CCW holder shoots off-duty cop (brother-in-law)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's pretend for a bit:

"Hi, I'm Jacob A. Carlson; I work a office gig, and while I am not a blob I'm not particularly hard. I don't earn a living tussling, and I have no desire to tussle. I hate physical confrontations, and frankly I've got enough physical infirmities that tussling is largely out of the realm of possibility. I spend my waking hours working in an office or trying to be a Dad to my spawn. Somewhere along the way, I buy into the notion that a firearm provides a measure of defense against those who would predate against non-tusslers such as myself. In short, I have a firearm specifically because I don't like to tussle and I don't have the time/inclincation/physical capability to become Chuck Norris. I'd rather run than fight, but I'm not about to become chum if I'm backed against a wall."

Now, Ezekiel - is this a "Gun Mentality"? Is it immoral to live such an existance? Is it wrong for someone to carry a firearm who is NOT skilled in physical combat? Do I have to get, say, a brown belt in Taekwondo before I become eligible to carry?

Gimme a break. There are so many presumptions in your arguments vis-a-vis the shooters thoughts, skills, and tools that it boggles the mind. Which gets me right back to my initial comments: "And you intuited the shooters intentions and desires, based on, um, exactly what? You replied:
The fact that he pulled a trigger with a ton of other options.
In your opinion. You don't know that, but there is certainly room for speculation that he did NOT have many options given his physical status.
The fact that he said he was going to (active, present tense) kill.
A verbalization no different that 'stop or I'll shoot". You're creating a straw man around a verbalization that, given what we know, has no context.
The -- presumed -- fact of inebriation, discounting his ability to legally wield, use or make rational judgments regarding the use of a firarm.
Presumed.

Sigh.
 
Gun mentality? I think not. I've been in several situations where, by the laws of the state of Georgia, I would have been legally justified in shooting. I didn't even draw my gun.

Which is why I would have preferred YOU be involved in this situation then a drunken CCW-holder.

In any event, I have seen/been involved in several situations similar to those you describe. I perceive such -- and your actions -- to be the exact opposite of what I would describe as "Gun Mentality(tm)." Judicious application is key, not wondering how a shoot can be "justified."

Also, good call on the "sleeper hold" idea. It (unconsciousness) happens quick, but I think the story implied she was "struggling." That would indicate he wasn't "locked in."
 
I'd rather run than fight, but I'm not about to become chum if I'm backed against a wall.

Now, Ezekiel - is this a "Gun Mentality"? Is it immoral to live such an existance?

Without question.

If you cannot definitively prove you were "backed against a wall." :barf:

"In this case, there's clearly some debate..."
 
#1 He's drunk, hence not as coordinated as he should be.
#2 Cops get some training, but being a cop doesn't make him Bruce Lee.
#3 Do something to his eyes and his ability to successfully fight just took a major nosedive.

I must find fault with #1 here. In my time I've seen two distinct forms of drunken fights. The first being a couple of guys falling all over each other like a scene from Brokeback Mountain. The other is one where coordination isn't all that affected and one party ends up in the hospital after having had their head stomped a few dozen times. IMHE not every drunk in a rage is to use the old term, "falling down drunk."
 
History of violence

Documents detail history of violence
Records show detective killed at family event had been repeatedly disciplined by Akron police
By Ed Meyer and Andale Gross
Beacon Journal staff writers

NEW FRANKLIN - An off-duty Akron police detective fatally shot during a family gathering last week had numerous problems with violent outbursts and arrests for alcohol-related incidents, and Akron police were well aware of them, Summit County court records show.

Records concerning Michael S. Beitko date back to 1992.

Akron Police Chief Michael Matulavich said he chose to suspend Beitko for 30 days in 2001 after an incident in November 2000. He decided to not fire him because Beitko was off-duty, and his wife gave inconsistent statements and didn't want to press charges.

``We have strict rules and regulations, and we certainly apply them when we can prove this is the case,'' Matulavich said. ``Some people say, `Well, he should have been fired after the 2001 (suspension). I made a decision back in 2001, and I stick by it. I don't look back.''

In November 2000, an Akron police captain put in a call to the SWAT team to respond to an incident at Beitko's Cliffside Drive home on the city's west side.

