Police Abuse

Man Who Austin Cop Chased, Shot, Killed Not Suspected of Any Particular Crime But May Have Been Up to No Good


Another harrowing adventure in modern policing, where every encounter can turn suddenly, inexplicably, pointlessly fatal–for the person the cop encounters.

Sick details from Austin Chronicle:

At a press conference Monday afternoon,Austin Police Assistant Chief Brian Manleyacknowledged that the fatal shooting Friday of Larry Eugene Jackson, Jr. by an APD detective was more complicated than initially described….

Manley said police are "confident" that Jackson – shot and killed by APD Detective Charles Kleinert on Friday afternoon – had come to the Benchmark Bank where the detective was investigating an earlier (unrelated) robbery to "commit a fraud" and was not there to conduct any legitimate business.

Jackson misidentified himself when he was questioned by the bank manager that afternoon outside the bank on West 35th Street. Jackson had previously tried to enter the bank, police said, but the door was locked because of the ongoing robbery investigation. Jackson briefly left, police say, then returned and tried again to enter the bank before he was confronted by the manager, who in turn told Kleinert, who was inside the bank conducting a follow-up investigation of the morning robbery, about the exchange. Kleinert went outside to talk with Jackson and after a two- or three-minute conversation – captured by surveillance cameras – Jackson fled, police say.

Although police say they've ruled out any connection between Jackson and the robber who struck the facility that morning….Manley told reporters at a Monday press briefing that they are nonetheless certain that Jackson was up to no good.

So, then Kleinert commandeered a citizen's car to drive after Jackson–the motorist in question found Kleinert's behavior bizarre and disturbing and "out of control"–and when he drove around and saw Jackson walking on a sidewalk, he:

followed Jackson under the bridge near the Shoal Creek Trail and there a scuffle ensued; Jackson was shot once, in the back of the neck. He died just before 4:30 pm, police said. Manley said police are still trying to determine what happened during the altercation and whether Kleinert's gun was fired "intentionally or accidentally."

Police couldn't really explain exactly how or why they thought the dead man was going to "commit a fraud" on the bank. 

And what is APD policy on such chasing of people suspected of being suspicious?.

"flight by a subject who is not suspected of criminal activity shall not serve as the sole justification for engaging in a foot pursuit without the development of reasonable suspicion regarding the individual's involvement in criminal activity," reads APD's policy on foot pursuit. 

Yep, you hear about this kind of horrible crap a lot around this blog.

Hat tip: Radley Balko.

NEXT: Report Says Alex Rodriguez Faces Immediate Suspension for Steroid Use

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He got cash money on his tee-shirt. That’s a federal crime. I think.


    1. He’s obviously a counterfeiter. Case closed.

  2. Does it really look that bad to say they’re investigating the shooting? Do they really think immediately circling the wagons and making shit up lends credibility to whatever final determination they feed us?

    1. If they make up something credible, then yes.

  3. Disband the police already.

    1. Dogs will breed out of control.

  4. If their excuse is suspicion of acting suspiciously, why not arrest each other, or themselves? Quotas would be maxed out!

  5. The different standard for a citizen walking around and cops is really amazing. Where’s the outcry? The months of media coverage? Fucking crickets.

    1. If you question a police shooting, you question government authority. And those days are over for our friends on the left.

      1. Then what’s the point in their existence? If they aren’t interested in defending even the most basic civil liberties, then fuck them.

  6. Yeah, I can’t think of another way to describe this than outright murder.

    Though if you’ll forgive me, I won’t be holding my breath for punishment.

    1. The policeman’s gun discharged, and the bullet became lodged in suspect’s neck.

      1. Of course, the gun is going to blame it on the bullet.

        1. Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people.

  7. I’m confident that, once the police search the new-fangled XML U.S. Criminal Code, they’ll find what they’re looking for. The “Justified” stamp ink will hardly have dried.

    1. The blank forms come pre-stamped.

  8. How can you be concerned with such trivial matters as cops routinely shooting unarmed black men who aren’t committing crimes when a RACIST THUG like George Zimmerman is standing his ground all over the place? Let’s focus on the real issues, people.

