The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 2, 2012, 01:58 PM   #26
Rj1972
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2010
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally asked by cannonfire: Why was your child able to reach it from a car seat? Was the child in the car seat?
A story in the LA times of this incident back in 06 indicates
Quote:
The boy was not wearing a child restraint
If true, you've got an unsecured firearm, an unbuckled child who is also not in an approved car seat.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-sho...ervice-weapon/
Rj1972 is offline  
Old August 2, 2012, 03:13 PM   #27
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Guess it was his service weapon, ok, now I'm back to "maybe LEO's should be restricted to the same 'safe' weapons that civilians are"
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old August 2, 2012, 09:44 PM   #28
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 546
Quote:
Al Norris wrote:It should come as no surprise that a CA appellate court decided the ex-cop could sue, based upon the lack of safety on a Glock... A gun that can't be purchased in CA, unless you are LE.
A boat load of Glock models are still on the approved list for California. They are not "Unsafe Handguns" as defined in CPC 31910...it even has a safety as defined in CPC 31910(b)(1) otherwise they could not be sold in Cali.

The Plantiff appears to have violated CPC 25100(a) meeting the elements of (1), (2), and (3) a FELONY. He does not appear to meet the elements under (b) which is a misdemeanor. Because of his status of LEO it appears he was given a pass on being charged....that part is only conjecture but anyone reading up on this would likely draw a similar conclusion.
The child not being in a child seat violates CVC 27360.

Glock via their retained law firm successfully beat the plaintiff Renzulli Law Firm and even won the first appeal.

In this case I think Glock will fight again. The part I want the forms lawyers to expand upon is the fact that the appellate judge used the words "faulty design" since the gun is not "unsafe" as defined in California statue.

P.S. Glock was not the only defendant in the initial case.

There is a thread running on another forum (THR) about this.
SHR970 is offline  
Old August 3, 2012, 02:01 AM   #29
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,833
I don't agree with the LEO's decision to sue, but I can understand it: potentially big money to pay for medical bills and make for a securer future, now that most employments are a less likely option.

What I neither understand nor agree with is the court's decision to allow this lawsuit to go ahead!!
Staggering!!

We've built ourselves a oft absurd society where a person can, for whatever happens, find someone else responsible...
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is online now  
Old August 3, 2012, 05:28 PM   #30
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
I hope Glock fights it tooth and nail. I'd like to see it go forward and get slapped down at the Federal level under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 5, 2012, 01:08 PM   #31
drail
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
This is quite simply the result of very poor weapons training, which sadly has become acceptable at almost every law enforcement training academy due to the ridiculous budget constraints they are forced to operate under. No city/county/state seems to want to spend the time or money to train these people anymore or they are so dumb they can't see why it's necessary. It's probably cheaper to just retain some lawyers for the "accidents" that take place. I am NOT cop bashing here. I am administration bashing. Why did the child find the loaded gun under the seat? Because someone who was supposedly "trained" and "responsible" left it there.

Last edited by drail; August 5, 2012 at 01:14 PM.
drail is offline  
Old August 5, 2012, 04:26 PM   #32
MagicAnimal
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2002
Posts: 15
A judge who happened to be my father's brother once said, "Anybody can sue, it's collecting that's hell!"

He might have been on to somethin' there...
MagicAnimal is offline  
Old August 6, 2012, 08:14 AM   #33
Botswana
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
Quote:
This is quite simply the result of very poor weapons training
That's hardly an excuse though. Basic firearms safety is actually pretty simple. The discipline is what is difficult. If you're going to make a living where carrying a firearm is practically a 24/7 activity, there has to be some commitment to acting in safe a manner as possible.

I'm not saying police academies shouldn't hammer these lessons home. However, if the average citizen can pick up a gun and not shoot themselves in the foot with it a police officer should be able to master the discipline it takes to minimize the chances of an accidental shooting.

In the story about this officer, his actions weren't just a lack of following standard firearms safety but went right into negligence.
Botswana is offline  
Old August 6, 2012, 05:41 PM   #34
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
The main point here, IMO, is that this lawsuit could end up having the effect of making a whole class of handguns unavailable to California shooters because they've been made too risky from a liability standpoint, for manufacturers to sell them in California.

I'm not even sure the liability stops there. Someone purchases a Walther PPS in some other state but that gun is used to injure someone in California... Walther is exposed to the same kind of lawsuit. This same type of lawsuit could be applied to any DA revolver, and any number of guns.

The country needed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precisely because of the stupidity that these three judges displayed by allowing the suit to go forward.

The gun functioned within it's design parameters. It did not malfunction. Furthermore, the injury to the plaintiff came about as the result of a crime (or several), - isn't it child endangerment or something?

It makes as much sense as suing the car manufacturer because they didn't make their seats in such a way that 3 year olds couldn't shoot through them.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 6, 2012, 07:10 PM   #35
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
A judge who happened to be my father's brother once said, "Anybody can sue, it's collecting that's hell!"

Glock is a deep-pocket so this is pure gold to a slip and fall attorney. "Great" case if you are an attorney.
jmortimer is offline  
Old August 6, 2012, 09:47 PM   #36
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Since allowing a three year old to acces a gun violates a california statute can't glock make a claim under the PLCAA?

The PLCAA prohibits suits against manufacturers where the injury is the result of unlawful misuse?