According to those records, Beitko assaulted his wife, ``choking her until she went limp,'' after coming home drunk at 2 p.m. carrying his service weapon.

Nine Akron officers and police supervisors responded to the call from his wife. The SWAT team eventually was called off after Beitko was persuaded to calm down.

Although Ohio law says ``preferred arrest'' is the proper course if the responding officer finds probable cause that domestic violence has occurred, records show Beitko's police career continued because he was not criminally charged.

If he had been charged and convicted, he would not have been able to carry a gun, thus ending his career as an officer.

Ohio law states that an officer can make an arrest for domestic violence without the victim's consent.

``We're not shy when it comes to arresting our own police officers,'' Matulavich said. ``I don't think Mike Beitko was given any preferential treatment.''

Incident in 2005

Matulavich said that after the 2001 suspension, he was aware of no further incidents until November 2005, when officers went to the Beitko home for a domestic incident call and found his wife with bruises, which she blamed on a fall. The chief said Beitko had been drinking.

Beitko was not suspended but was ordered to attend a substance-use evaluation at a local hospital in January. Matulavich declined to name the hospital.

According to Matulavich, a chemical dependency counselor said Beitko ``exhibited a low probability of a substance dependence disorder'' and dependency treatment was not necessary.

``We tried to get this officer help,'' Matulavich said. ``I think we did everything we could as a police department.... There's nothing that I could have done that maybe would have prevented this. It would have been different if I didn't take any action at all.

``Your most valuable resources are your employees. And I think we have an obligation, as does any employer, to get help for them when they need it. And that's what we did.''

Beitko, 41, was fatally shot Wednesday night at his sister's home in New Franklin when her husband intervened after the detective hit his wife and attempted to choke her, tape recordings

of the 911 calls show.

The 911 calls were made to the New Franklin Police Department shortly before 9:30 p.m. by Beitko's sister, Jenny Carlson, who told the dispatcher Beitko was ``very drunk and hitting his wife.''

Carlson's husband, Jacob A. Carlson, 32, was charged with murder. He is to be arraigned in Barberton Municipal Court at 1 p.m. Wednesday.

In the 2000 incident, detailed Akron police records state the first officer responding to Beitko's home was met at the front door by his wife, Suzanne, who was holding one of her children.

Three-page report

Officer Christopher Brown, now a sergeant, wrote a three-page report about his encounter with Suzanne Beitko, stating: ``I observed that she was crying and visibly upset. I asked her what was going on. She stated: `Chris, Mike's got his gun and he's gonna shoot anyone who comes into the house.' ''

After seeing to it that Suzanne Beitko and her two children were safe in his police cruiser, Brown began talking to Michael Beitko to calm him as police supervisors arrived.

They found his ``unloaded pistol sitting on the kitchen table,'' Brown wrote.

Later, after the SWAT team had been called off, Lt. Sylvia Trundle, now a captain, began talking to Suzanne Beitko to find out what had happened.

Trundle wrote: ``She stated that she and Michael got into an argument about his drinking.... She said (he) was just throwing things around the house and yelling but then he put her in a choke hold and she went limp. She said that it scared her because he had never done anything like that before and that was why she called the police.''

Ultimately, she insisted that she did not want her husband charged, telling Trundle, ``He needs help, not charges.''

Michael Beitko was taken out of the home that night and driven to his father's house in Manchester.

But before the night was out, a police captain conferred with the department's legal adviser, an assistant Akron city prosecutor, who ``agreed with me as to how we had handled the situation.... ''

Records show Beitko's troubles with the department began in 1992, six months after he graduated from the police academy.

In November of that year, he was stopped in his car by Cuyahoga Falls police for going 74 mph in a 35 mph zone. An Akron police sergeant was summoned and found Beitko ``to be highly intoxicated.''

The sergeant wrote in his report that he found ``several open containers of alcohol on the front seat and in a cup holder,'' as well as his service weapon.

For that incident, Beitko was convicted of DUI, sentenced to 10 days in rehabilitation at Oriana House and suspended for 10 days for violating department regulations.

His city disciplinary notice concluded with the warning: ``Any continuation of these violations will result in further disciplinary action, which may include discharge.''

