Ex-officer sues over malfunctioning gun
 

Link

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?

why did he wait four years to file this lawsuit. :rolleyes:

not to detract from the man's heroic efforts, but i wish we had all the facts. but based on what info i have,
to me this sounds like he might have had the safety on, and now he wants to blame the gun manufacturer. like all those people who sue three years after a car accident. i want proof that the gun didn't work at all after the incident.

now that's divine intervention. it's probably best for the guy that he didn't blow the guys brains out. some people have a hard time dealing with that.

He certainly should be compensated heavily for his heroics while on the job and get all medical and other bills paid, but certainly not through a lawsuit against Glock.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would expect a gun to operate perfectly after taking a bullet.

As for the safety being on, the Glock does not have a standard safety. The safty is on the trigger. As you pull the trigger the safety is automatically dis-engaged. As for the rest I dont have enough info to judge. It would be nice to see the gun after the incident to see the damage done to it.

I just posted about this in Tilted Weaponry. Im just gonna paste my response from there:

I would also throw the case out. If the gun had randomly failed, there *may* have been a case, but the gun being shot is not in its job description. It was a freak accident, and the company cant be held liable for such. Seriously, how often is someone's pistol shot out of their hand?

Even had the gun failed unexpectedly, I dont think he would have had a case. Guns can fail, it happens. The testing the department does before adopting a new weapon is supposed to weed out unreliable guns, but even the most reliable guns sometimes fail. Its a fact of life, the guy needs to get over it.

maybe i don't know enough about guns but, how in the hell is that a safety?

Wow. To overpower two guys AFTER being shot...damn.

Glock's safety design is to make sure that the gun does not fire without pulling the trigger. It's not a traditional safety, where you can't PULL the trigger, but it's designed to prevent any accidental firing, due to dropping the gun or being hit, or something along those lines.

I expect my computer to crash, my car to skid on icy roads and my oven to sometimes burn food. If I had a really good gun I wouldn't expect it to work flawlessly 100% of the time.

I suppose police officers need some kind of training and mental preparation for that moment when the gun fails to shoot. What that preparation is, I don't know. Seems like the only thing you can count on to survive in such a scenario is that you'll turn into a wild animal and/or Bruce Lee.

This guy was a hero and used his animal instinct to survive, others might not - especially if they became totally dependent on their gun and the idea that it would never fail.

Considering the gun was hit with a BULLET, i don't think he has viable grounds for a law suit. Even if it the bullet just nicked it, i still think the tremendous force from it would mess up the glock's mechanical parts.

Maybe he should use TWO guns. Like all the badasses I see in action movies. Yeah...that'd be awesome.

Kind of ironic.

Perspective is needed here.

The Glock was struck by one bullet, and immediately failed to function anymore.

He was hit by three bullets, and took care of business anyway.

thanks for the info.

i still don't understand why he waited so long for the lawsuit.

The glock (and any other firearm) is a precision machine designed to operate under tight tolerances. Catastrophic damage like that would make *any* gun fail. The human body is designed to be able to keep going, for a little while anyways, after catastrophic damage--like the three gunshot wounds he received.

I respect what the man did--he is a hero, and deserves praise. But this lawsuit is ridiculous.

Well, at least it makes more sense than all the lawsuits filed because of guns that <i>did</i> fire.

Didn't his job take care of the medical bills? If he's putting his life on the line he should have the benefits to cover him if that life is threatened and medical care is needed. What about Workman's comp? I realize he may have suffered pain from this. I don't know what his career looks like after his injuries. If he's still able to work he shouldn't need any extra money.

I realize he trusted the gun company. I would like to see where the gun was struck. If hit in the right place you could disable any gun but it would all depend on where. If it got hit on the bottom of the handle for example and then would not fire I could understand his lawsuit. If it was hit in a more important place I wouldn't know. I'm sure it will come out in the wash. If the gun company can't prove that the gun's firing mechanism was damaged then I think it would be right for them to compensate the man somewhat. There really is so little that we know about the gun and specifics of the situation.

aside from all the heated discussion focusing on the weapon, I would like to share my experiences of representing an RCMP officer against a bulletproof vest manufacturer.

during an nacrotics operation in Montreal, a RCMP officer(let's say his name was Pier) was shot twice on his upper body, the bullets did not penetrate the vest, however, they did cause enough damage to his organs that he was not able to return to active duty.

So after retiring with a full time pension and a being dicked around by the RCMP counsels who investigated the role of the vest in his injuries, Pier approached us, one of the few firms who is willing to work on a contingency basis, five years after the fact, so it does take that long to get things started.

we have then launched claims against the RCMP and GE, the manufacturer of the product.

9 months later, the bulletproff product manufacturer, GE, settled with Pier for 3 million CAD, so I do believe the american policeman has some grounds of getting some dough out of it,

another thing I firmly believe is that this case will come down to one factor and one factor alone, the price of his lawyers