The Homicide Report

A story for every victim

The Homicide Report

Luciano Reyes, 35

July 19, 2010, 12:48 p.m.

Luciano Reyes, a 35-year-old Latino, was shot and killed by Los Angeles police Friday, July 16, in the 11900 block of Phillippi Avenue in Pacoima, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.

LAPD officers from the Foothill Division responded to a domestic-violence call about 12:40 a.m., said Officer Sara Faden, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Police Department.

According to preliminary information provided by the coroner's office, Reyes allegedly confronted officers while pointing a gun at them, at which point he was shot.

Detectives are investigating the incident.

-- My-Thuan Tran and Sarah Ardalani

Share a memory or thought about Luciano Reyes

Before you post, here are some answers to frequently asked questions:

Remember, all posts are approved by a Times staffer. Profanity and personal attacks will not be approved.

41 reader comments

Jag,

I think it's safe to say, even if you can't accept it as truth, that none of us, syscom, myself, citizen....etc...support "Killer" cops. Silly to even suggest it. With respect to you're "guarantee" of a murder charge, You show an inability to be objective. You can't guarantee anything. This gun you had that would cause a murder charge, would it be a registered, permitted for carrying gun? or just a piece you would carry just because? In that case, yeah, you might have some trouble with the DA there. I don't have a problem holding cops or anyone else accountable. I don't think people like you have the inside to the truth as much as a preconceived notion that any cop that kills someone is a killer cop. That can only be determined in a court of law. Is that fool proof? of course not. Is there a better way to determine if a cop kills justifiably? I'm not aware of one. I do know that you assuming the Bart cop is a murderer is just you're opinion, which you're entitled to.

— John Aug. 2, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.

John, in my point of view supporting the legal system should not mean supporting killer cops. Also, Scott referred to a "good portion" and not the majority of homicides. If you would have read the entire tread here the term "Intent" came up because it was brought up in regards to the Bart case. If I shoot and kill someone for defending myself I guarantee you I will be charged with murder. The DA will make a case against me. In their view I had an "Intent" to kill a person all along because I had a gun to begin with. I do believe a lot of homicides take place due to a robbery gone wrong or a brawl of some kind where the aggressor had no "Intent" to kill the victim. However, they are charged with murder and in many instances the case is made of having the “intent" to kill a person. Let me be very clear I'm in full support of sending these criminals behind bars. I also happened to believe if a cop murders someone, like in the Bart incident, he should be charged with murder and sent to prison as well. What's wrong with making cops accountable for their actions or incompetency? You, Syscom3 and a few others claim to be very smart and yet you have a problem holding a cop accountable for his action/s.

— jag July 29, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.

@Scott

"I'm certain that a good portion of the homicides reported here the aggressor did not have the INTENT to kill the victim. LOL! Ace, the majority of these homicides are committed with a gun and they are mostly gang related. I'm sure the majority of the gangbangers shooting people only INTENDED to shoot them a little bit to hurt them. "Only people who support KILLER COPS are in the law enforcement community" WOW quite the intelligent statement. The people you refer on this blog support the legal system and the finite measures involved in determining level of intent and therefor the consequences of conviction. You are clearly too blinded by blanket judgement to identify with anything on INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Don't feel alone, I see many with the same unfortunate affliction. Paul619, Jag, you know who you are.

— John July 29, 2010 at 12:06 p.m.

Chris,
Your wrong. If an unarmed crackhead broke into my garage the appropriate action would be to call 911 and than make a citizens arrest and detain him until the police arrived. If he resisted I would hit him with something or punch him in the face until he complied (assuming I didn't have a baton or teaser). Shooting him and killing him when he didn't threaten my life would be murder or manslaughter at the very least.

The LA Times posted this question today: Can forums like the Homicide Report's comments section help people cope with their powerful emotions, which often include a sincere wish for violence to be met with violence?
For you and Syscom3 the answer is YES!
If ranting your biased opinion's make you feel better emotionally than more power to you.

— Paul 619 July 29, 2010 at 11:19 a.m.

