A few hours ago, in the neighborhood of Skid Row, a struggle involving a homeless man and several officer ended in a tragic outcome.

 

Officers were called for a suspected robbery, and as they arrived on scene, approached the man who, according to Commander Andrew Smith, started resisting and fighting. The officers tried to take him into custody, but couldn't achieve such, and the use of the taser was ineffective, he said.

 

At some point, the situation becomes really blurry, the man fell on the ground with a couple officers and it's hard to distinguish what is happening. According to the Commander, a struggle for one of the officers' weapon started, which resulted in the shooting caught on tape. Two officers and a sergent fired at the homeless man, for an approximate total of five rounds.

 

Complete coverage and video can be found here: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-fatally-shoot-homeless-man-20150301-story.html#page=1

 

Longer video: 

 

 

UPDATE 3/6/2015: IMPERSONATION

 

The homeless man shot dead by LAPD last sunday during an altercation, and which video was publicly released on social networks, was impersonating a french citizen for years, said the Los Angeles Times this tuesday.

 

According to the newspaper, the man shot dead in the neighborhood sinisterly called Skid Row, where several homeless people live, was calling himself Charley Saturmin Robinet. He came to the United States more than 15 years ago.

 

However, according to Axel Cruau, French Consul in Los Angeles and contacted by the american newspaper, this homeless man stole the identity of a french citizen by using the passport of this person who came to the US at the end of the 90s.

 

The french authorities discovered the identity theft after the man who was calling himself Charley Robinet was condemned for a robbery in 2000 and the american authorities were preparing themselves to extradite him to France. The true Charley Saturmin Robinet "is alive and in France", explained the Consul.

 

The former lawyer of the homeless man, Steven Cron, had on his side precised that the fake Charley Robinet was condemned to 15 years behind bars for an armed robbery commited in 2000. "I remember this case quite well, it was rather clear: several guys robbed a bank and came out with a load of cash. They then got followed by the law enforcement, there was a pursuit and they threw nails on the highway", Steven Cron told.

 

Eventually, police caught the robbers and the fake Charley Robinet admitted his crime on a recording tape. "If I remember well, he said he needed money to pay himself theater courses", added the lawyer. "All the other robbers pleaded guilty, but him insisted to go to trial. I tried to change his mind, but he insisted. He strongly defended himself during the trial but we lost", Steven Cron told again. "I think he was condemned to 15 years of jail, and he got out in 2013", he said.

Edited March 6, 201511 yr by Hystery

This was justified imo. They tried to go non lethal twice(with batons and bare hands, and with a taser), and they gave him multiple chances to drop/get off the officers's gun. I'm still not sure if he had his own gun because some sources are saying he did, but most aren't. Either way, you go for a cops's gun, expect the consequences that come with that decision.

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by BlackJesus1

I'd like to start off by saying that the camera man is fucking retarded, and the rest of the idiots yelling like wild animals aren't any smarter and should shut the hell up and move on.

Secondly, there is some sort of protocol I know of that doesn't require a suspect to be armed, to authorize the use of lethal force. I couldn't exactly see what was going on, but based on this video I think the shooting was justified. I also think that the LAPD could have waited a little bit longer to shoot, but again I can't clearly see what's happening.

I also want to ask a question, and this is directed at anyone who reads it:

As an officer, what would you have done here?

I have a feeling this going to turn into another James Boyd. I do believe the shooting was justified. Knowing today's society, you're gonna have those immature asshats saying "He wasn't a threat!"  

I'd like to start off by saying that the camera man is fucking retarded, and the rest of the idiots yelling like wild animals aren't any smarter and should shut the hell up and move on.

Secondly, there is some sort of protocol I know of that doesn't require a suspect to be armed, to authorize the use of lethal force. I couldn't exactly see what was going on, but based on this video I think the shooting was justified. I also think that the LAPD could have waited a little bit longer to shoot, but again I can't clearly see what's happening.

I also want to ask a question, and this is directed at anyone who reads it:

As an officer, what would you have done here?

i agree but you know, its really easy to tell people that behind a computer screen, I'd like to see what you would do if you were out on the street and just randomly see someone get shot like that in front of you by a cop or not by a cop, I'd like to see how quiet you would be, to call someone retarded for being startled by something like that is retarded in itself, just my opinion. 

 

Buuut ANYWAY, i think the shooting was justified too, if you listen closely in all that garbled mess you here officers say (or scream) "Drop that Gun!" At least 4 times Before shooting the Suspect.. In my Opinion that's Ample Warning, it would only take telling me Once by a cop to drop mine. 

 

 

And By the way! I Can't quote Him1250 but i will reply to what he said, James Boyd wasn't a threat in my opinion that's the best example i can find of an Unjustified Officer Involved Shooting a much Better Example than the Mike Brown Shooting those Cops Literally Shot that Man down like he was a Feral Dog, then Hit his Limp Body with Bean Bags After they Shot him an Unknown amount of times, ALSO i don't think these Cops talked to each other about Shooting him in the Dick (for lack of a better word) before they got to talk to the suspect. 

