Didn't see this anywhere else, so what say you? I would have fought the dumbazz...

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...nt-discharge-case-paralyzed-ex-lapd-cop/

So letting a 3 year old have access to a loaded and ready to go Glock, is a problem Glock should be responsible for? Sometimes you should just man up and quit whining. You screw up, you deal with it.

Money changes everything. Right or wrong is irrelevant when huge sums of money are involved.

A good lawyer can get you plenty of money in our present society

Dumb move on Glocks part, they just set a precedence for their weapons.

Glock took the cheapest way out, plain and simple. It cost less to settle out of court than it would cost to fight and win.
I wish it was different, but that's our justice system.
I don't know how this would effect future cases, but I believe it sets a dangerous example. Hopefully if and when it comes up again, the gun makers will fight it. Money isn't the only thing to lose in these cases. If the NRA won't chip in on fighting, maybe we gun owners should.
7mm

If you were accused of something that you DID NOT do, and you KNEW that you were right...would you not spend every dime you had to fight the injustice and try to PROVE your innocence...?
Or would you do like Glock did in this instance and just 'pay' because it was cheaper...principles be damned...and what's truly right be damned...?

I had the great fortune to be friends with famed oil well fire fighter Red Adair, and to spend some time in his company that I will always treasure. Red made a lot of money in his career, but actually MADE it, and often by rising his own life. He was very proud of the fact that none of his employees ever suffered a serious accident, much less a fatality. Some years before his retirement, a worker from a drilling company was killed in a blowout of a rig Red had been called to fight, but had not actually had time to get on the scene. The family sued everyone imaginable, including Red. He told us his lawyer advised him to pay the million dollars they were after from him, because it would cost more to fight. Red explained that he had nothing to do with the incident that caused the death, and reminded the attorney of his sterling safety record. He also stated that he really didn't care how much he spent fighting the lawsuit, because his name and reputation were at stake, and those things were beyond a price to him. He also fired the lawyer who advised him to pay off.

This is not to defend Glock, as I pretty much agree their guns are not really safe, but I do agree in this case they would NOT seem to be the primary culprits.

What does this mean? What is "really safe?@

That is an irresponsible statement. A "safe gun" is the responsibility of the owner.
The cop in question is paying a very high price for his lack of discipline and training. With familiarity sometimes complacency isn't far behind.

Maybe they should but an idiot warning on their guns like Ruger did. That will make them safe.

From the article:

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.

I threw up a little there. Funny how these unsafe glocks are doing millions of hours of LEO service (to civilians) all over the world. Course, none of these LEOs are 3 year olds.

Fugck Chavez.

A Marine and a LA cop has a lack of training? You nailed it with complacency.

Simple answer - or way - to solve this altogether common problem.
Loser pays the attorney's fees and the court costs.
It'll never be done since many legislators are attorneys.
Just a what if - we barred attorneys from serving in legislatures, as they are members of the judiciary - hence, in an inherent conflict with the legislative side?

Some of the most clueless dumbfuqks I've ever been around were military and LE when it came to dealing with firearms. Downright scary, a couple of them.

Anyone know how many lbs. the DA trigger pull on this Glock is?

I'd say that it means that Glocks are involved with more accidents than any other brand. You figure it out.

I'd say there are more Glocks floating around than most other brands. You figure it out.

Sorry, Glock guys, but a "safety" that is disengaged by pulling the trigger is NOT a safety.

so revolvers have none either.

We NEVER used safeties in 4H. We taught safe handling.

And if folks think a kid can't flip a safety off they are nuts. The safeties on my 1911s take much less pressure than a glock trigger.

The issue here isn't a glock its stupidity. Like it normally is.

The world would be a better place if all guns had 'no' safeties.

Stock,around 5.5 lbs.

Settling open the wallet for the next dumbass that comes along. Glock must have felt that they would lose and settled. I wish companies would invest in fighting. When they win, that puts up a big red flag to lawyers and their clients to think twice.

You fight when you are right, no matter the cost.

You never set the precedent if you can avoid it.

But then the idiots always think its "free" money.

All it does is make the cost of the next glock go up...

All because someone was stupid.

Chavez should have been charged with criminal negligence or some such at the least....

Standard is approx 5.5

I can vouch for that. Our solution was to identify those with shaky handgun "ethics" and undergo remedial training. Not everyone in LE has a strong background with firearms.
We never "dumbed down" the group but elevated those who needed it. That developed confidence and good "muscle memory".

Yup. Happens every day.

If the kid had shot himself, the dad would have been facing probable jail time.

If the kid had shot someone else the dad would have been facing damages, and probable jail time.

But the kid shots his dad and the dad gets a wheel chair and a pay check.

Things don't seem to add up. Maybe there is more to it, maybe Glock was just cutting its losses.

I don't want a wheelchair or a pay check. Moral here; do better securing your firearm and your kids.

yes, cutting losses up front. But NOW the losses on the downstream side are going to look like a flood.

Just like Remington and the, IMHO, no issue trigger, trigger issue...

I'd take every last one of those old Rem triggers... but I digress

This has also been my experience...also that every single one of them I have met thinks they know everything.

Some do...most don't.

[/quote]
Settling open the wallet for the next dumbass that comes along. Glock must have felt that they would lose and settled. I wish companies would invest in fighting. When they win, that puts up a big red flag to lawyers and their clients to think twice. [/quote]

Settling is the lesser of two evils in this case and does more to prevent future suits than winning at trial would. the story about Red Adair that someone posted above is a way different situation than a products liability case. Plaintiff lawyers with the money to bring this usually aren't dissuaded by others having lost in the past. They're usually arrogant enough to think they will win because they're better trial lawyers than the guys who have lost.

With an isolated instance like a well blow out its worth going to trial. But a products liability defendant is going to do everything they can to prevent a trial record from being created if they can do it in a cost effective manner. Glock had already had the case dismissed which was partially reversed by the appellate courts. This case looks pretty winnable by Glock due to plaintiff's negligence but there are two problems with proceeding to trial.

First, it was a pretty liberal venue where most jurors know little or nothing about guns other than they are "dangerous". so a slight chance existed that a liability verdict would go against Glock. This (if upheld on appeal and the appellate court had already indicated which way it was leaning) opens the door to an estoppel claim where that model Glock (and all similar glocks) would have legally been determined to be defective. Every plaintiff in every glock case after that wouldn't have to show that the design was defective (i.e. that there was a safer alternative) but only that they suffered an injury caused by a Glock. This is a manufacturer's nightmare and usually results in an automatic recall. Anyone remember the Remington Mohawk 600? Recalled after Joe Jamail hit them in a single case in Austin where a boy had a discharge while pointing the gun at his father. This case settled but i would bet the plaintiff's negligence drug down the amount by a fair bit.

Second, they don't want to give plaintiff attorney's the benefit of thousands of pages of their engineer's and executives testimony. Most of the big mass torts such as asbestos, tobacco, breast implants, etc. were not successful in the first several trials. Plaintiffs only started winning once they had the benefit of being able to review multiple trial transcripts to be able to game plan what exactly the defendants' defense and testimony was going to be before they ever filed suit. So a settlement wasn't just about this one case, it was about keeping a clean slate with private information and defense strategies staying private.