First, the complaint about an obscure shooting, predictibly involving a career black bank robber and the Austin Police Department (APD) detective who shot the criminal during a pursuit after a bank robbery.
WaPo by Wesley Lowry November 4, 2015
How Law Enforcement Officers Can Kill Someone And Avoid Prosecution
Families of people killed by police rarely see the officers taken to trial. It was supposed to be different for the children of Larry Jackson Jr.: The Austin police detective who shot and killed Jackson was scheduled to be tried this week for manslaughter.
At the last minute, however, a judge dismissed the case against the white detective, Charles Kleinert, ruling that he was acting as a member of a federal task force in 2013 when he shot Jackson, an unarmed black man.
As a federal agent at the time, the judge ruled, Kleinert is shielded from state prosecution.
The ruling stunned Jackson’s family, whose attorney called it a “great civil rights injustice,” and dismayed the local prosecutor, who has vowed to appeal. Meanwhile, the case is shining a spotlight on a legal tactic rarely used in criminal cases, one that raises the question of when, if ever, a federal law enforcement officer can be charged with a crime for killing someone in the line of duty.
In fact, Kleinert was not given immunity because he was acting as a member of a Federal bank robbery task force, but because the judge in the Federal court looked at the evidence, and determined that Kleinert used a reasonable level of force.
KXAN September 30, 2015 by Chris Sadeghi
“I was crushed. I was devastated,” said Kleinert about Jackson’s death. But when asked multiple times if the actions he took were necessary to his job as an officer, Kleinert stood firm each and every time in saying he was performing his duties.
Although he was an APD employee at the time, Kleinert’s defense team argues because he was serving in the capacity of a federal agent at the time of the July 26, 2013 shooting, the case should be dropped based on a federal immunity statute. They have already successfully convinced Judge Lee Yeakel to try the case in federal court rather than a Travis County District Court.
The hearing to dismiss is expected to last three days with multiple witnesses testifying before Yeakel will make any rulings.
While on the stand, Kleinert said he was serving on the Central Texas Violent Crimes Task Force and investigating a robbery at the Benchmark Bank near Shoal Creek when Jackson approached the bank. After a conversation with Jackson, Kleinert believed him to be a bank fraud suspect and pursued when Jackson tried to run away on foot. After commanding a driver to give him a ride, Kleinert said he encountered Jackson coming out from underneath a bridge over Shoal Creek.
The KXAN article shows just how factually incorrect the WaPo article was. There was no immunity, as Kleinert's was tried in a Federal court on the manslaughter charges, but the judge dismissed the charges based on the facts of the case, e.g. Kleinert was acting reasonably when the black criminal Larry Jackson was killed while resisting arrest. Jackson made several mistakes, aside from the mistake of robbing banks, including the mistake of attacking a police officer who had a gun in his hand while resisting arrest. In fact, it is clear from the testimony that Jackson was killed accidentally.
Which brings us to the local prosecutor, who appears to be a politically motivated member of the terrorist group #BlackLivesMatter, a group that attacks police officers and demonstrates on behalf of black criminals who attack police officers, led by a notorious homosexual and racist Deray McKesson, who also has a strange obsession with puffy vests.
Interestingly, the WaPo supported the transfer of cases involving shootings by Federal agents from State courts in the similar case of Lon Horiuchi, who followed illegal shoot-to-kill orders from FBI managers at Ruby Ridge:
On June 10, 1994, the Task Force delivered its 542-page report to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility. The Report stated: "With regard to the two shots fired on August 22, we concluded that the first shot met the standard of 'objective reasonableness' the Constitution requires for the legal use of deadly force but that the second shot did not satisfy that standard."
Clearly, in the case of Horiuchi, there was no factual basis to remove his case from State jurisdiction, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later determined.
Worse yet, Horiuchi and other Federal agents were not following Department of Justice policy on Use of Force, but using shoot-to-kill orders that violated law and Supreme Court precedent decision:
The Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement (ROE) had been drawn up on the basis of reports from the headquarters of the USMS and FBI, bolstered by unconfirmed news media accounts accepted by HQ, that exaggerated the threat posed by the Weavers.
If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another.Note how at Ruby Ridge, the FBI imposed two use of force policies, the first highlighted policy was in violation of the Department of Justice Use of Force Policy (note the policy governed all law enforcement officers since 1985 after the Tennessee v. Garner decision on use of deadly force by law enforcement officers) and the second highlighted that the DOJ policy was in force for other subjects at Ruby Ridge. The first violated Garner while the second was in compliance with Garner.
Worse yet, WaPo claims that Federal officers aren't charged in State courts, but it is quite frequent for Border Patrol Agents to be charged in State courts for murder, as in the case of Nicholas Corbett, who was charged with murder in the death of an illegal alien smuggler, despite the fact that he was acting in the official scope of his duties. The WaPo deliberately deceives the reader by claiming that all Federal agents are immune from State prosecution, but that is not true. It is a political decision for the Federal government to intervene in such cases where the Federal agent is acting in his official capacity but charged with a State crime for that action.
In the Corbett and Kleinert cases, local prosecutors acted for political reasons where there was no evidence of a crime. Note that the Cochise County prosecutor was so desperate politically to prosecute Corbett, it took two hung juries for the persecution of Corbett to end, and in the case of Kleinert, it was his shooting of a black criminal that engendered prosecution. And note that it was Clinton's war on guns that motivated the interference in the local prosecution of Horiuchi, who was found to have violated DOJ policy in the DOJ's own investigation.
For the prosecution of law enforcement officers, it is clear that who you shoot is more important than the actual facts surrounding the shooting. But one can always rely on the press to get the facts and law wrong, especially if it involves a black or illegal alien. And despite the WaPo's claim that the Federal government doesn't indict Federal agents, look at the cases of Lonnie Swartz, who was indicted for shooting an attacker from across the border.
All this is a case of Cultural Marxists creating a problem that doesn't exist on the behalf of black and Hispanic criminals.