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

[Biker]

One of the reasons I like my Taurus 450 so much is the fact that it is a helluva "pistol whupper". Because of the close proximity of the wrestling bodies, I might have tried pistol whuppin' him first out of fear of harming the woman with possible high-speed skull fragments if I shot him. Hard to say. I might have buried my Gerber Mark II in his neck or eye. In any case, I would have made sure that the cop ceased his anti-social activities quick, fast and in a hurry.
I have real problems with men who hurt women, especially if the women are family.
The guy did what was required, I believe.

Biker

 

[ebd10]

Allow me to shed some light on the subject; as a 300 pound, (former) drunk, I can tell you with some authority that an enraged 300 pound drunk will not be dissuaded by anything less than devastating force. Hoses, harsh language, or anything less than a taser are worthless against someone like that.

If you attack such an individual with anything less than full commitment, you are setting yourself up for a trip to the ER.

Good shoot.

 

[Father Knows Best]

One of the reasons I like my Taurus 450 so much is the fact that it is a helluva "pistol whupper". Because of the close proximity of the wrestling bodies, I might have tried pistol whuppin' him first [snip]

"pistol whuppin'" is a good way to lose your pistol. If lethal force is called for, then warn, if possible, and squeeze the trigger, if necessary. If lethal force isn't called for, then your pistol should be in your holster.

 

[Biker]

You're probably right, but things aren't always so black and white in the real world. Pistol whuppin' has worked for me in the past. Think I'll keep it in my toolbox.

Biker

 

[Byron Quick]

I've two main problems with the posts decrying the shooter's actions as precipitate due to not trying other less than lethal methods prior to shooting the assailant.

One also is relevant to the folks who maintain it is a good shoot although many who do so correctly include the caveat relating to the facts as reported. I've seen enough error and outright incompetence in various journalistic reports that I view all news reports with a jaundiced eye.

My other main beef is with the blithe assumption that the other 'less than lethal' options would work fast enough to do the victim any good,i.e, before she was dead or had sustained grave injury.

I've spent a good deal of time on the mat in the dojo. And I've spent a good bit of time doing it for real here and there. I spent fifteen years repossessing, skip tracing, and collecting bad debts. Often in neighborhoods the police came into only two to a squad car.

I've removed a man from a party after he broke his girlfriend's nose and while he was merrily trying to add other facial fractures to the mix. I used a carotid choke and after that cut down the blood flow to his brain, I was able to get an additional hold that rendered him easily controllable. But, people, let me tell you something-that darn choke can kill. It's not a silver bullet or a magic wand. None of the hand to hand stuff is. Most effective unarmed techniques-used in real fights-can be lethal. And you don't really have control over the lethality. Much of it depends on the opponent's reaction.

I'll give an example. Various joint locks must be applied to almost the level of force required to fracture the joint and/or bone to be effective. Often, the instinctive action of the opponent is to try to pull away. If they pull away in the right direction, they add the additional force to break the joint themselves.


I don't know the extent of the shooter's neck injury. I do know, from personal experience, how injury can change your rules of engagement. I've had a cervical spinal cord tumor and a thoracic spinal cord tumor removed. One result of the surgery is that several of my vertebrae from about mid-neck to the level of the bottom of my shoulder blades has the rear portion removed. I don't know how hard a blow I could take to my head before vertebrae in my neck dislocated. I do know that force is less than it would be for a normal spine. I also know I'm not going to find out how hard a blow I can withstand without permanent paralysis. Had a stroke a couple of years ago. My balance is iffy and my running isn't going to get me out of reach of an assailant.

The sum total of my physical health means that someone trying to use good ole boxing with me is putting me in fear of my life or grave bodily injury.

If the facts are as reported then I would consider that woman to be in danger of grave bodily injury if not death. Imminent grave bodily injury. Imminent to the point that many of the suggestions put forth in this thread are not practical due to the time factor-'the operation was a success but the patient died.'

I would not consider a man of average size or above to be in such danger from this situation. Other methods could be tried without inordinate risk to the victim's life or limb. Given the size of the man involved...unless the woman was very big and strong for a woman, whatever was used, had to work RIGHT NOW.