Four months after his DUI conviction, Beitko was in trouble for striking a suspect who had been handcuffed behind another officer's patrol car.

That officer said he had to pull Beitko off the suspect after Beitko ``had his hands around the subject's neck.'' Beitko was suspended for 90 days in connection with that incident.
Ed Meyer can be reached at 330-996-3784 or [email protected]. Andale Gross can be reached at 330-996-3743 or [email protected].
 
Ezekiel,
I agree that when there are better options, they should be used before resorting to deadly force. You have not presented any credible "better options" for solving this problem.

Whether or not you have the training, physical capability, focus and decisiveness to first stop and then subdue or chase off the 300lb, drunken and enraged police officer in this situation is not the point. The point is that you expect everyone else regardless of their situation to handle it the way you think you can. Even if they're smaller, poorly trained and have a neck injury.

Before you object to the "subdue or chase off" part, keep in mind that even if you poke at Curly in the eyes and he lets the girl go without breaking her neck, you still have to deal with him. It's easy to say "You deal with things as they come," but it's another thing altogether to actually handle them. This guy was happily choking the life from the woman he married ... you think he won't throw an arm at your already injured neck or something else that will take you out of the fight as soon as you get close enough to jab at his face?

Now, I'll allow that the shooter might have been out for blood. It's entirely possible he's wanted to kill the cop since the day he met him and that this was just a convenient excuse. I've seen no evidence of this, however, and I don't think you have either. The worst that I've seen is that the shooter was likely intoxicated and that may well have affected his judgement.

#1 He's drunk, hence not as coordinated as he should be.
#2 Cops get some training, but being a cop doesn't make him Bruce Lee.
#3 Do something to his eyes and his ability to successfully fight just took a major nosedive.
#1 You're drunk too.
#2 Neither does being a CCW permittee
#3 Neck injuries do too.

Frankly, your argument sounds an awful lot like the people who whinge and moan whenever the police shoot someone.
"Why didn't they shoot the gun out of his hands?!?"
"Why couldn't they have just shot him in the leg?!?"
"Couldn't they just tackle him? He just had a knife!"
"Why didn't they just poke him in the eye? He was only strangling the daylights out of her!"

Now, the shooter is getting tried for murder. That could be for a variety of reasons. Maybe the DA was good friends with Officer Wifebeater. Maybe the shooter delivered a few extra shots after Officer Wifebeater went down. We don't know yet.
 
Now, the shooter is getting tried for murder. That could be for a variety of reasons. Maybe the DA was good friends with Officer Wifebeater. Maybe the shooter delivered a few extra shots after Officer Wifebeater went down.

Or, perhaps he committed murder. :banghead:

You do make some very valid and interesting points, however. Thanks.
 
#1 You're drunk too.
Another good reason to think before you shoot.
#2 Neither does being a CCW permittee
And does it take Bruce Lee's skills to poke someone in the eyes or pull on his ears?
#3 Neck injuries do too.
You can't use a garden hose or poke someone in the eyes with a neck injury?

Frankly, your argument sounds an awful lot like the people who whine and moan whenever the police shoot someone.
My argument is that just because you can justify a shoot doesn't mean it's immediately the first and only thing you should do and try nothing else. Explore alternatives prior to shooting, do it quickly, but do it.

Judging from that fact that he is being charged with murder, someone who does know the facts of the case agrees with me.
 
Or, perhaps he committed murder.
Could be, could be.


Another good reason to think before you shoot.
Yep.
And does it take Bruce Lee's skills to poke someone in the eyes or pull on his ears?
No, but I'm not convinced that poking this guy's eyes or pulling his ears will subdue him or chase him away, so you're still left with engaging in hand-to-hand combat with the dude.
You can't use a garden hose or poke someone in the eyes with a neck injury?
Sure you can. If you're ever in this type of situation, you go get the garden hose. I'll spray down a couple of cats when they're fighting, but I'll try something more effective if it's a 300lb drunk dude strangling some poor woman.
My argument is that just because you can justify a shoot doesn't mean it's immediately the first and only thing you should do and try nothing else. Explore alternatives prior to shooting, do it quickly, but do it.
Agreed.
Judging from that fact that he is being charged with murder, someone who does know the facts of the case agrees with me.
Or is pissed that their fishing buddy got blown away.
 
