Officer Sues Over Malfunction Because His Glock Failed After Being Struck By Bullet
 

Link

Mirror of a post in GD ( http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=51893 )

So, should the manufacturer be liable?

They never claimed that the gun was bulletproof. I would throw the case out if I was the judge.

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.

Well weapon hits are pretty common actually. Since the weapon and your head are the only things exposed (or at least they should be) in most situations.

Should they be liable? Well it depends what type of hit it was.

Well, I guess them Glocks ain't so tuff after all. ;)

Suing Glock is silly.

Unless the bullet truly did just crease the gun, like across a hand grip, the damage could cause any number of malfunctions.

"I reached down, grabbed the Glock and put it to the second party's head and pulled the trigger,"

wow.. he actually tried to blow the robber's head off.. that would have been quite a mess

I'm thinking he should be lucky it didn't fire. Could you imagine the lawsuits agains him for this kind of act. Being that close to the individual that he could get in this position and still pulling the trigger.

Up to a point...I mean, I see what you're getting at. As I recall, the officer had already been shot once, and was on the ground wrestling with both of the perpetrators. The article, I don't believe, made that very clear. Given his situation, I will personally support his actions. Were I in his position...I probably would've done the same. I don't see it as an "execution", so much as self preservation, at that point

This is why smart cops carry backup firearms.

Note the word "virtually" before indestructible in Glock's claim. Virtually means "in essence, but not in fact," or in other words, "not really." So all glock is saying is that their gun is not really indestructible. That was borne out in this case. Glock didn't claim anything that wasn't true.

Maybe next time Officer Idiot should grab a dictionary and look up those big words before he invents new definitions for them.

Yet another stupid lawsuit.

This, kids, is why Uncle Moonduck wants Tort Reform.

And the comment about putting the gun to the perp's head was truly indicative of this bloke's mentality.

Especially since if you're in a position where you can stick a gun to someone's head without them being able to get it from you, you're in a bargaining position. i.e., perp #1, put the fucking gun down or he dies. Pulling the trigger will eliminate your ability to bargain, either by killing your bargaining chip or by failing to fire and making it obvious your gun doesn't work. This cop is an idiot.

But if he is in the position to reach down, get his gun, and not just point it toward someone, but put it next to his head, then he must have some form of control of the situation.

The article not making this exactly clear, let me revise my statement and say that if they were still tumbling around, then OK, I could see it. However if the officer was sitting on top of him, then no.

The gun had failed once, though, while he was pointing at someone. Pointing at someone as a threat isn't going to work very well.

So let me get this right. He picked up the robber and used him as a shield to get near the second robber so he could tackle him.

Now it seems to me that if you have given up on your weapon and decided to tackle the second robber, then you can pretty much count on it not working the second time.

As for the whole “pointed at his head and pulled the trigger” business, I think he’s justified to do whatever is necessary to stop them the moment the first bullet was fired. If you decide to rob a bank, then you are free game.

On to the real issue. Now he did an amazing thing considering he was shot in the chest. But I think his frustration could be better focused on something else. Mechanical things fail. He opted to carry his own gun instead of the issued weapon thereby relieving the employer of any liability for the malfunction of his gun. But he knew what he was doing when he took this job, and if all he is interested in doing is paying his medical bills, then the employer should suck it up and take care of the man. If he his looking for a cash cow because something weird happened, then he can take a hike.

I agree with satan here. If two guys rob a bank, shoot you, and talk about killing you then you're in a fight for your life and if your reaction is to kill one of them to improve your survival odds than good for you. How can anyone feel compassion for bank robbers who intend to take human life?

The part about suing glock is beyond silly. Unless there is some other circumstance not listed in the description of events I don't see how the officer has a case. Sounds like he's lucky to be alive.

It is very unfortunate that the officer was shot. It sounds like he put up a really good fight, and is lucky to have come out as well as he did.
I fear rediculous lawsuits are going to be the end of american capitalism.

No where in glocks warrantee does it state that it can be struck by bullets. This guy is out for money plain and simple. He was moonlighting at the time, not "on duty" as a LEO - he is pissed becuase is he miss out on his benifits package he would have got. Its not the guns fault he was shot, it was the guys that were robbing the bank THEY pulled the trigger, not the glocks fault. To top this off, after he was shot the 1st time (this he does not blame glock for) he could have exited but he chose to re-enter the danger by going after the other perp and that is when he got shot 2 more times.

Darwin......... :D

delete this one....quote error!

ummm did you miss the part where he got shot 2 more times after he put the gun to the guys head and it didnt work.....


im pretty sure if the gun went off he might not have gotten shot 2 more times


monday morning quarter backing sux......

the guy was in the fight for his life against 2 people that had every intention on killing him.....

No I didn't miss the part about him being shot twice after the incident. I just think if he had that much control over the situation at that point in time, other options may have been available to him.

Yes monday morning quarterbacking sucks. And as I had said, with the article not being clear as to exactly what was going on, it's hard to say 100% one way or the other.

I'm not judging the guy because I wasn't there and I very may well have done the same thing in his position.