 

[Erebus]

Pistol whuppin' has worked for me in the past. Think I'll keep it in my toolbox.

Especially when dealing with family. I hope to never be put in a situation where I can't break up a fight between family members without killing one of them.

 

[pax]

You know, the thing that's interesting to me is that most of the alternatives to the gun that have been mentioned have a great potential for permanently maiming the attacker -- if not killing him outright.

I don't know Ohio's deadly force law. But here's the language defining lethal force in Washington:

(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.

Whacking someone upside the head with a heavy object such as the butt of a pistol is reasonably likely to give them permanent brain damage or even kill them. Gouging someone's eyes out is reasonably likely to disfigure them for life and cause permanent blindness. Clapping someone's ears, hard, is likely to cause permanent deafness.

In other words, the shooter would very likely be in just as much legal hot water if he'd used any method selected from most of the alternatives suggested in this thread (well, except maybe for the garden hose -- but didn't you guys ever get in a water fight for crying out loud? Wouldn't have stopped me even as a kid, why would it even slow down a drunken and enraged adult male?)

If the shooter had used one of these other methods, there's still a good chance the attacker would still be dead or else maimed for life, but there's a less-good chance that the attacker would have been stopped in time to save the woman from brain damage or death.

Unless the facts as presented in the news article are significantly different from what really happened, I'd call this a good shoot.

pax

 

[Sistema1927]

Based upon the limited information contained here, I tend to see this as a good shoot. However, as we have seen, others will disagree, and they may eventually be shown to be correct in their assessment.

Yet, in either case, this discussion has proven fruitful in, hopefully, getting all of us to think about the awesome responsibility attached to the exercise of our rights, coupled with the tragedy that may result if we don't think seriously about these matters.

 

[Biker]

Pax...

Whacking someone upside the head with a pistol or other hard object *could* kill, but it's unlikely. I've seen it done many times and have been whacked myself a time or three with no apparant drain bamage. I had my right eardrum busted while bouncing at a bar in Tacoma years ago and I hear just fine now although I'm careful when I blow my nose - it hurts sometimes.
The point is, a bullet to the brainpan will kill. If that is your goal, fine.
If I'm out to do a job, I want all the tools available to me. I don't have to use 'em, but I want them there.
I've used a bat on a men when a gun would have been legally justified, but I chose not to kill.
There is a time and place for everything and killing, with exceptions, should be the last option.
It's not something to be taken lightly and it can haunt.

Biker

 

[buzz_knox]

Whacking someone upside the head with a pistol or other hard object *could* kill, but it's unlikely. I've seen it done many times and have been whacked myself a time or three with no apparant drain bamage. I had my right eardrum busted while bouncing at a bar in Tacoma years ago and I hear just fine now although I'm careful when I blow my nose - it hurts sometimes.

A bullet in an extremity could kill but it's fairly unlikely. Does that preclude shooting someone in the foot from being deadly force?

Whether you've seen it done or not, it still constitutes deadly force in many (most?) areas. Pax is 100% correct in this; the "less than lethal" options (including eye gouging which constitutes grave bodily harm) offered by many are covered under the same rules as shooting the person.

I've used a bat on a men when a gun would have been legally justified, but I chose not to kill.
There is a time and place for everything and killing, with exceptions, should be the last option.
It's not something to be taken lightly and it can haunt.

So you probably shouldn't have used a deadly weapon (a bat, which is normally construed as a club or bludgeon) if you were concerned about killing someone.

 

[Ctone03]

I have heard from LEO, and my wifes CCW instructor said the same thing, that using force that can cripple or otherwise do serious bodily harm could possibly land you in hot water too. The idea being that if you feared for your life, or the life of another, and you don't use deadly force, than essentially it was not really "life or death". Same thing if you purposely shot someone in the leg instead of in the head. I don't exactly agree with it but who knows what the jury will say. I see no reason to go looking for an alternate weapon under the circumstances he was in, but maybe smashing him in the head with a pistol could have worked. I wouldn't risk it personally, definitely not while wearing a neck brace, although it would be harder for me to be strangled!

 

[Biker]

I think you're missing my point Buzz.
I'm not talking legalities, I'm talking about what's needed to accomplish your goal. If it means lead in the brain, fine. If it means gouging an eye, fine.

