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

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?

moonstrucksoul · 04-09-2004, 11:59 AM

why did he wait four years to file this lawsuit.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Kaos · 04-09-2004, 12:21 PM

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.

Kllr Wolf · 04-09-2004, 03:19 PM

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.

sailor · 04-09-2004, 04:30 PM

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.

moonstrucksoul · 04-09-2004, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kllr Wolf
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.

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

mingusfingers · 04-09-2004, 04:40 PM

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

MooseMan3000 · 04-09-2004, 05:32 PM

Quote:

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

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.

Macheath · 04-09-2004, 06:30 PM

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.

KirStang · 04-09-2004, 06:39 PM

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.

Jeff · 04-09-2004, 07:39 PM

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

Tholo · 04-09-2004, 07:43 PM

Kind of ironic.

Journeyman · 04-09-2004, 08:48 PM

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.

moonstrucksoul · 04-09-2004, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MooseMan3000
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.

thanks for the info.

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

sailor · 04-10-2004, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Journeyman
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.

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.

yournamehere · 04-10-2004, 08:25 AM

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

raeanna74 · 04-10-2004, 12:17 PM

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.

Ashton · 04-11-2004, 01:26 AM

He should have been packing a colt 1911

slimpi66y · 04-11-2004, 04:49 PM

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

04-09-2004, 03:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
Kllr Wolf Psycho Location: Lubbock, TX	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. __________________ Caffeine - the molecule of life.

04-09-2004, 04:30 PM	#5 (permalink)
sailor beauty in the breakdown Location: Chapel Hill, NC	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. __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato

04-09-2004, 04:40 PM	#7 (permalink)
mingusfingers Psycho Location: uhhhh	Wow. To overpower two guys AFTER being shot...damn. __________________ Still Looking

04-09-2004, 07:39 PM	#11 (permalink)
Jeff And we'll all float on ok... Location: Iowa City	Maybe he should use TWO guns. Like all the badasses I see in action movies. Yeah...that'd be awesome. __________________ For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us. --Charles Bukowski

04-09-2004, 07:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
Tholo Crazy	Kind of ironic. __________________ "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."

04-09-2004, 12:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kaos Ssssssssss Location: Ontario	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.

04-09-2004, 06:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	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.

04-09-2004, 08:48 PM	#13 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	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.

04-10-2004, 08:25 AM	#16 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Well, at least it makes more sense than all the lawsuits filed because of guns that <i>did</i> fire. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

04-10-2004, 12:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	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. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

04-11-2004, 01:26 AM	#18 (permalink)
Ashton PORNHOUND Location: California	He should have been packing a colt 1911

04-11-2004, 04:49 PM	#19 (permalink)
slimpi66y Upright	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