Do you mean the sweaty mass of grit-infested humanity whose clothes and skin move apart from his skeleton while you grapple? Where the reek of Pabst and Johnny Walker is enough to make you gag, but you cannot take your hands off of him because to do so is to turn the hog loose in the store?

Yeah, whatever. Doubt what you like.

A simple yes or no would suffice. You’ve used a lot of words and said nothing to answer the original contention. Your words and the things you say and describe just don’t pan out in the reality that I know. Now, maybe the drunks in KC are a little softer, maybe you’re the toughest SOB to walk the planet and maybe you’re modest about it, but I seriously doubt that 90% of anyone on any online forum save for www.highspeedlowdragninjas.com could handle the drunk gang-bangers and bikers in Philly or Pittsburgh, let alone actual ‘rough’ places.

Who I have just caused great pain? Negating that "size/bully effect" you seem so in love with, and who has just lost all functional control of the situation? He's going to run or bezerk, either of which is easily countered by space, time, numbers or guile.

Have you ever been in a fight? A real one, where someone has lost their life, or the use of one or all of their limbs, permanently, or where permanent bodily injury has resulted? It doesn’t sound like it. No matter how much pain you case some folks they will keep on coming, period. There are plenty of arrest videos on the net to bear this out, there are plenty of stories and factual accounts and even anecdotal evidence right here on this very board that bears this out, pain is not the equalizer for someone that really wants to fight. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as pit fighting, circuses like the UFC, folks resisting arrests, enemy soldiers continuing to fight on with a bullet wound to the lung, abdomen or whatever.

The fact that alcohol is in play changes things slightly, but in both directions. Someone on alcohol is indeed less coordinated than when they are sober, they are also capable of less rational thought (i.e. the normal mechanisms that go through the brain pans such as “hey, that hurt, maybe I should stop this” don’t always make the rounds when booze and adrenaline is involved), have less restraint and have a good deal better tolerance for pain. They often are unable to realize the gravity of any injuries you cause them, even up to the point of incapacitation. Now, if you have spent so much time down in the dirty as your sideline answer would have one believe, I would think you would know all of this; I can’t imagine that drunks, brawlers and general big bad mofos are all that different where you are.

It sounds like you’re playing academics with real-world events, prescribing exactly what an unknown subject’s response to pain will be when you cannot possibly do that with any degree of certainty.

Which is, of course, why a firearm should have never been brandished until alternative methods -- short of escalating the event into an immediate deadly force encounter -- were tried. A headlock is not deadly force.

A headlock/chokehold coming from a 300lb man on a woman or someone smaller than that man is indeed deadly force (disparity of force).


Then don't introduce it. Ths isn't difficult. You are the one talking all "Rambo." Apply force as necessary to create the release of the headlock. Blowing someone away is overkill.

Okay, now I am convinced that you’ve never been in the dirt fighting for your life. How are you supposed to get into physical contact range with a grown man and prevent exposing your weapon? How do we know that the cop did not know his brother-in-law carried? I mean, they’re part of the same family circle. If the cop knew, where do you think his hands were going to go the minute he realized that this guy was a threat to him? Maybe he’s too drunk to remember, maybe not. Also, the shooter may have had a reasonable fear that the off-duty cop was carrying his own CCW. I don’t recall the mention of pat downs or metal detectors at this family function. Only a fool would get into physical contact range with someone that may be armed and enter into a physical altercation with them…and only a fool would enter into a physical altercation with someone while they were armed themselves.

But of course, apparently, in some world, somewhere, we can know, at the time, that a 300lb raging cop absolutely has no gun on him, and that he does not possess enough strength or coordination to cause grave bodily harm to a female that he has in headlock/chokehold or anyone trying to get in his way, and that if one were to enter into the range of physical altercation, that the cop could not possibly find the shooter’s CCW while grappling (because all you have to do is cause a lot of pain to the cop and that will 100% deter him and end the assault), could not disarm the CCW holder by yanking it out of the holster and shoot him and/or someone else, or simply beat the shooter to death because the shooter is unable to get to his gun during the assault. That's a nice place there, but that’s not where we all live.
 
