California reinstates a lawsuit against Glock...

[BaiHu]

Sad story, but how is this a gun problem??

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/California-court-reinstates-lawsuit-against-Glock-3733774.php

[Wes Peart]

They'd better start suing Smith & Wesson, Ruger and every other wheelgun manufacturer because they don't have any manual safeties on their guns either except for the "lemon squeezer". Too bad his son didn't aim a little higher.

[Dave J]

The ex-cop should sue himself, for having negligently allowed his 3-year old son to gain access to his firearm.

Why is individual responsibility such a foreign concept to some people?

[BaiHu]

The ex-cop should sue himself, for having negligently allowed his 3-year old son to gain access to his firearm.

Why is individual responsibility such a foreign concept to some people?

Reality is an anathema to many people and it leads to 'teh stoopid'. Teh stoopid hurts and sometimes it even kills :rolleyes:

[Sheep Have Wool]

Why is individual responsibility such a foreign concept to some people?

Self-serving bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias).

Why focus on such a complete failure to secure a firearm that a three year old could gain access to it when you can blame the gun?

[CCT125US]

So what they are saying is that the tool from the officer's belt performed as advertised? I bet they would also be shocked if his flashlight produced light.....

[SecondsCount]

Truly sad and so full of FAIL.

[EMC]

Glock has weathered many similar lawsuits in the past that had more perceived credibility than this. Read this book (http://www.amazon.com/Glock-The-Rise-Americas-Gun/dp/0307719936)for the details.

[saints75]

The ex-cop should sue himself, for having negligently allowed his 3-year old son to gain access to his firearm.

Why is individual responsibility such a foreign concept to some people?

I agree with this statment. He is an ex cop who's 3 year old shot him in the back...That sounds like child endangerment to me. Leaving a loaded firearm were a child can get to it. It sounds like his firearm was not propely secured were anyone could get to it. Sounds like this is his fault, not Glock's. He should be glad that his 3 year old did not shot himself. Idoit!

[G60]

For those who do not know the back story to this, in addition to Glock, he also attempted to sue Uncle Mike's (now Bushnell) (the maker of the gun's holster), Turner’s Outdoorsman (the store that sold the holster), and the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club (LAPRAC) (the store at the Los Angeles Police Department’s training academy that sold the firearm).

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/52-court-decisions/895-court-throws-out-case-against-firearm-manufacturer-seller-and-holster-manufacturerseller-brought-by-lapd-officer-accidentally-shot-by-his-three-year-old-son.html

Why he was not charged under the Children’s Firearm Accident Prevention Act of 1991, I do not know.

[Gadfly]

Only in California...
Why is this officer not charged with a crime for making the firearm accessible to a child?


[URL=http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5884833-Judge-allows-paralyzed-cop-to-sue-Glock[/URL]

"LOS ANGELES — A California appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against gun maker Glock Inc. by a police officer paralyzed after his 3-year-old son accidentally shot him.

A Los Angeles judge dismissed a suit brought two years ago by Enrique Chavez, who claimed his service pistol, a Glock 21 handgun, had a light trigger pull and lacked a grip safety, an attached device that requires deactivation before firing.

The judge said the Los Angeles Police Department had reviewed the gun's design, including the force required to pull the trigger, and concluded its advantages outweighed any risks, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday.

The California Second Court of Appeal said Tuesday a jury could conclude a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp "would minimize the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance," and in a 3-0 ruling, allowed the case to continue."

[derekb]

a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp

I've been wondering about this point since this story first surfaced. It's been a lot of years since I shot anything with a grip safety, but how much force does it typically take to disengage them?

[seabiscuit]

I've been wondering about this point since this story first surfaced. It's been a lot of years since I shot anything with a grip safety, but how much force does it typically take to disengage them?

On a 1911, basically none, from my experience. Just hold it, an it's disengaged. I don't think a three-year-old's hand would be big enough to grab the grip and pull the trigger, but two hands could do it.

[Angered_Kabar]

So because the kid was 3 years old, the magic number is a grip safety has to be strong enough for a 3 year old to not be able to disengage it.

What if this kid was 5 years old? What if this kid was 17?

You'd think a jellyfish as a defense lawyer could wipe the floor with this case, but it's so obviously skewed to begin with...

[Al T.]

Be nice if Glock followed Ronnie Barret's lead and quit selling to LE organizations in California.