Suspect with crowbar shot by police outside Carls Jr

[ss454]

MONTEREY PARK, Calif. (KABC) -- A suspect armed with a crowbar was shot outside of a Carl's Jr. restaurant in Monterey Park on Monday morning.

Authorities say the incident began with the suspect breaking windows at Carl's Jr. in the 1200 block of Avenida Cesar Chavez just before 9:30 a.m. The suspect then walked inside, while workers and customers ran outside.

Police arrived as the suspect was exiting the fast-food restaurant. After repeatedly telling the suspect to drop the weapon, the suspect was Tasered.

Police said the Taser was ineffective, and the suspect swung the three-foot metal bar at officers twice. At least one officer opened fire on the suspect.

The suspect was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

No one else was injured in the incident. The officer-involved shooting is under investigation.




This shitbag had it coming. Looked like he was coming at the other cop. Does TCG think the shooting is justified?

Click to read more...

 

[BillyBru]

shooting justified, yes, that many times, no.

 

[Angus]

Shooting was completely justified.

 

[greasy]

That crowbar could do some serious damage, so yes, I feel the shooting was justified as he was looking like he was about to hit the officer. If a taser to the face does not take someone down they are more than likely under the influence of some type of drug and one shot may not even take them down. Why chance it?

 

[Stink Star]

WITH ONE HAND NONETHELESS

 

[Bruce Jibboo]

like a fuckin bauce

 

[Frank Dukes]

wow. not sure how i feel about that... way too many shots imo but it will certainly be called justified. that was assault with a deadly weapon w/ intent to yada yada yada police officer... if it were just two dudes fighting, guy w/ gun goes to prison.

 

[mat0485]

to many shots... but they're cops... dont need to risk injury for some fuck. agree with police.

 

[Smokinhot]

shot to the shoulder would suffice, or a few to the legs. Justified, yes though. He went against the authority and lost..

 

[Burtonrider10022]

shot to the shoulder would suffice, or a few to the legs. Justified, yes though. He went against the authority and lost..

If you bring 'deadly force' (such as a crowbar) to a fight to Police will return with deadly force. A shoulder hit is such a terrible problem in court because a gun is not EVER classified as something used to injur. A gun is to kill. simple as that. You DO NOT pull that trigger for any reason but to eliminate a deadly threat. Taser was used, no effect most likely due to the thick coat. Cops had no choice IMO

Shooting was justified by the K9 officer. The second officer will probably get in a bit of trouble. (first 5 shots were K9, Second set of 5 were the officer that was about to be crow-barred)

To the comments of 'not so many times' although i do agree, adrenaline has a big issue on how many shots are fired. I have read articles that say how hard it is to stop pulling that trigger when life is threatened. It is not uncommon for a very friegtened or threatened officer to empty a magazine on a single subject. When your life and family are flashing through your mind, your finger just keeps going click, click, click. It's a natural human reaction

 

[blakbearddelite]

I think the last thing I'd do is pretend to take a swing at an officer when there are multiple guns drawn on me.

I don't feel too bad for the perp, he was probably a scumbag anyway. But why didn't the police let the dog loose after the ineffective taser shot?

 

[10sec]

But why didn't the police let the dog loose after the ineffective taser shot?

This.

 

[DanJ]

I wouldn't want my dog being hit with a crowbar either.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

But why didn't the police let the dog loose after the ineffective taser shot?

This.

I wouldn't want my dog being hit with a crowbar either.

...aaaaand this.

I'm impressed he held the dog back and actually hit something with the pistol using one hand.

 

[Burtonrider10022]

I wouldn't want my dog being hit with a crowbar either.

took the words right out of my mouth

 

[blakbearddelite]

I wouldn't want my dog being hit with a crowbar either.

The animal lover in me hates to say it, but isn't that one of the reasons they have police dogs? The biggest reason I think is to chase down criminals on foot, but I thought they were also used to alleviate situations like this.

They don't give dogs to police just to have as pets so the officers don't get lonely.