As to your second point, if I wanted him dead, he'd be dead, with the bat or a gun, and I would've walked. However, that wasn't my goal.
I know what a bat can do and I know how to apply the wood to a human body to incapacitate said body.
It's all about choices and being in a position to make them.

Biker

 

[RioShooter]

More Details

This explains why Carlson didn't use another form of physical force. As others have said, don't pass judgement until all the facts are known.




Murder charge in detective's death challenged
Lawyer says New Franklin man acted to defend himself, wife
By Ed Meyer
Beacon Journal staff writer

BARBERTON - The lawyer for a 32-year-old New Franklin man charged with murder in last week's shooting of an off-duty Akron police detective said Tuesday the charge was not appropriate because his client acted to defend himself and his wife.

Jacob A. Carlson is being held in the Summit County Jail in lieu of a $250,000 cash bond.

His attorney, James L. Burdon of Akron, said he plans to argue for a modified bond at a hearing at 1 p.m. today in Barberton Municipal Court.

``There are two defenses here,'' Burdon said. ``One is self-defense because of the physical condition my client was in. But also, defense of a third party. There were two other people that were in jeopardy at the precise moment (of the shooting).''

According to the 911 calls, the detective, Michael S. Beitko, 41, was shot by his brother-in-law, Carlson, during a family gathering that suddenly became violent about 9:30 p.m. last Wednesday.

Carlson's wife, Jenny Carlson, made the 911 calls to the New Franklin Police Department from her Clement Avenue home. After her first call was quickly disconnected, she called back and initially told the dispatcher that her brother, Beitko, was ``very drunk and hitting his wife.''

She then told the dispatcher, according to the 911 tape, that Beitko had his wife ``in a headlock'' and she was having trouble breathing.

Moments later, police said Jacob Carlson intervened and his voice could be heard, shouting: ``Let go of her... or I'll kill you!''

Seconds later, several gunshots were heard and the dispatcher was disconnected.

Burdon said evidence showed that just before Beitko was shot, the detective ``had turned his attention to Mr. Carlson's wife, his sister.''

Photographs of Jacob Carlson appearing in court last week showed him wearing a white cervical neck brace from a serious injury incurred earlier this summer in a North Carolina swimming accident.

``He can hardly move,'' Burdon said. ``It's a brace that holds his chin up. It holds his head from being rotated, either up, down or circular, and it's attached to his shoulders. So he really could do nothing.

``Some might have tried to physically intercede, but it would have been impossible for him, even if he thought he was a match for Officer Beitko.''

Citing those circumstances, Burdon said authorities, initially, should not have filed a murder charge against Carlson.

``I personally believe the first charge, even if they questioned the veracity of a self-defense claim or a claim of defense of a third party, should have been manslaughter,'' Burdon said.

The lawyer also said Carlson had a permit for the gun used in the shooting.

A check of area court records shows the only previous offenses for Carlson were minor traffic tickets.

New Franklin Detective Sgt. Michael Korach, the lead investigator in the case, said he consulted with the Barberton prosecutor's office and followed the advice he received before arresting Carlson on the murder charge.

Korach declined to comment about Burdon's statements.

``I'm not prepared to discuss the particulars of the case,'' Korach said. ``This needs to run its course (in the justice system) appropriately and without any undue influence.''

Beitko, an Akron police officer since 1992, began working in the detective bureau in 2001.

According to Akron police and Summit County court records, Beitko had been suspended three times. He was disciplined by the department after a 1993 conviction for DUI, in addition to violent incidents with a handcuffed suspect and his wife.
Ed Meyer can be reached at 330-996-3784 or [email protected]

 

[Biker]

I still don't understand why Carlson was charged to begin with.

Biker

 

[NineseveN]

Biker:

I understand it, I just don't like it.

 

[Dravur]

``I'm not prepared to discuss the particulars of the case,'' Korach said. ``This needs to run its course (in the justice system) appropriately and without any undue influence.''

I wonder why they had to add the quotes (in the justice system) to this officer's statement?

Anyway, from this new info and what we know, this has gotta go down as a good shoot. The only problem this guy may face is cop retribution. This guy is going to have to move very soon.