Chris, Syscom, Yuri, you all smell like bacon. Only people who support KILLER COPS are people who are part of the law enforcement community. The average citizen would have been sent to jail for murder if he/she would have pulled out a pistol by mistake. I’m certain that a good portion of the homicides reported here the aggressor did not have the INTENT to kill the victim. However, the aggressor is charged with murder and locked away and I’m perfectly fine with that. What I’m not okay with is police officers getting away with murder. It is obvious the judicial system is design to protect these officers and as long as the system is not change they will continue to kill people. I’m for a complete overhaul of the flawed judicial system. Jag and Paul619 I agree with both of your statements in particular with holding police officers responsible for their actions.

— Scott July 29, 2010 at 9:56 a.m.

showmethewar-

I too scan this blog frequently. I've seen 3 constant things in the comments:

1. syscom points out obvious situations where cops or other parties were perfectly justified in the actions they've taken against those who brandished weapons/made aggressive behaviors.

2. he's pointed out certain FACTORS that are common in a large majority of these homicides-drug use/sales, gang affiliation, etc. Spot on.

3. Pointed out family members who claim the deceased were all of a sudden 'angels" who led great lives, helped others, and otherwise were quality human beings who "just made bad choices' and that "only god can judge" and douchebags like you who, because you can't debate the actual facts and logic, throw around the race card and make idiotic accusations.

Please...according to you there are many examples of this "racism"- start posting examples, please.

— Chris July 28, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.

— Paul 619, so you just proved my point. Different levels of criminal conduct resulting in different levels of intent and proof needed for conviction. You made the case for the BART officer to be charged with and convicted of the lesser charges due to it being an accident.

As for the Arizona situation, tell me the facts so I can check up on them. You know the case number or name can you?

As for me being a racist? LOL, show me the quotes! Everyone claims this and that about me, yet no one seems to be able to find the quotes to do me in!

Perhaps both of you are ignoring my other posts where I wish the latino and black communities to have good economic prospects, good schools and quiet and peaceful neighborhoods.

"pseudo-racist" ... LOL, is that political correctness for "I think you're wrong but I cannot debate you"?

"stalk-worthy"? LOL, is that PC for newsworthy? LOL!!

Both you guys crack me up.

And yes, I am judgemental. People who enjoy this blog do tend to be that.

— syscom3 July 28, 2010 at 10:08 p.m.

Syscom3,
Your absolutely wrong. If a kid gives his buddy a ride to rip off the local drug dealer for some weed and his buddy decides to shoot the dealer while he's waiting in the car he too is charged with Murder 1. He didn't "intend" for someone to die, just giving his friend a ride to score free drugs. Murder 1 nonetheless. If a drunk driver strikes a pedestrian with his car and kills them he'll be charged with manslaughter. Obviously he didn't "intend" to do so but is sentenced to 10-15 years. In Arizona a school teacher out hiking was attacked by a homeless guy with a club and his rabid dogs. He shot and killed the man. He didn't "intend" to kill him, just stopping and immediate threat. He was convicted of murder. You post statement's as if you think your Johnnie Cochran reincarnated but your arguments hold no ground.

— Paul 619 July 28, 2010 at 6:33 p.m.

About Syscom3,
Just for the record... I scan the L.A. crime headlines and statistics on a regular basis and aside from the obvious high crime rates in the poorer communities, the only other constant is the racist rants and judgmental comments by Syscom3. He spends a lot of time online writing pseudo-racist remarks about how the death of blacks and Mexicans are justifiable. Plain and simple. If you think I'm making this up, take a look at his comments on this page and hundreds of others, yes hundreds. He waits for someone to say something heartfelt or something he deems stalk-worthy and comments negatively. Always non-remorseful for the victim and usually with a sharp, polite, racist overtone. If we stop communicating with this closet douche, he'll find another site to fondle. You're fueling his behavior, just fyi.

Btw, Syscom3 - I know who you are nice guy.

— showmethewar July 28, 2010 at 5:23 p.m.

