Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Ex-officer sues over malfunctioning gun

Bill O'Rights · 04-09-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Moments after being shot during a botched bank heist, Omaha Police Officer Jeffrey Holland trained his gun at a robber and found himself experiencing the kind of horror typically reserved for Hollywood endings.

He pulled the trigger - and nothing happened.

In the mad scramble that ensued, Holland frantically failed to get his gun to fire. He used one robber as a shield while he tackled the other. He bit. He punched. He kicked. And he was shot twice more.

All, Holland said, because his Glock handgun wouldn't fire after being hit by a bullet during the March 2000 robbery attempt at the Great Western Bank, 4718 L St.

For that, Holland filed a federal lawsuit last week against Glock, the gun manufacturing giant, saying he wouldn't have been shot the second and third times and wouldn't have been severely injured if his gun hadn't malfunctioned.

The lawsuit, in which Holland asks for general damages for pain, suffering and medical bills, will center on the question: Should handguns be bulletproof?

The lawsuit contends that Glock billed its handgun as "virtually indestructible, stronger than steel and (able to) withstand torturous abuse and still function."

Holland relied on those guarantees when he purchased the Glock to replace his Smith & Wesson police sidearm, his attorney, Matthew Miller, wrote in the lawsuit.

Miller contends that Holland's gun was only "nicked" - damage that shouldn't have disabled it.

An attorney for Glock didn't return repeated calls seeking comment. Glock is one of the best-selling handguns in the nation and is often the standard gun for law enforcement agencies, including Omaha police.

Dan Brado, a weapons expert with the Omaha Police Department's crime laboratory, said no gun is indestructible. Any gun can be disabled if hit in the right place, he said.

Holland, now an instructor at Missouri Western State College in St. Joseph, has testified about his scramble to apprehend the robbers without his gun - an effort that earned him national officer of the year honors.

After being ordered to hand over his gun and handcuff himself, Holland whipped one of the robbers with handcuffs and struck him in the sternum. The officer drew his gun and was kneeling over the robber when he spotted a second robber entering the bank.

Holland, who was working security at the bank, pointed his gun at the second robber. The two fired simultaneously, and bullets hit Holland's gun and his chest, under his heart.

Holland tried to fire again, but nothing came out. So he picked up the first robber and used him as a shield until he could get close enough to tackle the second robber.

The officer and the two robbers ended up in a pile, with one of the robbers screaming at the other one: "Kill him! Just kill him!"

Holland overpowered the two and took control.

"I reached down, grabbed the Glock and put it to the second party's head and pulled the trigger," Holland has said. "Nothing happened."

One of the men escaped but was arrested later. Both are serving lengthy prison sentences.

I remember Officer Holland's heroic actions in foiling that robbery, about four years ago. He received numerous awards and citations. While I can empathize with him, I do not, however, feel that Glock should be held liable for the malfunctioning firearm. It was, after all, subjected to unusual stress by being hit with a bullet. Should the weapon have been designed to withstand that kind of abuse? What should the limitations be for a manufacturers liability?