In a deeply unsettling turn of events that underscores the volatility of even seemingly familiar relationships and the perils of private commerce conducted outside conventional parameters, a man identified as Artashes Barsegyan, age 41, died following a failed robbery attempt in Santa Monica. According to the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner, Barsegyan succumbed to gunshot injuries sustained during a botched heist that unfolded amid an after-hours business meeting. The incident has now spiraled into a high-profile criminal investigation, culminating in the arrest of Karen Melikyan—also 41—who is now facing multiple felony charges, including homicide, armed robbery, and conspiracy.

The events that led to the fatal encounter occurred on Sunday, May 18, at approximately 9:30 p.m. in the 1300 block of Santa Monica’s iconic Third Street Promenade. While this vibrant stretch of pedestrian-friendly real estate is typically bustling during daylight hours with shoppers, diners, and tourists, it had long since quieted for the evening when Santa Monica Police received reports of an assault involving a deadly weapon. The call launched an urgent police response to a closed business establishment, where officers would encounter a chaotic scene revealing the aftermath of a criminal plot gone violently awry.

The initial facts, as laid out by law enforcement, suggest a crime of both premeditation and opportunism, wherein trust was exploited and familiarity used as a tool for infiltration. A local business owner—whose name remains undisclosed for privacy and safety reasons—had arranged a private, after-hours meeting with an individual he personally knew. This individual, later revealed to be Karen Melikyan, was labeled a “known associate” by authorities. The setting was one of presumed confidentiality and trust, a controlled environment arranged for a sale of undisclosed nature. But behind the veil of a simple transaction lurked a coordinated plan of attack.

Once the meeting commenced, the encounter swiftly escalated. A second man—Artashes Barsegyan—entered the premises during the exchange. Unlike Melikyan, Barsegyan was not expected by the business owner, and his presence marked the beginning of what police have called a targeted robbery scheme. According to investigators, Barsegyan deployed a chemical irritant against the business owner. While authorities have yet to specify the type of irritant used, it was described as part of the pair’s planned effort to incapacitate their victim and seize valuable items or funds.

Chemical irritants—often pepper sprays or harsher, incapacitating agents—have become increasingly common tools among robbers seeking to disable victims quickly without deploying firearms. The intention in this case seemed clear: to overwhelm the victim, render him defenseless, and execute a robbery with minimal resistance. But the plan failed to anticipate the owner’s preparedness and legal armament.

What transpired next is a case study in the chaos and unpredictability of such encounters. The business owner, who was legally licensed to carry a firearm, reacted to the assault by drawing his weapon and firing on Barsegyan. It was an act of self-defense in a moment fraught with fear, aggression, and the instinct for survival. Barsegyan, critically wounded, was rushed to a nearby hospital, where attempts to save his life proved unsuccessful. He was later pronounced dead, capping the incident in tragedy and raising questions about the motivations, planning, and ultimate failure of the heist.

While Barsegyan’s story ended in death, the spotlight quickly shifted to Karen Melikyan, the surviving alleged conspirator. Unlike his associate, Melikyan sustained no injuries during the robbery attempt. He reportedly cooperated with investigators following his detainment, though such cooperation has not shielded him from the full weight of legal repercussions. He has since been arrested and is being held on suspicion of homicide, armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. These charges suggest that prosecutors view the criminal plot as deeply coordinated and potentially deadly in intent from the outset.

Melikyan’s bail has been set at $2 million, an indicator of both the seriousness of the charges and the perceived flight risk or danger he may pose to the community. His next court appearance is scheduled to take place at the LAX Superior Courthouse in Westchester, an early but critical moment in what may become a lengthy judicial process. As the legal system gears up to assess the charges in detail, investigators are continuing to piece together the full scope of the crime.

A crucial element under scrutiny is the nature of the relationship between Melikyan and Barsegyan. How long had they known one another? Was this their first criminal act together, or were there previous attempts or discussions? Such questions are central to understanding whether this event was an isolated episode born of desperation or part of a broader pattern of predatory behavior. The fact that Barsegyan, like Melikyan, was 41 years old suggests a shared generational context. It is unknown if they shared geographic ties, employment histories, or criminal records, but these will undoubtedly form the basis of the detectives’ inquiry.

Also under review is the planning that preceded the event. How did Melikyan convince the business owner to meet late at night, after hours, and in a private capacity? What was the nature of the transaction—was it cash-based, involving valuable merchandise, or something else? Authorities have yet to disclose what was being exchanged, but the fact that the meeting was arranged with such specificity points to a transaction of considerable value.

