TexasCHLforum.com

"Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down"

I think thats a typo, should read: Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist up

waffenmacht wrote:"Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down"

I think thats a typo, should read: Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist up

No it was correct, but it left out the pertinent information: Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down because he was already paralyzed from the neck up.

[Forrest Gump] Stupid is as stupid does. [/Forrest Gump]

The judge dismissed the case.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/gun-2581 ... -shot.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

flb_78 wrote:The judge dismissed the case.

Good decision IMO.

I hope the company can collect their legal costs from the grossly negligent person.

tacticool wrote:I hope the company can collect their legal costs from the grossly negligent person.

LOL. Not in California, IIRC, it doesn't work that way.

A real pity too. I'm 90% convinced that a litigant in a civil suit should post bond for the legal costs, or file some sort of a pre-trial motion that the lawsuit exhibits reasonable cause to be in favor of the litigant. Then again, I'm not a lawyer...not even remotely close. I'm more like the court jester (no pun intended )

"The defense had argued that Chavez admitted he forgot the gun was in the back seat when he put his son in the truck."

It was loose in the back seat! Unbelievable.

My husband said he should have sued the truck manufacturer for not having bullet-proof seats, too.

Only safety is what's between one's ears. Apparently that's not working either.

Hoi Polloi wrote:"The defense had argued that Chavez admitted he forgot the gun was in the back seat when he put his son in the truck."

It was loose in the back seat! Unbelievable.

My husband said he should have sued the truck manufacturer for not having bullet-proof seats, too.

The officer involved is a poster child for the observation that ignorance can be remedied with education, but stupid is forever.

He may also have committed a crime. According to the California Attorney General's web site:

"You may be guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony if you keep a loaded firearm within any premises that are under your custody or control and a child under 18 years of age obtains and uses it, resulting in injury or death, or carries it to a public place, unless you stored the firearm in a locked container or locked the firearm with a locking device to temporarily keep it from functioning."

I fail to see a cause of action against Glock for the results of the officer's own negligent and quite possibly criminal conduct.

Excaliber wrote:The officer involved is a poster child for the observation that ignorance can be remedied with education, but stupid is forever.

He may also have committed a crime. According to the California Attorney General's web site:

"You may be guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony if you keep a loaded firearm within any premises that are under your custody or control and a child under 18 years of age obtains and uses it, resulting in injury or death, or carries it to a public place, unless you stored the firearm in a locked container or locked the firearm with a locking device to temporarily keep it from functioning."

It's quite possible the father would be charged if the person injured was someone other than the father.

What would be the point? I think they guy probably got the memo by now, and I rather doubt that he is currently authorized to carry a handgun.

This whole episode is just further proof that laws do not prevent either crimes or negligent mishaps, and LEOs are not immune from mental flatulence.

We can only hope that others learn from his example.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:What would be the point? I think they guy probably got the memo by now, and I rather doubt that he is currently authorized to carry a handgun. - Jim

I don't know if he did get the point. If he is suing Glock and Uncle Mike's, he is still trying to blame someone else and not taking responsibility for his own actions.

That suit was initiated two years ago. That's rather quick for resolution of a civil lawsuit.

I know it's an anecdote and not statistics, but I was on a civil jury in a case where the initial incident had occurred five years earlier. The case record was literally a foot high.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:That suit was initiated two years ago. That's rather quick for resolution of a civil lawsuit. I know it's an anecdote and not statistics, but I was on a civil jury in a case where the initial incident had occurred five years earlier. The case record was literally a foot high. - Jim

This was in California. They are known for their speedy trials.

I suspect that is precisely what is going on. Toss in a plaintiff's attorney promising big payoff, and we have a lawsuit.