fault....use common sense people.
im sorry but if there is any kid in my home that is too young to comprehend gun safety, in my opinion 10 or under generally...then the gun is either ON me or in a gun safe... That is 100% his fault....use common sense people.
+2 (the wife and i) no matter the situation. locked in a bolted down safe or on you. once you set it down or leave it that is your responsibility sitting out there. to bad he probably didn't learn a thing about responsibility over his firearms from this situation.
A Glock Talker named Lewsid 13 said it best in a similar thread in Carry Issues:
Quote:
The good old U-S-of A, the land of the negligent and the home of the unaccountable.
This guy should be prosecuted and sentenced for reckless endangerment of a child -- for not securing his 3-year-old in a moving vehicle, and for allowing that same child to handle his duty gun. Friggin' moron.
OK, so can anyone tell me WHY this moron isn't being prosecuted for allowing his kid to get ahold of the gun, not to mention not being belted in?
If it were you or me....
This is where the NRA should step up and put pressure on the State's Atty. to do their job and bring charges.
WOW. first of all - will 5.5# of pressure fire a stock Glock? i though 5.5# connector meant a total trigger pull of close to 8#
so... he leaves a charged Glock in a cheap holster within reach of a toddler and it's Glock's fault?!?! he should be charged, criminally. the holster thing had me curious at first, i was wondering if it was in his duty rig, in which case (STILL NEGLIGENT), but cause for concern as far as retention holsters go.
btw- it doesn't say the kid wasn't strapped in, the weapon could have been within reach of the child while he was in his car seat.
either way - the guy's a tool, thank God the kid is uninjured.
This lawsuit is a joke. The owner of the firearm has commited "Criminal storage of a firearm" under California penal code 12035(b)(1):
"(b)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a
person commits the crime of "criminal storage of
a firearm of the first degree" if he or she keeps
any loaded firearm within any premise which is
under his or her custody or control and he or she
knows or reasonably should know that a child is
likely to gain access to the firearm without the
permission of the child's parent or legal guardian
and the child obtains access to the firearm and
thereby causes death or great bodily injury to
himself, herself, or any other person."
I am neither a parent nor a LEO, yet I am fully aware of this law in effect in CA given California's gun control laws.
This is something I HAD to learn, like any other handgun buyer in CA, even before I could take delivery of my first handgun.
Please tell me that this guy is now an ex-LEO.
As for defects or questions on safety features, the trigger was pulled in this case and the G21 functioned as intended.
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.
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.
He should tell that to the CA Department of Justice. The Glock 21 is on Cal DOJ's roster of approved handguns for sale in California, which means the G21 was lab-tested to meet stringent safety requirements and passed.
Freakin idiots! I wonder why the curious 3 year old would ever touch a firearm?
Oh wait, his father is a cop!and a complete ass that didn't teach the child to never ever touch one!
Uh here's the father thinking out loud, "I thought if I put a loaded handgun beside my 3 year old he wouldn't touch it and if he did the duty holster I was issued would keep him out of the trigger guard."
What a freaking tard! Drink much today? Huh dude? 5.5 # trigger malfunctioned? How? Glocks don't go boom unless the trigger is pulled. Oh by the way, in case this is your first child, if you put a pile of crap next to a 3 year old and it didn't smell like crap they would touch it.
Its good that the child didn't get hurt, thank God. But irresponsible parents blaming gun companies thats a whole nother can of worms.
I wonder if he was drunk when this incident occurred?
__________________
G21, G30, G19
Tactical shotgun club #715, Kalashnikov Klub #715
Last edited by dakotasdad; 07-11-2008 at 09:24.
Reason: Second cup of coffee
The dude that got shot is a unit. It won't get anywhere because this country is getting sick and f'ing tired of fraudulent lawsuits. He is a jackass and is trying to make a fast buck even though it was him that broke the law by giving his child access to a loaded firearm. He owned a freaking Glock so he knows there is no exernal safety. If it was a SIG, he'd be suig SIG for the same thing. He's a tool. I am a law abiding citizen, but if this guy gets paid, I will personally rob his ass at gunpoint and maybe pistol whip him once or twice if he's unlucky.
JACKASS !!
__________________ 1zero4four0 - Never Die Where You Live
‚——’¯¯‘;====±—-
Linear Mode