    1. You see, those ‘Merica-hating libertarian types won’t let police officers do their jobs, so racist vigilantes like Zimmerman step in to fill the void. If only they would accept unconditional police surveillance everywhere, these things wouldn’t happen.

  9. Shot in the back of the neck. So he was executed. Got it. All clear now. Thanks.

    1. Hey, if you read every newspaper in the country looking for police misconduct, you’re bound to find a few isolated incidents every now and then.

      1. You’re more likely to find many “isolated incidents” frequently.

    2. Yeah but it was the gun. The gun discharged into the back of his neck.

      Give that gun the chair!

  10. Well, the cop at least complied with APD’s policy. He didn’t engage in a forbidden “foot pursuit” of a citizen who was not suspected of any crime. He commandeered a car, instead.

    Good shoot! Officer went home at the end of his shift! Force continuum applied (scuffle, THEN shoot in the back of the neck)! Totality of circs! ATFAPAPIC!

    1. So, to recap…if they tell you to get out of your car and you do, they shoot you. If they go to the wrong house and you’re out in your yard with a gun, they shoot you. If you tell them to move their car out of your parking lot, they shoot you. If you’re lying in bed, they kick in the bedroom door and you reach for a flashlight, they shoot you.
      Let’s cut to the chase, exactly what can you do so they don’t shoot you?

      1. Let’s cut to the chase, exactly what can you do so they don’t shoot you?

        Join the gang.

        1. Even then, you’d better stay away from any mildly dangerous characters, or you’re liable to take a friendly bullet from panic fire.

    2. This is especially troubling to me. I can understand how commandeering of a private vehicle could be considered legal in certain very limited circumstances, but how the fuck is it so where the vehicle owner is ordered to do the driving? Aren’t the cops supposed to order the driver out of the vehicle before using it to pursue an allegedly potentially dangerous suspect?

      1. I actually use this in my CHL class. As in “Cops don’t really jump into your car and tell you to chase someone like they do in the movies, since there are way to many was that could go wrong.”

        Now I have to come up with an even dumber example of an officer requesting assistance. If there is one.

  11. whether Kleinert’s gun was fired “intentionally or accidentally.”

    Ordinarily, this would only matter if the DA was trying to figure out whether to charge murder or manslaughter. Why they’re looking into in this case, I can’t imagine. We’ll all know Kleiner isn’t going to be charged here.

    1. They need to figure out whether they can just call it an accident, or whether they have to make a claim that the deceased was reaching for a weapon of some kind.

    2. They need to research whether their liability exposure is greater for a claim of negligence (accident) or a civil rights violation (intentional)?

  12. Romans 13:1-2, New International Version
    1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

    Titus 3:1
    Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,

    1 Peter 2:13
    Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority,

    1. Romans 13 is always a fun one to play with. Romans 13:4 says of rulers that “They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” If a party does not punish wrongdoers, are they really God’s servant? Say, if they allow cops who kill people without just cause to go free?

      1 Peter 2:13 appears straightforward, but it has been analyzed in greater depth. It has been argued that “for the Lord’s sake” is a conditional term. That if God is righteous, then God won’t command believers to engage in unrighteous acts. If anyone were to command a believer to do an unrighteous act (say, murder) then that person is not a Godly authority.

      Hair-splitting? Yes. But what’s the fun of theology if you don’t get to try and make God say what you want?

      There are precendents for resistance to tyrants in the Bible as well. David resisted Saul, the first king of Israel for years, though he never killed Saul, despite having the opportunity to do so.

      1. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

  13. Their lives are sacred, superior and most important…..yours means nothing in our Police State. There will be no “police parade” of pompous circumstance for this guy…who died in the line of being a citizen.

    “Police couldn’t really explain exactly how or why they thought the dead man was going to “commit a fraud” on the bank. “

  14. OK wow, so why didnt I think of that?


  15. Another candidate for Officer-of-the-Year Award for Uncommon Valor.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.