Cop Shot By 3 Year Old Son Loses Suit Against Glock

A retired Los Angeles police officer who sued a gun maker after his 3-year-old son shot him had his lawsuit dismissed Friday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.

Enrique Chavez, now 39, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son, who was not in a car seat, got a hold of the father’s .45-caliber Glock while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports.

Full Story – HERE

Terrible thing to have happen.  I’m sure he thought he’d win the lawsuit… but I’m glad he didn’t, that would have set a terrible precedent that would only further inconvience responsible gun owners like the rest of us.  Last thing I want is more safeties and warnings all over my guns.

Just goes to show how you need to keep your guns secured around kids because things could go bad in a split second.

15 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Tanis Zamora July 24, 2010 at 07:28 am

uh…are you serious?

Reply

Kimber45 July 24, 2010 at 08:00 am

Sorry Enrique Chavez, FAIL. I hear all the time from under/non educated people how the Glock has no safety. I have been carrying my 21 for years and the only time it has ever gone off is when I pull the trigger :)

Reply

blastoff July 24, 2010 at 08:58 am

Terrible thing to happen, BUT I’m so glad this nonsense lawsuit got thrown out.

Reply

Linoge July 24, 2010 at 10:14 am

I would say this guy would be a great runner-up for the Darwin Awards, apart from the fact that it was his child who shot him.

Apparently the idiot neglected to secure both his firearm and his child, and suffered the consequences of his negligence. I certainly will not say that he deserved it, but the firearm functioned precisely as advertised, and I am very relieved the court tossed his suit out.

Reply

Bigpen15 July 24, 2010 at 12:19 pm

..what a D-bag…not suprised He’s from California….(10th largest economy in the world and they are broke…)

Reply

Patrick July 24, 2010 at 06:12 pm

Glad to hear it. The firearm worked as intended.

Reply

Pat H. July 25, 2010 at 04:09 pm

This, like most “child shooter” cases, reeks of phoniness. I’m a health care professional and while working at a major research medical facility that routinely engaged in extensive research, I failed to interest anyone in researching child motor control and strength testing to quantify at what age a child was likely to be able to fire a weapon. It’s my opinion, based on circumstantial information that most children under the age of four cannot fire a unmodified handgun at all. Unfortunately, this remains unresearched, so adults can continue to blame various shootings on very young children and get away with, yes, even murder.

Reply

Bryan S July 26, 2010 at 11:30 am

It would be hard for the guy to shoot himself in the back while in the front seat of a car.

Reply

Josh July 26, 2010 at 03:50 pm

Yeah, that seemed like a pretty preposterous accusation. I think what should have been said was, “…based on faulty or misleading information, that most children under the age of four cannot fire an unmodified handgun at all.” There’s nothing particularly difficult about firing a Glock – nothing that would preclude a toddler from being able to do it anyway. No wonder this proposal for study “failed to interest anyone.” Good decision by those responsible for not wasting the money and time on a study whose results could be predicted by reasonable people in the first place. If the firearm in question were a double-action revolver with a heavy, and long, trigger pull, I might be inclined to question how a child managed to fire it. A Glock though, that’s easy enough to believe. Not to mention the fact that the implication seems to be that adults are shooting people and blaming children, and getting away with it.

Reply

Pat H. July 26, 2010 at 08:28 pm

In the world of science, which includes medical science, we don’t “know” things until they’re proven. Further, we don’t know what percentage, if any at all, toddlers can fire a Glock pistol. You certainly have no idea about that at all because it’s never been studied by anyone.

I never claimed the guy shot himself. What I suspect is that someone shot him and the victim, for whatever reason, is claiming the child did it. The child won’t be put on trial, the person who did the crime would be, if the evidence were to have been examined.

Any knowledge about how thoroughly the crime was examined?

As for this “No wonder this proposal for study “failed to interest anyone.” Good decision by those responsible for not wasting the money and time on a study whose results could be predicted by reasonable people in the first place. If the firearm in question were a double-action revolver with a heavy, and long, trigger pull, I might be inclined to question how a child managed to fire it.”, it’s almost straight out of a gun confiscators play book. Have you been taking lessons, perhaps?

Reply

Josh July 26, 2010 at 08:54 pm

I wouldn’t know a gun confiscator’s playbook if I saw one. The fact that you would suggest a three year-old is incapable of actuating the trigger on a Glock just seems crazy to me. If this weren’t a gun blog, presumably read by gun enthusiasts, I would be inclined to think that you were unfamiliar with Glock pistols, and what it takes to make them go “BOOM.” I’m further inclined to think that you’re unfamiliar with three year-olds and what they’re capable of. I have a nephew who just turned three and I have every confidence that he could cause a gun to go off. That a three year-old accidentally pulled the trigger on the pistol, sending a round into his back is, in and of itself, very plausible. When compared to your alternate version, which must be – someone was hiding in the back of his vehicle (with his toddler) as he drove down the road, and shot him in the back with his own gun, and shot him, only wounding him, in the back – it’s a pretty clear conclusion to most any reasonable person.

It leaves me wondering – what playbook are you reading from? Is it some sort of, “Trust nothing, everything is a conspiracy” type publication? One with chapters on how the government blew up the World Trade Center and the moon landing was faked on a Hollywood sound stage?

Reply

bigpen15 July 27, 2010 at 07:40 pm

i agree with Bryan S. And it does not take a lot of force to get a glock trigger to “break”/shoot. Easily manageable for a child.

Reply

Ken July 25, 2010 at 10:14 pm

LOL Patrick! What a douche putting that kid at risk. Phony lawsuit. Moron.

Reply

ErnestThing August 5, 2010 at 09:38 pm

Did this take place in California? Because it’s a felony to have a gun in a place a kid can access it in California.

Reply

BCMC October 18, 2012 at 10:42 am

As a retired LAPD officer myself, I am a little disappointed that he sued the Revolver Club, a facility actually located within the walls of the Elysian Park Police Academy, which has served the officers of the LAPD for many generations.

However . . . I’m sure the officer did not draft the suit himself but instead relied upon the advise of his attorney.

Bottom line is that the officer has to be about 90% responsible for leaving the firearm in an area where his child could get at it (yes, it was in California and yes, it is a felony and no, he was probably not charged with the offense). We all get complacent at times when it comes to handling a weapon we carry day after day after day. It is certainly a bad habit, but it does happen to all of us from time to time.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: