Austin Police Officer Involved in Shooting

[CowboyMcCoy]

So easy to say after the fact.. yet we still have no idea what happened beforehand.

So basically, you're still operating out of "assumptionland".

Have you actually read the story. They were investigating a bank robbery. This guy tried to get in while police were investigating. The doors were locked. He tried to get in again, the doors were locked. The detective later asked him to identify himself. He ran. He was shot. He was not involved in the bank robbery and was under suspicion of no crime.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Nowhere in the article you posted did it say the detective shot him because he thought he might commit bank fraud in the future, lol.

If you have a news source that actually states that, i'd be glad to take a look.

Also, earlier you said that when the suspect spoke to the detective, it was because he refused to identify himself.. which is also false.

The report clearly states that the bank manager went to get the detective in the first place because the man LIED about who he was.

So basically, you know almost no facts about what the conversation was about, why the guy lied about who he was, what he told the detective, why he started running and what kind of physical altercation took place when the detective caught up to him, or if he started to run again at the time he was shot.

Not to mention the fact that this guy had several previous arrests, including at least 6 in one year, with one conviction.

Again, this is why protesters are largely ignored.. your super strong opinions are rooted in ignorance of the situation at hand.

Like the chalk dog though.. solid job there.

There are sources that have already came out with that fact. Would you like me to post it?

The Austin Police Department has released more information on last Friday's fatal officer-involved shooting. APD Detective Charles Kleinert shot 32-year old Larry Eugene Jackson on Friday night. Kleinert was investigating a bank robbery off 35th Street from earlier that day when Jackson attempted to get into the bank. The detective went to speak with him, but after two to three minutes Jackson ran off. Kleinert followed Jackson under a bridge off Shoal Creek and 35th Street and an altercation ensued, resulting in Jackson being shot and killed. At a press conference on Monday, APD says Jackson provided fictitious identification to a bank employee and was at the bank to commit a fraud -- but they wouldn't say how they know that because the investigation is ongoing. Jackson was shot in the back of the neck by Kleinert while they were under the bridge -- but APD says they are still investigating whether it was intentional or an accident. No weapon was found on Jackson or at the scene of the incident, according to APD. Officer Kleinert has been place on restricted duty with pay.

Read More at: http://www.keyetv.com/news/features...oting-victim-at-bank-commit-fraud-10858.shtml

====

So even if they suspect he was there to commit fraud, do they have to shoot him? And how would they know he was there to commit fraud? Or does that justify the fact they shot him more so if they say that.

Just curious.

And how do you tell if someone was going to commit fraud if they don't do it. I was going to jaywalk, but I waited for the light instead....

 

[FiveRings]

Have you actually read the story. They were investigating a bank robbery. This guy tried to get in while police were investigating. The doors were locked. He tried to get in again, the doors were locked. The detective later asked him to identify himself. He ran. He was shot. He was not involved in the bank robbery and was under suspicion of no crime.

Running from a police officer, (putting strict legal terms aside for a second) makes you under suspicion of crime. Sure there's nothing to prove him guilty, but there's a heck of a lot more innocent things to do than run from the police

 

[RoyTheHammer]

There are sources that have already came out with that fact. Would you like me to post it?

The Austin Police Department has released more information on last Friday's fatal officer-involved shooting. APD Detective Charles Kleinert shot 32-year old Larry Eugene Jackson on Friday night. Kleinert was investigating a bank robbery off 35th Street from earlier that day when Jackson attempted to get into the bank. The detective went to speak with him, but after two to three minutes Jackson ran off. Kleinert followed Jackson under a bridge off Shoal Creek and 35th Street and an altercation ensued, resulting in Jackson being shot and killed. At a press conference on Monday, APD says Jackson provided fictitious identification to a bank employee and was at the bank to commit a fraud -- but they wouldn't say how they know that because the investigation is ongoing. Jackson was shot in the back of the neck by Kleinert while they were under the bridge -- but APD says they are still investigating whether it was intentional or an accident. No weapon was found on Jackson or at the scene of the incident, according to APD. Officer Kleinert has been place on restricted duty with pay.

Read More at: http://www.keyetv.com/news/features...oting-victim-at-bank-commit-fraud-10858.shtml

====

So even if they suspect he was there to commit fraud, do they have to shoot him? And how would they know he was there to commit fraud? Or does that justify the fact they shot him more so if they say that.

Just curious.

And how do you tell if someone was going to commit fraud if they don't do it. I was going to jaywalk, but I waited for the light instead....

Would i like you to post it? That's exactly what i asked, isn't it? lol, geeze McCoy.

Now then, after reading what you just posted, you really gave me no new information, did you?

We confirm that the guy lied about who he was, and ran off when the detective was questioning him about that.

You ask.. even if they suspect (or know) that he was there to committ fraud, do they have to shoot him?

Answer: Certainly not.. and if he would have never tried to flee from the detective or engage him in a physical confrontation, he'd still be alive right now, sans bullet holes.

Don't sit here and act like they shot him because he was going to committ fraud though, no one here is that stupid to buy that load of manure.

As to your last question of how they knew he was there to committ fraud.. well that's just ANOTHER fact that you don't know, because again, you don't know what was said to the bank manager or the detective before the guy fled.

Honestly, you're furthering my point with each post you make, man.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Roy, if the man didn't have a weapon, and he didn't, then what would justify shooting him in your mind?

 

[Nova]

It's sad that a man had to lose his life.

Who knows what happened? We'll really just have to wait and see, but as of now everything seems sloppy-- it seems as though there were errors on both ends.

But as someone who has friends in blue, I can tell you that most people just have no clue how hectic things can get on the job. Most don't understand how often things like this happen where the cop is the one that loses.

Just a few months ago a buddy of mine on the Dallas force was pursuing a guy on foot when he rounded a corner and got smacked in the face with a bat, or a board, or something-- he doesn't really know since he was out cold on impact. He just woke up in the hospital with several stab wounds around his rib cage where his vest didn't protect him.

You'd be amazed how often stuff like this happens. Law enforcement officials are human too. Stuff like that is in the backs of their minds when they go out to patrol, so why give them a reason like Mr. Jackson did... especially if you're not guilty of anything?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Roy, if the man didn't have a weapon, and he didn't, then what would justify shooting him in your mind?

If the police were questioning him about lying about his identity and providing a fake identification, and then the man ran off, and the police detective told him to stop numerous times, and finally caught up with him and then the man tried to put his hands on the policeman.. that's bad enough. Furthermore, again YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

When the detective caught up to the guy and he tried to fight the police detective.. how does he know that the guy doesn't have a gun at that point? If he's crazy enough to flee a member of the police force and then also crazy enough to put his hands on him, as well.. just because you find out after the fact that he didn't have a weapon doesn't mean they know that as they are chasing the guy, right? Think for a second before you ask these things, man. Its always easier to question things in hindsight.. but for all you know the guy could have threatened his life as he was trying to physically assault the police detective.

The point again.. YOU. DON'T. KNOW.

So acting like the detective wasn't justified is silly.. until you know all the relative facts. Again, this is why protesters are largely ignored. You're out there trying to whip people into a frenzy without full knowledge of what you're even protesting.. its based in ignorance.

 

[Smith22]

False name/info to the bank manager. Then he runs from a detective.

Doesn't sound very innocent, but then again shooting someone in the back of the neck doesn't sound like self defense.

Either way, more facts are needed.

 

[Smith22]

Roy, if the man didn't have a weapon, and he didn't, then what would justify shooting him in your mind?

I would say a physical attack where the cop was in a life or death situation. Or a situation where the suspect has control of the officers firearm.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

If the police were questioning him about lying about his identity and providing a fake identification, and then the man ran off, and the police detective told him to stop numerous times, and finally caught up with him and then the man tried to put his hands on the policeman.. that's bad enough. Furthermore, again YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

When the detective caught up to the guy and he tried to fight the police detective.. how does he know that the guy doesn't have a gun at that point? If he's crazy enough to flee a member of the police force and then also crazy enough to put his hands on him, as well.. just because you find out after the fact that he didn't have a weapon doesn't mean they know that as they are chasing the guy, right? Think for a second before you ask these things, man. Its always easier to question things in hindsight.. but for all you know the guy could have threatened his life as he was trying to physically assault the police detective.

The point again.. YOU. DON'T. KNOW.

So acting like the detective wasn't justified is silly.. until you know all the relative facts. Again, this is why protesters are largely ignored. You're out there trying to whip people into a frenzy without full knowledge of what you're even protesting.. its based in ignorance.

The detective wasn't justified. He shot an unarmed man in the back of the neck. The fact you think that's justified, even if he had ran or put his hands on the officer shows just how little thought you've put into the whole thing. The thing is, police are supposed to train for these things. And the fact is, Kleinert should have called for a cop with more training to do field work and/or someone with a taser. He could have trailed the guy. He didn't have to confront him at any point since all he had was a gun. I do know that. And nothing you can say is ever going to justify why he shot an unarmed man in the BACK OF THE NECK.