Quote:
The term “unlawful misuse” means conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation as it relates to the use of a qualified product.
Probably why the plaintiffs are arguing that glocks design was defective.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 12:27 AM   #37
TheSkySoldier
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 4
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was a law passed not too long ago that made gun manufacturers "immune" to liability lawsuits for firearms used in crimes/personal injuries, except for in the event that the weapon malfunctions (i.e., barrel explodes, etc.)
__________________
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” - Patrick Henry
TheSkySoldier is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 10:47 AM   #38
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Quote:
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was a law passed not too long ago that made gun manufacturers "immune" to liability lawsuits for firearms used in crimes/personal injuries, except for in the event that the weapon malfunctions (i.e., barrel explodes, etc.)
Yes, it is the PLCAA, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

I'm not sure what these fuzzy-thinking individuals who call themselves judges are thinking but they seem oblivious to the PLCAA. It's up to Glock to call upon the PLCAA as the basis to dismiss the suit.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 05:55 PM   #39
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 546
Since the lawyers haven't chimed in yet and others have brought up the PLCAA I'm going to insert the "why I believe" the justices ruled that way.

Under 15 USC 7902 (a) the plaintiff would normally have no case. However, they can have a case IF they can prove a defect in design. 15 USC 7903 (5) (A) (v) Applicable Code . However, that same section can be used against the plaintiff because the use of the gun was the result of a criminal act.

I'm no lawyer but I see the eye of the needle that the justices threaded assuming that they took 15 USC 7901-7903 into account.
SHR970 is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 07:45 PM   #40
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
It may also be that Glock failed to rase the defense and thereby waived it.

To me this is an issue of causation. Was the design of the Glock the cause of the incident or was the failure to keep a gun away from a 3 year old the cause?

A reasonably prudent person would take steps to prevent a 3 year old from having access to a gun. Holding a manufacturer liable for the unreasonable acts of the claimant just strikes me as unjust. By allowing the suit to proceed the court has said basically "it's ok to leave a gun where a 3 year old can access it".

One purpose of tort law is to make a person whole from damage caused by the negligent or intentional acts of another. We don't generally allow someone to recover damages from another where the damage was caused by the claimants negligence.

If what I just googled is correct California is a pure comparative negligence state. It would be interesting to see how a jury would apportion fault in this case. Any California injury lawyers care to chime in?

Does anyone know what the rule on negligence per se is in California? It seems to me that since the father might have violated the statute on preventing child access to firearms this would be clear cut negligence on his part.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 08:07 PM   #41
SHR970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 546
Reading the statement from Renzulli Law Firm, they did appear to raise the defense. Follow my earlier link to their statement. This current kick back from the Appellate Court is the second appeal on this if I have read up correctly. That leads to the question of what additional evidence was brought out (possibly suppressed in original hearing) or what argument was presented on the prior evidence that made the difference?
The original case brought implications of Breach of Implied Warranty and also Defect / Defective Design. It appears to me that the only thing the appellates are letting it move forward on is "Possibility of Defect".
SHR970 is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 08:11 PM   #42
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,382
How many guns have killed without a person attached?

How many guns have killed without a person attached?
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 08:21 PM   #43
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,684
Actually, there have been several shootings by dogs.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 7, 2012, 11:26 PM   #44
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,382
Where is Chuck Schumer when we need him? ;)

Then clearly Dr. Glenn, we need to be requiring: licensing of dogs, require background and psychological testing of all dogs who are gun owners, add a 3 day waiting period and full paw prints, and a lengthy application process.
Glad you brought up this K9 conspiracy Dr. Glenn. I hope Chuck can get on this right away!
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old August 8, 2012, 12:24 AM   #45
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
If he had not been a cop he would all ready be in jail for endangering a child.

He is extremely lucky that he got shot and not his child. Most children that age can't pull the trigger in a conventional manner. They generally reverse the weapon, point it at themselves and pull the trigger with their thumbs. the results is a dead child.

The guy should be giving thanks for having a live kid and not trying to get well because of his stupidity.

Last edited by ltc444; August 8, 2012 at 12:26 AM. Reason: spelling
ltc444 is offline  
Old August 8, 2012, 10:39 AM   #46
TheSkySoldier
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 4
PLCAA

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was a law passed not too long ago that made gun manufacturers "immune" to liability lawsuits for firearms used in crimes/personal injuries, except for in the event that the weapon malfunctions (i.e., barrel explodes, etc.)
Quote:
Yes, it is the PLCAA, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Thank you. That's exactly what I was referring to

____________________________________________________

From what I see, the only argument to "design defect" is to prove that the weapon lacked a safety system, which if found to be true, Glock would be mandated to add to future models. However, I can see the opposing argument that even if there is no external safety on/off switch, the "no drop fire" safeties would still be a fair claim, considering that safety switches can be disabled and that it still takes someone to pull the trigger in order for the weapon to fire.

Now, every time I hear that a person is suing a gun manufacturer, the first thing that comes to my mind is that they either did something stupid and don't want to take responsibility for it, or they were injured by a random/uncontrollable event and they want reparation money. The issue I see is that so many lawyers/judges probably don't know most of the gun laws and half to refer to books during their research/inquiry of the case, and they seem to know little about commerce laws and end up having to make their own conclusions based on facts they aren't even aware of. If the law saws you can't sue a manufacturer because of a non-design-related injury, then why would the judge throw the case out, in which case the plaintiff will then argue that there was a design flaw, which goes back to my initial statement.

Sounds to me like they just want money and that's the end of it. They think the manufacturer should pay for the medical costs, and as always, emotional trauma. *rolls eyes*
__________________
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” - Patrick Henry
TheSkySoldier is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11866 seconds with 7 queries