Enough bickering. Can any of us help?

I just wrote to the folks who wrote the newspaper article and requested some more information. If Mr. Carlson has a defense fund I think we all might want to consider contributing.
 
So far everything looks like a clean shoot. The dead party has a documented history of trying to strangle people...in one previous case he was apparantly NOT drunk because he was on-duty as a cop at the time.

The only thing that could make it go south for the shooter is if he was drinking too. And you know, that just seems unlikely to me. Not only was he armed, he was injured from a previous thing of some sort. I know that under such circumstances *I* wouldn't have more than a single drink, *maybe* two tops.
 
Wow...

I got on this thread late, but I must say, WOW. I listened to the 911 call, read the article and then I see the Armchair quarterback of the century stroll onto the field. .

Yes, the BIL with the injured neck COULD have ninja kicked the 300 lbs cop or maybe even read poetry to him till he calmed down.... Let's seee, hmmm, may not have worked. If he had chosen to close with the 300 lbs <and presumably trained in police procedures, including fighting> cop and tried to do the Kissing Crane move he saw in Karate Kid III, he might have had a 300 lbs cop sitting on his chest pounding out a new drum solo on his face.

Now, let's see, as an armchair Quarterback, I see that this would have been a great idea. Not only did it get the 300 lbs cop off my Sister-in-law, but it also got me that nice new face, care of a plastic surgeon, if I lived through the assault.

Not being trained in holistic a**whooping, I think I shall rely on the old fashioned gun. I shall not go looking for a fight, but if this were presented to me in the same manner and my SIL was turning various shades of purple, I would not hesitate to NOT go in and practice the Flying Squirrell Ninja Moves. I would aim center of mass and squeeze.

From the info here, this was a righteous shoot and the guy did what he had to.



Im out
 
I really think some folks have a "Schoolyard" mentality here. In the real world if your pugilistic undertakings take a turn for the worse, the football coach/shop teacher isn't going to be there to save your bacon. However if some would like to think that they are indeed a man among men after reading "dim mak: touch of death:rolleyes: " more power to them. (There are usually some good deals at estate sales.:neener: )
 
Yes, the BIL with the injured neck COULD have ninja kicked the 300 lbs cop or maybe even read poetry to him till he calmed down.... Let's seee, hmmm, may not have worked.

Yes, of course that's because you forgot the garden hose.


.
 
<smacks Forehead>

How could I have forgotten the tactical gardenhose??? That's right, when I am in a stressful situation where my SIL is being turned into a headless, purple new attraction at a freak show, I shall obviously think of the Tactical garden hose!

Yes, in times of trouble, I turn not to my Glock 19 or my HK P7 <shameful promotion> I turn to the Garden Hose of Doom! Yes, my friend, you too should practice Hose-Fu!

In all seriousness, do any of the armchair quarterbacks really think that in anyone's state of mind in this situation would REALLY think of the hose?

Again, not to get nasty, but you were not there, neither was I. Let's quit the second guessing and just hope the guy beats this.
 
heres a laugh sorta

"``We're not shy when it comes to arresting our own police officers,'' Matulavich said. ``I don't think Mike Beitko was given any preferential treatment.''


he choked his wife out while drunk they called swat out and he didn't get arrested... and thats not preferential treatment? how do you say that with a straight face?
and then folks get a distrust of police and cops can't see why?
if they had held the cop accountable earlier he might be alive.
 
250lb man attacks my wife he gets shot. PERIOD That is why we keep lethal force tools at our disposal. The attacker sounds like he is insane on the tape. Hope the grand jury no bills this guy.
 
The only thing that could make it go south for the shooter is if he was drinking too.

Well according to the article...

``Alcohol appeared to be a factor for all parties involved,'' the detective said.


Or is pissed that their fishing buddy got blown away.
Could very well be.

From the info here, this was a righteous shoot and the guy did what he had to.
Could be, but if he was drinking perhaps his judgment was impaired and perhaps we don't have the whole story.