YURI,
You nailed it on the head! You said "why shouldn't an officer get the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise?" That's the problem. That's the injustice! Every officer ever since has been given the benefit of the doubt regardless weather they were WRONG or right. Including all of the officer's during the rampart scandal. I think your forgetting that a young innocent man with the rest of his life ahead of him was shot in the back and killed for no reason. Saying it was a "mistake" does not justify his actions. I think a 15 year sentence for 2nd degree murder would have been justice. People get drunk and run over and kill an innocent civilian and do 10-15 years for manslaughter. I'm sure it was a "mistake" and their "intent" wasn't to run over and kill them but they need to be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately the same isn't true for police. Injustice in it's purest form.

— Paul 619 July 28, 2010 at 5:13 p.m.

Hey Jag, it's pretty apparent to many of us that read this blog regularly that you yourself are very biased (by the way, you can't be bias but you can be biased). Every time there is an officer involved shooting, and I mean EVERY time, you accuse the officer of either lying or planting weapons or otherwise being dishonest and you go so far as to regularly accuse all these DIFFERENT officers of being murderers. Why in hell do you think all these different officers would want to go murder people? That's twisted and as I said extremely biasED. And I wouldn't be surprised (again you can't be surprise but you can be surprised) if you were somehow associated with these low life criminals we read about here on a daily basis. So what happened, Jag, did you have a rough time with law enforcement at some point in your life perhaps when you were a young thug criminal? Is that the story here?

— Citizenjohn July 28, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.

Jag,
I agree, but the reason I said "it is what it is" is because we all know that's not the case. It's few and far between that officers are held to the same accountability that we as citizens are. If you can name one time in the history of California that a police officer was convicted of murder for an on the job shooting I would be thoroughly shocked. The BART officer that killed Oscar Grant shot him in the back, point blank, ON CAMERA. He wasn't even handed a murder conviction! It's bureaucracy. It's the code of silence within the police. It's a lot of things. On the other hand we need to understand how hard a police officer's job is. A lot of times criminals are trying to kill police. A lot of times they do kill police! Police are human's and subconsciously make decisions in a fraction of a second just like we do. For us it's swerving out of the way to avoid hitting something in the road. For police it's pulling their gun and shooting. Given the history of officer involved shooting's in Southern California, any criminal that doesn't comply 100% with a cops orders is an IDIOT!!

— Paul 619 July 27, 2010 at 3:28 p.m.

Everybody knows that cops won't hesitate to kill if they feel there life is in danger. Hindsight is 20/20, but when a cop makes a decision to shoot in a split second, in the blink of an eye a life is taken. A lot of times those people didn't deserve to die, and there death is nothing short of murder. Other times the cops justifiably defended themselves. It is what it is. With that said, I don't understand why everyone doesn't just put there hands in the air immediately and comply 100% with any cops orders for fear of being killed. Get caught with a bag of drugs instead of reaching into your pocket to throw it and being killed. I don't go through certain neighborhoods because I don't want to risk being shot. I comply with officers for the same reason.

— Paul 619 July 23, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.

Jbox, I'm outrage at anyone who does not value human life and that includes gangsters and cops! I may express more anger toward cops because they are suppose to protect and serve our communities. I'm amazed on the number of killings by cops where a suspect "appear" to have reached for his waistband or a suspect had a pocket knife or a veteran who protected our country had a mental problem and ended up killed by these incompetent cops. In this story I doubt the suspect even pointed a gun at these murderers. Any story that is one sided meaning that is only reported by cops I question it. I grew up in Boyle Heights and I witnessed a lot of injustices and witnessed a man get killed by cops. It was cruel I tell you. They shot the man and gave him a beating and cuffed him and left him to bleed to death. I kid you not the paramedics took over 30 minutes to arrive. Any one who grew up in a bad neighborhood can attest to many of the injustices and police brutality. If you live in the suburbs it is most likely you have have a different point of view. Don't get me wrong I will support a cop having to really protect himself and or his colleague where is really necessary, but to shoot a suspect and kill him where it could have been avoided is where I have a problem.

— Jag July 23, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.