Yesterday we talked about how easily striker-fired pistols are to discharge if they have no manual safety. That was in relation to the Kate Steinle case in which the illegal alien shooter got off on all but the felon in possession of firearm charge.
It brought to mind the case of Chavez v. Glock Inc. I made a half axed effort to follow the case but dropped the ball until today.
You can read the facts of the case in the California Court of Appeals decision in cause number B230346 here. In summary, officer Enrique Chavez was driving a car with his infant son in the back seat. His loaded Glock 21 was back there, too. The kid found the gun and pulled the trigger. The bullet paralyzed officer Chavez from the waist down. He sued and lost at the trial level. However, the appellate court gave his case a second chance.
Last year the parties settled the case -- see Glock Settles Negligent Discharge Case With Paralyzed Ex-LAPD Cop. That's not surprising. Paul Barrett in his excellent book, Glock: The Rise of America's Gun said that Glock Inc. fights tooth and nail against lawsuits unless they fear a loss, a negative precedent, or an embarrassment. Then they settle quietly.
(Click hyperlink to read an interview with Mr. Barrett.)
According to Mr. Barrett, Glocks came along around the time police departments were trying to transition away from revolvers. But the officers resisted because they couldn't get accustomed to manual safeties. So a Glock with no manual safety fit the bill perfectly. It wasn't long before they became popular with citizens.
But a pistol that's easily fired and has no manual safety will be involved in a lot of negligent discharges. Common sense should tell us that. Any dangerous activity that requires the user to be 100% perfect is an accident waiting to happen. That's why sky divers strap on back up parachutes.
------
10:44 AM 12/2/2017
Comments