Saying you're ignorant about basic rights would be an understatement.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

The detective wasn't justified. He shot an unarmed man in the back of the neck. The fact you think that's justified, even if he had ran or put his hands on the officer shows just how little thought you've put into the whole thing. The thing is, police are supposed to train for these things. And the fact is, Kleinert should have called for a cop with more training to do field work and/or someone with a taser. I could have trailed the guy. He didn't have to confront him at any point since all he had was a gun. I do know that. And nothing you can say is ever going to justify why he shot an unarmed man in the BACK OF THE NECK.

Saying you're ignorant about basic rights would be an understatement.

You continue to realize that you don't have enough factual information to make a judgement of whether the shooting was justified or not.. i'll leave it at that.

Have fun at your protests..

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

You continue to realize that you don't have enough factual information to make a judgement of whether the shooting was justified or not.. i'll leave it at that.

Have fun at your protests..

I realize there are plenty of facts and your assertion is mere wishful thinking on your part.

Shooting someone in the back is never justified and is a coward move by anyone. I'll make sure never to offend you by not giving you information so you won't shoot me in the back and act like it's cool.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Shooting someone in the back is never justified and is a coward move by anyone. I'll make sure never to offend you by not giving you information so you won't shoot me in the back and act like it's cool.

The bolded statement is unquestionably false.. and this entire post shows your immaturity in speaking about matters like this.

Let's let it go.. and again, i hope you have fun at your protests.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

After reading RTH's nonsense, I'm reminded of the Black Panther Party of Defense days when the police shot a black man and then planted a gun next to him to make it seem like he was carrying. I'm never amazed anymore, though, by the stupefied notions of people these days to just blindly trust authority because it's meant to be good. So, by that logic, these entities must be doing good. That's not smart thinking at all. In fact, that's mildly ********.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The bolded statement is unquestionably false.. and this entire post shows your immaturity in speaking about matters like this.

Let's let it go.. and again, i hope you have fun at your protests.

So shooting an unarmed man in the back takes bravery? Skill? Talent? What does it take to justifiably shoot an unarmed man in the back? I can't wait to hear your response.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

After reading RTH's nonsense, I'm reminded of the Black Panther Party of Defense days when the police shot a black man and then planted a gun next to him to make it seem like he was carrying. I'm never amazed anymore, though, by the stupefied notions of people these days to just blindly trust authority because it's meant to be good. So, by that logic, these entities must be doing good. That's not smart thinking at all. In fact, that's mildly ********.

Listen.. don't blame me because you say stupid things and then have no way to back them up, lol.

Speaking of nonsense.. that's exactly what this entire post is.

You stated that there is never a jusifiable reason for shooting someone in the back.

If you don't understand that you are completely wrong by saying that.. that's your fault, not mine.

A tip, instead of holding up stupid signs and drawing little green chalk doggies on the sidewalk.. how about you go into your local municiple center or police station and try to actually FIND OUT some of the relevant facts to this case? Of course you'll have to wait until after the investigation is complete, but it would do you alot more good than standing out on the street yelling about things you don't have relevant information about..making yourself look foolish.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

So shooting an unarmed man in the back takes bravery? Skill? Talent? What does it take to justifiably shoot an unarmed man in the back? I can't wait to hear your response.

Did he know that the man was unarmed before he shot him?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Listen.. don't blame me because you say stupid things and then have no way to back them up, lol.

Speaking of nonsense.. that's exactly what this entire post is.

You stated that there is never a jusifiable reason for shooting someone in the back.

If you don't understand that you are completely wrong by saying that.. that's your fault, not mine.

A tip, instead of holding up stupid signs and drawing little green chalk doggies on the sidewalk.. how about you go into your local municiple center or police station and try to actually FIND OUT some of the relevant facts to this case? Of course you'll have to wait until after the investigation is complete, but it would do you alot more good than standing out on the street yelling about things you don't have relevant information about..making yourself look foolish.

Looking foolish is acting like there is any good reason to shoot an unarmed person in the back. Can you answer that question, RTH? When can one justifiably shoot an unarmed person in the back?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Did he know that the man was unarmed before he shot him?

We've already established that at no point was a weapon found on Jackson. You can't really be this dense, can you?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I would say a physical attack where the cop was in a life or death situation. Or a situation where the suspect has control of the officers firearm.

We know this wasn't the case, though, because he was shot in the back of the neck.