Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Thursday, March 05, 2015

LAPD: Homeless man shot dead by police stole Frenchman's ID

A homeless man shot dead by the LAPD stole a Frenchman's identity more than 15 years ago and was wanted for violating terms of a bank robbery conviction, officials said last night.

Charley Saturmin Robinet, 39, was killed on Los Angeles' impoverished Skid Row when he allegedly tried to grab the holstered pistol of an officer while police arrested him on Sunday.

The shooting was caught by an onlooker on a video that went viral, leading to protests and calls by civil rights activists for a special police commission hearing on the use of force.

Originally thought to be French, officials now say Robinet stole the identity of a Frenchman with the same name and birth date to apply for a French passport in the 1990s, when he came to the U.S. to pursue an acting career.

His true identity remains unknown, said Axel Cruau, the consul general for France in Los Angeles.

According to the consulate's account, Robinet was identified as a French national in 2000 when robbed a Wells Fargo branch in Thousand Oaks, some 40 miles west of downtown Los Angeles, and pistol-whipped an employee.

More

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is this an attempt to justify him being killed?

Anonymous said...

Just like here. The police are doing damage control by trying to blind us to the original incident. Who he is or was doesn't matter. Its what happened that does!

Anonymous said...

Well dummy (4:41), anything that leads up to the end result does matter! Are you stupid or something?

Anonymous said...

5:16
Excuse me officer. I beg to differ. If the police again avoided violating his rights , this wouldn't have escalated to this. There was no reason to mess with him in the first place. Oh that's right officer. As long as you say you thought they looked suspicious its ok. Even in broad daylight surrounded by the world this homeless guy looked suspicious. And don't try the he wasn't a homeless man. He was wanted. That just became known. Until that came to light, he was a homeless man not a wanted one.

Anonymous said...

It was good police work 5:29. The end justified the means. GET A GRIP!

Anonymous said...

Let's see, suspect grabs officers gun, cops shoot suspect. Pretty simple case. Good shoot.

Anonymous said...

How did he have an officers gun when they all fired their weapons? Wipe your chin and read the paper. Get out of a lap once in awhile.

Anonymous said...

Of course it was. To the local Leos here on the shore. Its always OK to say what you want. Even when the evidence says differently. Good thing for you guys is that the locals would never indict a local cop. Way to much power to be on the shore.

Anonymous said...

"If the police again avoided violating his rights" This crap again. Can you please cite the specific rights that were 'violated".

Anonymous said...

I am thankful that I had access to the full article so that I could see this mans photo. Without the photo I had begun to think this was the brother of a friend of mine who suffers from mental illness and slips in and out of this country from time to time. My friends brother is brilliant, crafty, talented, and as mentally ill as you can get. He is his own worst enemy. He has made the FBI watch list because he has threatened public officials routinely and is capable of following up on the threats. If ANY of you who are commenting here knew the size of this problem for law enforcement you would not be so quick to judge. I pray that you never have a family member that is this ill ..but I can assure you that it is a double edge sword and you pray they don't get killed and that THEY don't take the lives of others when they self destruct. There are many sides to every story...just saying. This is a very complex issue to be judged with such flip contempt.

Anonymous said...

7:30 Instead of allowing him to roam, his family should have him locked in a box. Then, LEO's wouldn't have to deal with such nonsense. It's very simple.

Anonymous said...

4:26 They didn't need justification, they already had it. This is just icing on the cake.