Posted on 05/11/2016 7:32:48 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Chavez, now 45, was off duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue in Anaheim. The former Marine, who joined the LAPD in 1996, was on his way to drop off his son, Collin, with a family member before testifying in a court case.
The boy was able to get hold of his father’s weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot the officer in the back. Chavez, who was assigned to the Newton Division, was rendered a paraplegic paralyzed from the waist down.
Judge Kevin Brazile granted a defense motion in July 2010 dismissing the entire case, but his ruling was partially reversed on appeal. The Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club sold Chavez the Glock 21 firearm in 2003.
The former officer alleged the gun and hip holster were negligently designed without a grip safety and that it required only minimal pressure to discharge.
“In fact, the trigger energy on the Glock is so low that it was easier to pull the trigger on the Glock than on cheap, plastic toy guns ordered off the Internet,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys stated in their court papers.
Defense attorneys countered that Chavez admitted he forgot the gun was in the back seat when he put his son in the truck, but not in a car seat as required by law. He also did not disassemble it so it would be inoperable, they said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mynewsla.com ...
Ummm... aside from the unfortunate negligence of leaving the gun where the kid could get it, I have to ask, did he know the gun had an extra-light trigger? After all, he’d had the gun for 3 years (purchased in 2003, shot in 2006). Doesn’t that make him partly culpable for knowingly having a weapon that was unusually dangerous because of its hair trigger?
What happened was a tragedy, but NOT a sign of a defective gun. This case needs to be thrown OUT.
I’m guessing it was a relatively small settlement, but even small settlements in paralysis cases can be expensive.
POS case, settle it quickly to you don’t get some runaway jury.....,
Just another case ignoring personal responsibility. Agree that settlement was to avoid ongoing legal fees but feel this extortion by simply filing a suit must be stopped.
I am sorry the guy is now disabled but he was negligent, at least the kid did not get hurt.
“(Chavez) admits that he could have easily prevented this incident by following (Glock’s) warnings, his LAPD training and some common sense”
I don't have a Glock, but the pressure required to pull the trigger on other semi-auto pistols that I own can be changed by changing a spring. It usually takes just a minute or two. Are Glocks like this?
Why was the gun manufacturer held responsible?
The cop was negligent to leave the gun where his kid could get a hold of it.
It’s California where personal responsibility and common sense were banned decades ago, despite the price that comes with that action.
Glocks are striker fired and come from the factory with 5 1/2 lb triggers. Some police jurisdictions order or modify them to heavier pulls. He didn’t keep the gun secured. His lawsuit is BS.
Gun safety is a personal responsibility.
This fellow and anyone else need to keep their firearms out of a kids reach. Period.
It was his firearm, if it had any safety issues it was his responsibility to be aware of them.
So his neglect changed his status from being an idiot to being a paralyzed idiot.
A good judge usually says both bear some responsibility...and the amount is determined on that basis.
“Good” is the wrong word to describe such judges (which sadly, is most of them)
That cop, wow, suing for his own negligence! Did not put his kid in a car seat, as required by California law. Did not separate weapon from ammunition in different areas of vehicle, or place in a lockbox as required by California law. California law requires that you do not have a weapon accessible by children nearby. Triple negligence on the guy's part, and he is blaming others!
It’s a drop in piece for glocks. One version can make the trigger go to 3.5 lbs.
So, you'd prefer to have a defensive weapon with a trigger like a toy gun? New York requires a 12 lb trigger for its' service issued pistols, but I don't know that there is much evidence to suggest that those Glocks are any safer.
Not Glocks fault......idiot.
I have NEVER heard a Glock trigger described as a “Hair Trigger”.
Where do you get this crap? I have owned two Glocks and the heavy trigger is one of the worst attributes. Now, a tuned Colt 1911 trigger could be as you say, but never a Glock. The design precludes that.
Hardly a “hair trigger”. I have used those 3.5# trigger bars, and they do not come close to that pull weight. 4-5# is more like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.