 

[10sec]

The animal lover in me hates to say it, but isn't that one of the reasons they have police dogs? The biggest reason I think is to chase down criminals on foot, but I thought they were also used to alleviate situations like this.

They don't give dogs to police just to have as pets so the officers don't get lonely.

You're in my head!! This again.

 

[Burtonrider10022]

The animal lover in me hates to say it, but isn't that one of the reasons they have police dogs? The biggest reason I think is to chase down criminals on foot, but I thought they were also used to alleviate situations like this.

They don't give dogs to police just to have as pets so the officers don't get lonely.

A dog is an asset. They are very expensive and hard to train. The officer creates an obvious bond with his 'partner', so why on earth would he put the dog in obvious danger. The clown was dumb enough to motion the pipe bender at the cop, why would you think he would hesitate from following through on a dog? Would you rather he hit and kill the dog, then get shot?

 

[blakbearddelite]

And don't take this as me defending the criminal, I just think they probably could have handled the situation a little differently.

But it is likely this guy was screwed up in the head, and he probably would have ended up killing someone anyway. Really, anyone that taunts officers with a crowbar is missing the part of the brain that reasons the consequences of your actions.

 

[blakbearddelite]

A dog is an asset. They are very expensive and hard to train. The officer creates an obvious bond with his 'partner', so why on earth would he put the dog in obvious danger. The clown was dumb enough to motion the pipe bender at the cop, why would you think he would hesitate from following through on a dog? Would you rather he hit and kill the dog, then get shot?

So if we're not going to put the dogs in harm's way, what purpose do they serve? Why bother training the dog if he can't subdue a perp with a weapon? Do they train the dogs so they can get their master a beer?

 

[greasy]

I just think they probably could have handled the situation a little differently.

That is easy to say when you are armchair QB'ing the situation after the fact.

So if we're not going to put the dogs in harm's way, what purpose do they serve? Why bother training the dog if he can't subdue a perp with a weapon? Do they train the dogs so they can get their master a beer?

Why put the dog in danger? The perp was asked to put the weapon down, he was tased ineffectively, and then moved to attack a police officer when he had his weapon drawn. At that point I do not see the reason to let the dog go after him.

 

[blakbearddelite]

That is easy to say when you are armchair QB'ing the situation after the fact.

Why put the dog in danger? The perp was asked to put the weapon down, he was tased ineffectively, and then moved to attack a police officer when he had his weapon drawn. At that point I do not see the reason to let the dog go after him.

I disagree with the way the article was written about the 'attack'. I watched the video a couple of times and it appears that the perp was just moving the officer back by advancing upon him. I didn't see him swing at all. Was that a terrible idea? Yes. Was it safe to assume you'd likely get shot? Yes.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Whether he was going to swing or not, you don't advance on any motherfucker with a weapon drawn on you, period. That's 100% asking to get shot like the retard you are.

 

[greasy]

I disagree with the way the article was written about the 'attack'. I watched the video a couple of times and it appears that the perp was just moving the officer back by advancing upon him. I didn't see him swing at all. Was that a terrible idea? Yes. Was it safe to assume you'd likely get shot? Yes.

So you read an article and you know exactly what the perp was thinking? Nobody knows what he was thinking.

What we do know is that he advanced towards the officer with a deadly weapon in hand. He had the opportunity to put the weapon down plenty of times.

 

[blakbearddelite]

Why put the dog in danger? The perp was asked to put the weapon down, he was tased ineffectively, and then moved to attack a police officer when he had his weapon drawn. At that point I do not see the reason to let the dog go after him.

But I want to get back to my point about the purpose of police dogs. Any time they are let off the leash, they are in a dangerous situation. I would argue that having a dog chase down a seemingly unarmed perp is putting the dog in a dangerous situation. The perp could easily have a concealed weapon and hurt the dog. The perp could pick up something off the ground or in a garage that could be used to take out a dog. They spend a lot of time and money training these dogs. Do we think the dogs are not trained to take down an armed man? Do they just teach the dogs to sit, roll-over, and play dead?