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by XBR410

I also want to ask a question, and this is directed at anyone who reads it:

As an officer, what would you have done here?

 

Don't know weather it was right or wrong. But the officer has just a few seconds to react. We can review the case for hours. I think it is always difficult to say what I would have done.

Looks like at 0:23 the perp got the cops gun whom was straddling the perp at that time.  Then that cop get's up as the others started shooting.  You can see at roughly 0:19 and 0:21 the guy actually tugging on the stock (grip) of the weapon.  

 

Hard to tell but looks justified to me.  If someone grabs the cops gun and takes control of it, game over.

 

I guess we'll find out eventually.  Tough job!

 

DrDetroit

i agree but you know, its really easy to tell people that behind a computer screen, I'd like to see what you would do if you were out on the street and just randomly see someone get shot like that in front of you by a cop or not by a cop, I'd like to see how quiet you would be, to call someone retarded for being startled by something like that is retarded in itself, just my opinion.

Buuut ANYWAY, i think the shooting was justified too, if you listen closely in all that garbled mess you here officers say (or scream) "Drop that Gun!" At least 4 times Before shooting the Suspect.. In my Opinion that's Ample Warning, it would only take telling me Once by a cop to drop mine.

And By the way! I Can't quote Him1250 but i will reply to what he said, James Boyd wasn't a threat in my opinion that's the best example i can find of an Unjustified Officer Involved Shooting a much Better Example than the Mike Brown Shooting those Cops Literally Shot that Man down like he was a Feral Dog, then Hit his Limp Body with Bean Bags After they Shot him an Unknown amount of times, ALSO i don't think these Cops talked to each other about Shooting him in the Dick (for lack of a better word) before they got to talk to the suspect.

I would have still called them retarded. Doesn't matter to me. 1v20 I'd still call them retarded. I'm not the type of person that would sit there and let fucked up shit happen. I would stand up for those who remain quiet, I'd speak the truth. If everyone else wants to pussy out and become just another bystander that's fine, but that's not how I roll. I'm not going to remain quiet if something needs to be said. It's not about them being startled, it's about them remaining on scene causing a disturbance and disrupting police work. They clearly weren't startled, they were outraged and angry. Officers actually had to attend to the crowd with their nightsticks drawn. That's not startled, that's angry.

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

I'd like to start off by saying that the camera man is fucking retarded, and the rest of the idiots yelling like wild animals aren't any smarter and should shut the hell up and move on.

I agree with this totally, incredibly stupid to stand there watching and filming while berating the officers - mind you, people will do anything for views on social media.

 

From what I can see, the shooting is justified. Not only was there the original struggle between the homeless man and officers, but you can see a passer-by pick up one of the officer's ASPs and enter an aggressive stance with it subsequently posing a threat. They used all non-lethal options to try and restrain the suspect, and when the threat posed stepped up as he reached for the gun, they responded on an equal manner.

You reach for a cop's gun, you get shot. Simple as that.

 

I noticed that other guy taking up the baton, and he just got tackled by that officer. That was a quick reaction from the Officer, and if that other guy would had got hand of that baton the situation might had gone worse. Some get shot by a reason, some don't get shot by a reason. The Officers had all reasons to shoot him, and arrest that other man.

The guy shooting the video is a dumbass, and so are most of the people around him.

 

I wish this video had been as clear as the Eric Garner one. This video doesn't definitely prove anything one way or another. 

This was justified imo. They tried to go non lethal twice(with batons and bare hands, and with a taser), and they gave him multiple chances to drop/get off the officers's gun. I'm still not sure if he had his own gun because some sources are saying he did, but most aren't. Either way, you go for a cops's gun, expect the consequences that come with that decision.

 

 

I'd like to start off by saying that the camera man is fucking retarded, and the rest of the idiots yelling like wild animals aren't any smarter and should shut the hell up and move on.

Secondly, there is some sort of protocol I know of that doesn't require a suspect to be armed, to authorize the use of lethal force. I couldn't exactly see what was going on, but based on this video I think the shooting was justified. I also think that the LAPD could have waited a little bit longer to shoot, but again I can't clearly see what's happening.

I also want to ask a question, and this is directed at anyone who reads it:

As an officer, what would you have done here?

 

 

I have a feeling this going to turn into another James Boyd. I do believe the shooting was justified. Knowing today's society, you're gonna have those immature asshats saying "He wasn't a threat!"  

 

 

i agree but you know, its really easy to tell people that behind a computer screen, I'd like to see what you would do if you were out on the street and just randomly see someone get shot like that in front of you by a cop or not by a cop, I'd like to see how quiet you would be, to call someone retarded for being startled by something like that is retarded in itself, just my opinion. 

