The killing of Larry Eugene Jackson, Jr., by Austin police

Last Friday, an Austin Police Department detective shot and killed Larry Eugene Jackson, Jr., a black man. The detective, Charles Kleinert, was investigating a bank robbery that had happened earlier that day (to which Jackson was not connected). From the linked article:

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.

 [...]

Police said that Kleinert, dressed in plain clothes and displaying his APD credentials on his shirt collar, took off on foot after Jackson – why, exactly, Kleinert felt the need to initiate the pursuit remains unclear. (With video of Jackson and info about his "fictitious" ID in hand it would seem Jackson could be found later.)

Kleinert apparently felt the need to not only follow Jackson on foot, but actually commandeered a nearby vehicle, ordering the driver to follow Jackson:

When the pair drove up to a bridge that spans Shoal Creek, Kleinert spotted Jackson, who the source said was merely walking along the sidewalk. Kleinert reportedly said, "There he is!" before jumping out of the car. Shaken, the motorist drove away and subsequently called police.

According to [APD Assistant Chief Brian] Manley, Kleinert 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.

There are, of course, the usual attempts to discredit the victim and put him on trial posthumously: he shouldn't have run, he was suspicious, the police are sure he was "up to no good". But the most incredible part of the story, to me, is this:

Manley said that Kleinert's reasons for taking immediate action would be explored during the department's criminal and administrative inquiries into the shooting. The department will "have a better idea [of] what his intentions were" and "what was his mindset" as the investigation proceeds, Manley said.

This is very curious wording. Kleinert's "intentions". His "mindset". I'm no expert on police protocol, but it seems to me like the department's investigation ought to focus, first and foremost, on Kleinert's actions. Those actions include abandoning an ongoing robbery investigation to aggressively pursue a nonviolent individual not actually connected with any crime, then shooting and killing him. It's difficult for me to imagine a set of circumstances in which those actions are compatible with responsible police work. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be truly exceptional. Manley's wording, though, implies that there's definitely a reason Kleinert did what he did, and once that's discovered, all will make sense.

This framing of intentions and mindset is very familiar from the George Zimmerman case. Zimmerman was acquitted by the jury because (ostensibly) there was no proof that he intended to kill Trayvon Martin. Never mind that all of his actions up to that point were totally irresponsible and unnecessary. We are meant to suspend any consideration of Zimmerman's actions up to the actual physical confrontation--or to buy into the racist idea that Zimmerman was justified in following Martin--and pin the entire burden of responsibility on a single piece of intangible, untraceable, unknowable evidence. See also this article in the Washington Post about the difficulty of bringing federal hate crime charges against Zimmerman:

“The Department of Justice couldn’t bring this case unless they believe they could prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because of his race,” said Rachel Harmon, a law professor at the University of Virginia and a former prosecutor in the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

“It’s not enough to show that Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because of his race,” Harmon added. “They would have to show that he attacked Martin for that reason. . . . Proving that motive is why it’s hard to bring hate crime charges in general and why it is likely to be hard to bring them in this case.”

Effectively, you can't prove racism unless you have psychic insight into an actor's mind. That's awfully convenient for racists.

[Credit goes to Melissa at Shakesville for links to the above news articles.]