AikiDale Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfu...ry.asp?ID=35838 Feel free to move this to the Glock forum......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 That is some funny stuff! I especially like the following quotes from the article. According to the lawsuit, Glock touts its handgun as "virtually indestructible." Uhm... I wonder if they know the difference between "virtual" and actual. Matthew Miller, Holland's attorney, said that guarantee helped convince Holland to purchase the Glock, replacing his Smith & Wesson. So a Smith & Wesson wouldn't have malfunctioned? Sounds like a chance for some fun tests! -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 (edited) From one of the bank robbers' appeal... The record shows the following facts: In the morning hours of March 1, 2000, Simmons entered the bank with a fully loaded .357 Magnum handgun. After Simmons entered the bank, he walked up to Holland, who was sitting at the security desk; pointed his weapon at Holland's face; and stated, "[T]his is for you." Simmons then ordered Holland to give up his weapon, also a handgun, and handcuff himself. Instead, Holland jumped over the security desk and struck Simmons' forearm with his handcuffs. A struggle then ensued, and after Holland had subdued Simmons, Bernal entered the bank, telling Holland to let Simmons go or else he would kill Holland. Bernal and Holland then fired their weapons at each other. The evidence shows that one of these shots disarmed Holland's weapon and that three of the shots hit Holland, one bullet grazing Holland's abdomen, another bullet passing through Holland's chest, and the last bullet passing through one of Holland's legs. At this point, Holland picked up Simmons with one hand and used him to shield himself from any further gunshots. Bernal then approached Holland, and as Bernal neared Holland, Holland grabbed Bernal's weapon, locking his finger behind its trigger guard. Holland testified that at the same time, he was holding Simmons' weapon around the cylinder. Holland then began struggling with both Simmons and Bernal. Holland testified that he knocked Bernal unconscious by a blow to the cheekbone and that at that time, Simmons was scrambling to find a weapon. Holland testified that Simmons recovered a weapon and then attempted to get into a position to shoot at Holland. Holland testified that he hit Simmons as hard as he could on the crown of Simmons' head with his weapon. Holland's testimony in this regard is corroborated by the injury apparent on Simmons' head at the time of his arrest. The record shows that after being thus struck by Holland, Simmons left the bank. Another witness, Lenora Tuveson, testified that after Simmons left, she went outside the bank to see where he was going. Tuveson testified that she looked around a corner and saw Simmons get out of a car with another gun. Tuveson testified that as Simmons started back toward the bank, she ran back into the bank and locked the door, and that at that point, Simmons fled. Simmons was later stopped and arrested. The evidence shows that at the time of the arrest, officers found a loaded weapon located on the front floorboard of Simmons' vehicle. Edited April 13, 2004 by Erik Warren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 (edited) Hrm... obviously he thinks he's virtually indestructible, too... no vest. If so, shouldn't he have continued to function, unphased by the bullets? Three letters: A-S-S. EDIT: Just read Erik's post... guess I was wrong. He WAS unphased. My comment still stands, however. Can't get money out of the bank robbers, lets get money out of the gun company. Edited April 13, 2004 by 300lbGorilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Okay, he's an idiot for the lawsuit. But for his performance during the bank robbery, I have to ask: how can he WALK with balls that big? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted April 13, 2004 Author Share Posted April 13, 2004 He was really angry his Glock did not work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Can't you just see Clark shooting all his Glocks with a .357 now...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Can't you just see Clark shooting all his Glocks with a .357 now...? You know someone will! The evidence shows that one of these shots disarmed Holland's weapon and that three of the shots hit Holland, one bullet grazing Holland's abdomen, another bullet passing through Holland's chest, and the last bullet passing through one of Holland's legs. At this point, Holland picked up Simmons with one hand and used him to shield himself from any further gunshots. This guy doesn't even NEED a freakin' gun! How does he walk with cajones that big? -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 At the risk of being flamed: This is the kind of stuff that WE in Europe consider typical for the USA and we laugh our *ss off at so much stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 This is the kind of stuff that we in the U.S.A. consider typical and we pull our hair out at so much stupidity. But maybe stupidity is not the right word. Greed? Desperation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 If this happen in Maryland the anti gun people would probably try to have him signed up as he was being taken out of the emergency vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Can't believe a MAN that fought bare-handed against two armed men can conceive such moronic lawsuit. I'm prone to think this is some bada#s of a lawyer trying to get famous by sueing a world-famous gun maker for such bullshit, that convinced the officer he could have gained something from his wounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted April 14, 2004 Author Share Posted April 14, 2004 At the risk of being flamed: This is the kind of stuff that WE in Europe consider typical for the USA and we laugh our *ss off at so much stupidity No flames for this one Garfield, why do you think I posted this in the Humor forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryfox Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 So let me get this right... I should carry the biggest hand gun I can so I am bullet proof? It is a good thing he wasn't carrying a hot cup of coffe, or Mc donalds would be in trouble again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcginnes Posted April 24, 2004 Share Posted April 24, 2004 Hey, that guy continued to work after being shot THREE times. The Glock stopped working after being shot just once! Hopefully, all future gun reviews will include "The .357 Magnum test." 1911 vs. Glock 21: Which one is better at stopping a bullet? A head to head showdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now