Detectives Martin Jauregui and Chad Goodwin of the Santa Monica Police Department are leading the investigation. Both have urged members of the public to come forward with any information that may assist the case, including video surveillance, eyewitness accounts, or any knowledge of prior interactions between Melikyan and the deceased Barsegyan. These appeals reflect a recognition that crimes of this nature often have peripheral witnesses—people who might have noticed strange behavior, overheard suspicious conversations, or seen unusual activity in or around the Third Street Promenade area that night.

The business owner who fired the fatal shot has not been charged with any crime. Police have confirmed that the weapon was legally possessed and that the shooting was carried out in self-defense. California law allows for the use of deadly force in situations where a person reasonably fears for their life or safety, particularly within their place of business or residence. The lack of charges against the shooter indicates that authorities are treating him as a victim of the crime, rather than a participant in its escalation.

Nevertheless, the event has shaken the local community. Santa Monica, known for its upscale ambiance, beachfront tranquility, and bustling tourist economy, is not often the site of deadly robberies. The Third Street Promenade, in particular, is considered one of the city’s safest and most monitored areas. While the attack occurred after hours in a closed establishment, its location alone has drawn heightened attention. For many, it serves as a reminder that crime can erupt in even the most seemingly secure and familiar environments, particularly when trust is exploited and routine transactions turn into traps.

The implications of this case extend beyond the immediate tragedy. It reignites debates around the balance between lawful gun ownership and public safety. The business owner’s use of a firearm—in what appears to be a textbook case of justified self-defense—will likely be cited in broader discussions about Second Amendment rights, especially as they pertain to private citizens protecting their lives and livelihoods against violent crime.

Moreover, the incident draws attention to the dangers inherent in after-hours dealings, particularly those involving large sums of money or valuable goods. Many small business owners, entrepreneurs, and dealers conduct informal, private transactions, often due to scheduling constraints or the need for discretion. Yet these very factors—discretion, privacy, lack of witnesses—can also render such encounters more dangerous. The Santa Monica case serves as a chilling example of what can go wrong when presumed trust is weaponized.

Law enforcement has reiterated that this appears to be an isolated incident with no ongoing threat to the broader community. Nonetheless, the meticulous nature of the investigation suggests that authorities are leaving no possibility unexamined. One area of ongoing focus is whether any third parties were aware of or involved in the planning of the robbery. Was this a two-man operation, or were there other individuals—informants, planners, suppliers—working behind the scenes? Detectives will be combing through phone records, social media accounts, financial transactions, and other digital breadcrumbs in the coming weeks in pursuit of answers.

As for the deceased, Artashes Barsegyan, little public information has been released regarding his background. It is not clear whether he had a prior criminal record, what his profession was, or what motivated him to participate in such a high-risk crime. His death adds to the growing statistics of criminal suspects killed in the course of active robberies—a sobering reminder of the real and often fatal consequences of such decisions.

For Karen Melikyan, the road ahead is now dominated by the criminal justice system. The charges of homicide, armed robbery, and conspiracy each carry severe penalties, and together they represent a potentially life-altering legal threat. Whether Melikyan intends to plead guilty, seek a plea deal, or mount a defense remains to be seen. His cooperation with authorities may weigh in his favor during court proceedings, but the central facts—his presence at the scene, his relationship with Barsegyan, and the fatal outcome—will remain at the heart of any judicial deliberation.

The incident has also brought renewed attention to the role of surveillance and community reporting in preventing and responding to violent crimes. Businesses near the scene are being asked to review security footage, while residents are encouraged to report any suspicious activity, no matter how minor it may seem. In a city that prides itself on safety and community vigilance, these small acts of awareness can be instrumental in building a case or preventing the next tragedy.

As the investigation continues, and as prosecutors prepare their formal charges against Melikyan, the Santa Monica case remains a stark illustration of how trust, opportunity, and premeditated violence can intersect in deadly fashion. It is a story of failed crime, swift self-defense, and the irreparable consequences of a moment that spiraled beyond anyone’s control. For the family of Artashes Barsegyan, it is a time of mourning; for the alleged conspirator Karen Melikyan, a reckoning awaits; and for the business owner who pulled the trigger, life will likely never return to what it was before 9:30 p.m. on that fateful Sunday night.