Ezekiel and I were trying to make the same point. Some people sound eager to call any shooting justified. I'm not saying I think it's not justified until I see something that tells me it isn't. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. But the statement by the detective that "Alcohol appeared to be a factor for all parties involved" raises an eyebrow for sure. Even though I'm not going to shed any tears for this wife beater.

I also tried to make the point that one should consider other alternatives prior to shooting, justified or not. This guy may have had none. There certainly isn't enough information to be sure. The shoot may be justified, but was it absolutely necessary?
 
How could I have forgotten the tactical gardenhose??? That's right, when I am in a stressful situation where my SIL is being turned into a headless, purple new attraction at a freak show, I shall obviously think of the Tactical garden hose!

Yes, in times of trouble, I turn not to my Glock 19 or my HK P7 <shameful promotion> I turn to the Garden Hose of Doom! Yes, my friend, you too should practice Hose-Fu!

Are you actually questioning the stopping power of the garden hose ?

.

I don't care how big, mean, or drunk you are- when you take that drizzle of tepid water in the face, your nervous system instinctively shuts down before the first drip hits the floor.

Armchair quarterback my foot.
I can tell you've never slung rubber in your life.

Put a few years in on the Lawn, and then come back tell us how silly the hose is.

.
 
fight much?

i've heard a lot here from some folks and one in particular whi i believe have been blessed with few real fights. reminds me off those folks who can't understand why it took 5 cops to subdue someone. talking fron a vacum experience wise can do that.i was a small feller and after someone got a well deserved beating resisting got tired of listening to the"they didn't have to " sob sisters. made an offer that still stands . 2 200 pound plus guys can't cuff me in 60 seconds(unless real well trained) without hitting me. all i can do is wiggle and twist and try to get away no strikes allowed either side. one of the sidters got two of her college buds to try almost 500 pounds of beef 20 years ols against a 150 pound 40 year old after 2 1/2 mins they quit i was standing. and i'm not a bad ass.
the folks that talk about stopping someone surprise me. i saw a guy kill another inmate with his bare hands took less than 60 seconds and he did it after the first guy(a rambo type )stuck a sharpened shovel(metal sppon to the uninitiated) all the way though the big guys neck. sharp tip out one side broad part of spoon flush in other side. ship looked a lil like frankenstein. it hurt him but he lived and in less than a min the other gut who was 220 6 1 was dead. and the dead guy was no cherry had killed to get in there. so you wanna spray a guy with water or pepper spray or try to gouge an eye out have at it remember that unlike in your fantasy hes not gonna sit still to let you. and gouging an eye out is ugly....usually most often advocated out loud by those not done it
 
You guys wanna insult me be my guest. I can take it. Apparently you have never been hit in the face with a strong stream of water from a hose. He would let go.
 
Could be, but if he was drinking perhaps his judgment was impaired and perhaps we don't have the whole story.

And that will be one of the hinges at trial if it gets to that. Even if a reasonable person would have acted just as the shooter did, the prosecution will try to make and end-around that the shooter could not have made the best decision possible because his judgment was impaired via the booze. I don't think that will work, but I don't doubt that they'll constantly refer to the shooter as being "drunk".


As far as this notion that many of us all rush in and call every shoot justified, that's not the case for my part. Based on what I know and the information that we have, I say it's justified...new information may solidify that opinion, or it may change it. I reserve the right to analyze new evidence as it comes in and still form an opinion based on what we know now.

The police cay booze was a factor for everyone, but with just that statement, we don't really know the details. They could be covering for their dead buddy, or making him out to be the victim so that they can whitewash the fact that the guy beats the snot out of his wife, chokes people, yet he's still a cop and nothing is done to him.

Or, the shooter could have been 3 sheets to the wind. We don't know, true, but the only person that is explicitly under the influence is the deceased, so we at least know he was tanked, and choking a woman and being violent.
 
Apparently you have never been hit in the face with a strong stream of water from a hose. He would let go.

A fire hose? Yes, absolutely. A Garden hose...no way on this earth. Was this family function at a fire station? I don't think so.

Just consider the differences in pressure between the two hose systems and I think you'll find that expecting a garden hose to stop a violent aggressor is a little short of possible.

I'm not trying to insult you, but let's be serious about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top