Police Shoot Man While Trying to Serve Warrant in Lewd Conduct Case

A man under investigation by Irvine police for lewd conduct with a child was shot in the parking lot of an apartment complex on Tuesday.

“Detectives were here preparing to serve a search warrant when they contacted the suspect in the parking lot,” Irvine Police Department Lt. Julia Engen said. An officer-involved shooting occurred a short time later, according to Engen. “The subject they were here to interview for their investigation was shot,” Engen said. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I can’t see anything on this saying the suspect had a weapon…

Why do the police departments need money for equipment & training in non-lethal weapons & tactics?

Please stop referring to this charge as “lewd conduct.” It is NOT called that. The offense that is called “lewd conduct” is a mere misdemeanor and considered so minor that SOR is not even required for it any more. It is simply a disorderly conduct charge. This offense unfortunately has a similar name, is called “lewd conduct with a child under 14.” It is a completely different statute. It is what is normally used for a child molestation prosecution. You must never shorten it to call it mere lewd conduct, and you should jump on any news organization or police or prosecutor who does — as it only confuses the public into villifying those mixed up with the minor offense of “lewd conduct.” And then when someone is arrested on a mere minor misdemeanor of “lewd conduct,” the public thinks child molestation is running wild.

Your error here is more egregious since the story itself never shortened it to mere “lewd conduct.” It called it “lewd conduct with a child.” So, the error here is not the story you link to but CARSOL’s mistake.