Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Don't you hate it when that happens?
LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
- Thread starter CountGlockula
- Start date
- Status
Don't you hate it when that happens?
texas bulldog
Member
and let's hope it works as intended here. the last thing we need is for this guy to win (either by jury or settlement) and encourage this sort of thing. the compete negligence on his part is unfathomable, especially on the part of someone whose job it is to handle firearms regularly.
rocinante
Member
Actually I thought there was something passed by congress to protect gun makers from this B.S.
T-Ray
Member
I agree that they would look like "butt holes," but haven't they made artificial spines?
MarcusWendt
Member
As I recall the weapon was on him and holstered. His son got it from the holster by reaching between the seats and that's when he was shot.
OP
OP
CountGlockula
Member
Son figured how to unarm a cop.
The officer knew the Glock system. If he has a brain, he understood that all that is required to fire the gun was 5.5 lbs of pressure on the trigger. I'm guessing that he purchased a holster that leaves the trigger exposed. He made every mistake that an officer and a father could have made in the circumstance.
It is sad that Murphy was in the truck, but the officer was responsible. Nevertheless, trying the case in California would be risky.
It is sad that Murphy was in the truck, but the officer was responsible. Nevertheless, trying the case in California would be risky.
While we all recognize the absurdity of the lawsuits, I think that everyone of us would do the same thing in his situation. If you instantly become paralyzed from the waist down and you now have to worry about lifelong medical costs, inability to work, and still having to take care of your family, you would grasp at all straws dangled out to you by a law firm.
You have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you get paid insurance settlement $$$.
Unfortunate situation, I hope he loses, but I can sympathize with him for the position he is in.
You have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you get paid insurance settlement $$$.
Unfortunate situation, I hope he loses, but I can sympathize with him for the position he is in.
DRZinn
Member
Nope, sorry.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Why do you sue somebody for your own incompetence? Oh yeah, for the money and to make it seem that you weren't at fault.
slabuda
Member
Hate to say but from what we hear on here and other places this guy will probably win being in Cali...
Pretty much sounds like a dumb ass for not keeping the kid in a child seat and hand gun well away, especially after being a 10 yr vet of police work. He should have seen WAY to many accidents with children not restrained to allow his own child to be not in a safety seat and a gun accessible to him?!?!?!?!
As stated why was he not charged with child endangerment for not properly restraining his kid and having a gun he could access? If it was a regular civilian would he have been charged!?!?!?!?!
And yea Cali "Only cops are trained and qualified enough to have firearms and our laws reflect that"--my paraphrased quote--
Pretty much sounds like a dumb ass for not keeping the kid in a child seat and hand gun well away, especially after being a 10 yr vet of police work. He should have seen WAY to many accidents with children not restrained to allow his own child to be not in a safety seat and a gun accessible to him?!?!?!?!
As stated why was he not charged with child endangerment for not properly restraining his kid and having a gun he could access? If it was a regular civilian would he have been charged!?!?!?!?!
And yea Cali "Only cops are trained and qualified enough to have firearms and our laws reflect that"--my paraphrased quote--
cpttango30
Member
This might not be high road but the stupid SOB got what he deserved.
If this goes to trial I am buying a glock. I better start looking at them now so I can pick mine out.
If they pay out of court I will shun glock and buy more Smith & Wesson.
If I was the higher up of glock I would have been on the phone to LAPD saying that if this lawsuit does not disappear so will all your weapons and we will put the word out not to sell to you. It would not be hard to do a recall on all the sidearms the LAPD uses then you just bring them back to the factory and never let them back out.....
LAPD new sire arms super soakers. LOL that would be good.
If this goes to trial I am buying a glock. I better start looking at them now so I can pick mine out.
If they pay out of court I will shun glock and buy more Smith & Wesson.
If I was the higher up of glock I would have been on the phone to LAPD saying that if this lawsuit does not disappear so will all your weapons and we will put the word out not to sell to you. It would not be hard to do a recall on all the sidearms the LAPD uses then you just bring them back to the factory and never let them back out.....
LAPD new sire arms super soakers. LOL that would be good.
OP
OP
CountGlockula
Member
Good point.
I don't think so. Stop bashing on CA.
Travis McGee
Member
Stupid is as stupid does.
La Pistoletta
Member
Glock: fight this thing into the ground. Don't settle and don't give up even if it costs money. There's only gonna be more of this if you prove them right by making frivolous litigation profitable.
Get him to pay all the legal expenses.
You do not negotiate with terrorists.
Get him to pay all the legal expenses.
You do not negotiate with terrorists.
Frivolous
When I first read this I chuckled a bit because as we all know the Glock 21, 30, 36, 37, 38 and 39 are all on California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale which means it "has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice".
I guess CA needs to add an "unrestrained-3yo-in-the-backseat-with-access-to-the-gun" test. How are they going to set that up?
When I first read this I chuckled a bit because as we all know the Glock 21, 30, 36, 37, 38 and 39 are all on California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale which means it "has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice".
I guess CA needs to add an "unrestrained-3yo-in-the-backseat-with-access-to-the-gun" test. How are they going to set that up?
outerlimit
Member
That article reads like something from The Onion.
Heartless_Conservative
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 68
Maybe now Glock will finally follow Barret (did I spell that right?) in regards to selling to and servicing weapons for Cali agencies (personally, I would've drawn the line at microstamping).
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Yes.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President Bush and became Public Law 108-73.
The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.
However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.
I don't see letting your child get your pistol and shooting you in the not being covered by that.
Plus, maybe he should be charged with a crime instead.
1.) Child Endangerment
2.) Driving without a child properly restrained.
.
Mandatory ten pound trigger pull
Some years back Minnesota legislators looked into mandating a minimum trigger pull of 10 pounds. It did NOT pass into law but it just goes to show there is no limit to the nonsense some people exhibit about fire arms.
P.S. I think the Minnesota 10 lb trigger pull only was to apply to handguns but I'm not certain about that.
Some years back Minnesota legislators looked into mandating a minimum trigger pull of 10 pounds. It did NOT pass into law but it just goes to show there is no limit to the nonsense some people exhibit about fire arms.
P.S. I think the Minnesota 10 lb trigger pull only was to apply to handguns but I'm not certain about that.
BReilley
Member
The whole insult-to-injury thing doesn't seem to apply to dippy parents who bake their children in cars. They usually go to jail, in addition to losing their child.
Don't worry about the future... fret for today.
5.5lbs is standard for a Glock. My G19's case says "5.5LB" on the label.
I will not live in California because of this type of thing. It's not "bashing", it's the honest truth... too much B.S. walks.
Funderb
Member
oh, law, love at first sight,
how do I get by with any money,
never having sued a soul
in this litigious society of ours.
how do I get by with any money,
never having sued a soul
in this litigious society of ours.
Yes...that case happened. It happened in Illinois in 1997. Yes the shopkeeper was found liable by a civil jury. Why? Because the by law in Illinois you aren't allowed to boobytrap property with deadly force to protect it. Electricity is deadly. The jury rendered a fair decision based on the evidence they heard. It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit.
In fact, that suit isn't much different than the suit a CCW should expect to face if they MISAPPLY deadly force based upon the law of their jurisdiction.
As so many of you who often pipe up in defense of cracking down on illegal immigrants and other lawbreakers are fond of pointing out...we are a country of laws. We don't allow vigilantism...and planting deadly booby traps is a form of vigilantism. Just because the State's Attorney didn't file criminal charges against the shopkeeper, doesn't mean the shopkeeper was right in using a deadly booby trap to protect his property.
....booby traps are indiscriminate and a no-no.
Last edited:
- Status
