LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

[The Annoyed Man]

Corrected Link: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun- ... havez-shot

Thursday, July 10, 2008
LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
Lawsuit alleges gun has inadequate safety provisions.
By ERIC NEFF
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

A retired Los Angeles police officer paralyzed when his 3-year-old son fired his father's handgun while riding in the family pickup in Anaheim two years ago filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the gun's manufacturer.

Enrique Chavez, 37, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports. The son was not restrained in a safety seat.

The lawsuit alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "nonexistent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, a 10-year veteran of the LAPD, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and 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 attorney fees.

A Glock spokesperson declined to comment, saying that the company has not yet seen or heard of the complaint.

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

Let me get this straight...

His son was not restricted to a child safety seat as is required by California law, violations of which are subject to very stiff fines, and possible involvment of Child Protective Services, AND his pistol was laying loose on the back seat... ...and he's suing the gun manufacturer? He should have have first issued himself a stiff citation for failing to restrain his 3 year old son. He should have next arrested himself for transporting his weapon in a manner prohibited by California state law.

What an eejit. Only in California...

Edited to correct the link at the top because the story was moved...

[TDDude]

What can one say to such stupidity.

Uncle Mikes holster for a Glock?
3 year old next to an unsecured handgun?
No child seat?

He'll probably win millions.

[MegaWatt]

Anywhere else in America I'd say a judge would throw this suit out but in Kalifornia anything is possible. Land of fruits and nuts ya know!

[agbullet2k1]

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.

Frequently results in intended discharges, too. Yup, did what it was supposed to. I'm sorry, but "Glock" and "safety" aren't really used together often. And I know of know gun that magically knows the difference between a 3yo's finger and an adult's. He should sue his own department for failing to warn him of such a dangerous, and porbably standard issue, gun.

[seamusTX]

I'm curious why a lawyer is filing this suit.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibits lawsuits in state or federal court based on the use or misuse of a firearm that functions as designed. Any judge should throw out the case on preliminary motion. If a biased judge (they exist) allows the case to go to trial and the plaintiff wins, it would be reversed on appeal.

California also has a state supreme court ruling holding that manufacturers cannot be sued in state court for misuse of firearms that function as designed.

- Jim

[boomerang]

His story doesn't add up. The guy probably negligently shot himself and doesn't want to admit it.

[agbullet2k1]

His story doesn't add up. The guy probably negligently shot himself and doesn't want to admit it.

In the back?

[boomerang]

He's LAPD.

[seamusTX]

It is possible to shoot yourself in the back, using with a small-of-back holster and poor handling.

However, if this story holds water, there would have to be a bullet hole through the seat back. I'm also guessing that investigators swab for powder residue when they investigate this kind of event. They would know who did and didn't pull the trigger.

- Jim

[ScubaSigGuy]

I now feel dumber having read that story.

[razoraggie]

He's LAPD.

[Target1911]

He's LAPD.

That is just.....just FREAKIN GREAT.....

[LedJedi]

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.

Frequently results in intended discharges, too. Yup, did what it was supposed to. I'm sorry, but "Glock" and "safety" aren't really used together often. And I know of know gun that magically knows the difference between a 3yo's finger and an adult's. He should sue his own department for failing to warn him of such a dangerous, and porbably standard issue, gun.

exactly why i don't carry one or would even have one loaded in my house.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, I've only fired a Glock once in my life. It was OK. But since I don't have any little ones running around my house and that particular safety concern is not a problem for me, I don't have any problem with Glocks except that I think they're ugly. So that particular aspect doesn't concern me so much. If the guy had properly secured the weapon, then even if his son wasn't in a safety seat, we wouldn't be talking about this story. If he had properly secured his son, then even if the pistol wasn't locked away, we most probably wouldn't be having this conversation. He did neither, and thus he violated two cardinal anti-stupidity rules. He committed the third violation when he sought to blame his own stupidity on someone else. A triple lindy, with a logical mobius loop thrown in. That's gotta be some kind of record. Even if he hadn't been paralyzed, if I were king of the world, I'd have him sterilized so he doesn't pass those bad genes on to another other poor sods besides his 3 year old boy.

[BigBlueDodge]

In any unfortunate accident, It is human nature to want to blame someone else. It is a way to bring closure to the accident. Since it was allegedly his own son that shot him, he can't blame his son. He can't blame himself for keeping a loaded gun in reach of his 3yr old, he can't blame himself for not restricting his 3 year old to a safety seat. He's angry that he's paralyzed, and he want somehow to blame somebody to make it right. So he must find someone else to blame, and why not the gun makers, holster makers and whoever else. Why not blame Ford for not putting in bullet proof seats. I respect that he is an officer of the law and put's his life on the line everday (trying to protect the streets of Los Angelas), but this is udderly rediculous.