 

Buuut ANYWAY, i think the shooting was justified too, if you listen closely in all that garbled mess you here officers say (or scream) "Drop that Gun!" At least 4 times Before shooting the Suspect.. In my Opinion that's Ample Warning, it would only take telling me Once by a cop to drop mine. 

 

 

And By the way! I Can't quote Him1250 but i will reply to what he said, James Boyd wasn't a threat in my opinion that's the best example i can find of an Unjustified Officer Involved Shooting a much Better Example than the Mike Brown Shooting those Cops Literally Shot that Man down like he was a Feral Dog, then Hit his Limp Body with Bean Bags After they Shot him an Unknown amount of times, ALSO i don't think these Cops talked to each other about Shooting him in the Dick (for lack of a better word) before they got to talk to the suspect. 

 

 

I agree with this totally, incredibly stupid to stand there watching and filming while berating the officers - mind you, people will do anything for views on social media.

 

From what I can see, the shooting is justified. Not only was there the original struggle between the homeless man and officers, but you can see a passer-by pick up one of the officer's ASPs and enter an aggressive stance with it subsequently posing a threat. They used all non-lethal options to try and restrain the suspect, and when the threat posed stepped up as he reached for the gun, they responded on an equal manner.

 

 

You reach for a cop's gun, you get shot. Simple as that.

 

 

Think of me what you want after this but,

I think it is shocking how some of you think this is the correct action.

I have to say it is the officers fault and the police training itself.

Multiple cops that can't get one single unarmed man arrested without killing him

infront of alot of innocent people that just witnessed a killing and may have psychological problems

for the rest of their lives. And they/he did not shot him once, but multiple times.

As I said, it is really a big fault of the officers training in the LAPD appearently.

Just my opinion, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ;)

Multiple cops that can't get one single unarmed man arrested without killing him

According to the officers, he reached and got a hold of one of their guns. This story is backed up by the officers shouting "drop the gun" before opening fire. If you try to take an officer's firearm, you're going to be shot, no question about it. 

Seriously though, the whole going lethal is soo american once again, they got like 6 cops on scene, and 2 suspects, they cannot put hand cuffs on a suspect without shooting him.

Also before the officer started to shoot you saw all the officers clear from the suspect and he just layed there otherwise he would have moved away.

 

This is exactly America, this shit doesn't happen in Europe and it's getting more often that police is shooting an un armed person.

 

Those LAPD officers might need some sort of re training cause 4 vs 1 and still lose a gun, not completely sure how that works.

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by DySands

According to the officers, he reached and got a hold of one of their guns. This story is backed up by the officers shouting "drop the gun" before opening fire. If you try to take an officer's firearm, you're going to be shot, no question about it. 

 

It shouldn't be possible for him to just get a hold of a gun of them. He clearly already had it.

 

Seriously though, the whole going lethal is soo american once again, they got like 6 cops on scene, and 2 suspects, they cannot put hand cuffs on a suspect without shooting him.

Also before the officer started to shoot you saw all the officers clear from the suspect and he just layed there otherwise he would have moved away.

 

This is exactly America, this shit doesn't happen in Europe and it's getting more often that police is shooting an un armed person.

 

Those LAPD officers might need some sort of re training cause 4 vs 1 and still lose a gun, not completely sure how that works.

 

Absolutely agreed. They really have to work on that.

When a suspect is on drugs or highly excited it may need to have 5-6 big cops to subdue him. Don't do math like 6/2 > 1/1. That fellow had his opportunity to go with the easy way, he could take a good decision but refused. What if he accidentaly press a trigger and a bullet would kill a bystander?

Personally I don't blame the officers for using their service weapon if they were in a case of immediate danger. But as stated above, what I actually don't understand is how multiple men can't get the best out of a single one (who didn't seem very muscular nor strong). I think there's a mistake from both sides. The man for resisting and trying something stupid that resulted into this outcome, and the officers for not being able to control a single person even though they were quite a lot on him (in addition of losing their baton-having the suspect trying to reach their weapon).

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by Hystery

Hard to tell but looks justified to me.

Indeed, and that is the problem here. It is hard to tell what happened, and the officer believed it to be justified. We can judge all we want, but we weren't there. The video is mediocre at best and it doesn't let us into the situation at all.

As Ineseri said the video doesn't say the whole story, and it's hard to tell much. They had him on the ground, it seemed like 2 officers had his legs, but we can't really see what's going on with the two other officers. For all we know, he could've slipped one of his arms by an the officer during the struggle and managed to grab onto the gun. It doesn't instantly have to scream bad training, it could simply be "luck" on the suspects part.(I use luck for lack of a better word).

 

They really need to implement these body cameras fast because it's gonna do many do many things. Ease the public, give more evidence than ever available for both sides in situations like these. And protect not only the officers, but the people.