Chavez was injured after his 3-year-old son, seated behind him in Chavez’s personal vehicle, picked up the officer’s service revolver, which discharged. Chavez and his counsel argued that Glock, Inc. had a duty to warn that the Glock 21 pistol should only be used with specific holsters that restrict access to the trigger guard in light of its “light trigger pull” and lack of a manual safety device. [More]I'm afraid any natural inclination I might have for basic human sympathy is overshadowed by this guy's conduct before and after his act of negligence. But I feel profoundly sorry for his son.
UPDATE: And note the comment from Crotalus.
7 comments:
Kid shot officer with his service revolver, yet he's suing Glock? Glock has never made a revolver.
Y'know, I was so outraged at this stupid SOB's gall that I totally glossed over that sterling example of "Authorized Journalism" staring me right in the face.
Why isn't the officer being charged with negligent storage?
Do kalifornia laws apply to citizens and not cops? Is this a two tiered system??
This is the second time an officer in kalifornia has left his gun out and it was "accidentally" used to kill or injure a child and in this case this officer.
In both cases the officers were NOT CHARGED with negligent storage. Almost any average citizen has been and would be charged, tried and possibly convicted and incarcerated for leaving the weapon where it could be accessed by a child -
Apparently these laws do not apply to cops.
Fight islam Now
Crotalus beat me to it. I would pay good money for a Glock revolver.
Even without an available car seat, the three year old should have been secured with a seat belt. If the officer had stopped the vehicle abruptly or if there had been a rollover, thirty three pounds of body missile could be propelled at high speed within the vehicle, injuring the child and possibly severely injuring the driver if hit in the head while his torso was secured by a seatbelt. This supposes that the driver was wearing a seatbelt, but I doubt that since he probably set a terrible example for the child in that category, as common sense and safety does not appear to be this officer's area of strength.
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-weight-teens.shtml
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/buckleup.html
The links and the comments in this article make the situation more clear:
http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2012/07/31/judge-paralyzed-l-a-cop-can-sue-glock.aspx
1. "This gets worse after you read the SF newspaper article. Chavez' kid got the gun from under the car seat while Chavez was stopped at a red light! He not only wasn't strapped in a kiddie seat, but Chavez had an opportunity to control him and didn't."
2. "As a current supervisor for the involved department, I feel sorry for the officer, but feel strongly that he caused the incident. He put the gun under his seat with no holster, his kid was not in a child seat and he knew that glock does not have a "safety" like a Smith. He purchased the gun knowing this and LAPD training states that there is NO SAFETY on any gun, only a decocking lever. Even if it was a Smith, LAPD does not use the decocker as a safety, period. LAPD has had Glocks for years and semi autos since 89, with very few "Negligent Discharges." There are no accidental discharges at LAPD. I personally do not know the officer, but this is all a money thing and I don't think he will get a dime. Move on, get another job and love your family."
3. "This shooting happened while Enrique Chavez was driving, not at home. The California Vehicle Code mandates that any child under four be secured in a car seat yet his son who was in the back seat of the vehicle managed to obtain the handgun from a bag Chavez had the duty weapon in. Chavez did not have control over his weapon and left it within the immediate reach of the boy."
So, no holster, loaded weapon in unsecured bag under seat, free ranging, unsecured three year old looking for something to amuse himself while father is stopped at a red light.
"Chavez sued the maker and seller of the holster, as well as Glock and the Revolver Club, on the theory that the gun should have been concealed."
What? Oh, I get it, I mean, that says...what? I give up.
Gosh - maybe he should have gone for the big money and sued the auto manufacturer. After all, the car manufacturer should have considered the fact that a 3 year old might be left unsecured in the back seat by a maroon. They should have included "automatic restraint devices" for curious toddlers. Obviously, the auto is defective.
Post a Comment