 

[Erebus]

I don't see him getting convicted by a jury. I would be surprised if he is even indicted. Shooter is in a neckbrace, shootie is whaling on his own wife and makes an aggressive move toward the shooters wife. That's all I would have to hear. Wonder if the shootie's violent record would be considered relevant in the trial. Myself I can't see how it wouldn't be especially given that the shooter, being a family member, had to be aware of it.

 

[buzz_knox]

I understand your point, Biker. I don't think you're understanding mine. You are discussing use of deadly force as if it isn't. What you want/intend really isn't a determining factor in how the law sees it. If the person you beat with the bat dies as the result of weak heart, blood clot, etc., you can't exactly argue "whoops, I didn't mean to do that" and have that be a credible defense.

I know what a bat can do and I know how to apply the wood to a human body to incapacitate said body.

I know as well. I also know how easily most of the "non-lethal" techniques can lead to death. And regardless of what you know/intend/believe/hope, if someone dies as the result of your having used a club or bludgeon, you might as well have shot them in the head.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Let's not forget that being shot with a pistol often isn't lethal, either. I don't have any data handy, but I seem to recall that people shot with handguns in the U.S. survive far more often than not. In the one case I am personally familiar with, my brother (an LEO) shot a BG four times at arms length with his .40S&W SIG loaded with JHP rounds. The four shots all struck in a line from the abdomen to the high left shoulder. The BG lived. as I understand it, that's a pretty common outcome.

Shooting someone with a handgun will result in their death in enough cases that you should reasonably anticipate a lethal result. Therefore, you shouldn't ever put the front sight on someone unless you are confident that you are justified in killing them. Even if you pull the trigger, however, there is a very good chance they will live.

 

[Ezekiel]

The idea being that if you feared for your life, or the life of another, and you don't use deadly force, than essentially it was not really "life or death".

I've always had issues with this sort of statement, because of the inherent reciprocal: "By virtue of the application of deadly force, I feared for my life or the life of another. As such, deadly force is justified."

That's crap.

Nice follow-up on the news story.

this discussion has proven fruitful in, hopefully, getting all of us to think about the awesome responsibility attached to the exercise of our rights, coupled with the tragedy that may result if we don't think seriously about these matters.

"Good call."

 

[Ctone03]

I agree, it's crap. From a moral standpoint, if yourself or someone is in grave danger, who cares if you gouge their eyes, cut them a thousand times, or vaporize them with a howitzer...saving a life should be the priority no matter what the course of action. I'm sure he wasn't concerned about what the prosecuting attorney may think when he shouted "let go of her, or I'll kill you". I'd be scared out of my mind and speaking all sorts of jibberish.

 

[cngerms]

Eye gouge? I think not....Garden Hose? I know not...

For Mr. Carlson's sake, I'd prefer that the wife-beating, homocidal detective be dead and not sitting in the witness box prevaricating and giving his side of the "story" to 12 of Ohio's proudest, Oprah-watching, unemployed leftists while wearing eye bandages and petting his seeing eye dog. Now imagine the once-choked-out, ungrateful, but-still-alive wife has turned on Mr. Carlson and has once again returned to her abusive husband's side and she'll be testifying next as to why Mr. Carlson felt the need to permanently blind the father of her children. Mr. Carlson is instead charged with maiming (7 yrs to LIFE in some states, VT for example on a quick Google search). It's a tragedy and a total nightmare for all involved, but if the journalism is accurate (almost never is) I'm glad the detective can only speak from the grave and that his abused wife is still alive and able to raise her children.

I'm looking at this from my own perspective because 7 years in prison might as well be life for me, personally. I wouldn't last 7 months in prison much less 7 years or life. I'd rather go see Jesus.

 

[Erebus]

The idea being that if you feared for your life, or the life of another, and you don't use deadly force, than essentially it was not really "life or death".

So if someone attacks me with a knife, trying to cut my throat and I manage to wrestle the knife away and subdue him I must stab him to death with the knife or else I wasn't in a life or death struggle, and couldn't have feared for my life?

Am I to understand that killing him is only justified if I am in fear of my life and I can only be in fear for my life if I kill him?

See the problem with this circular "logic" yet.

 

[NineseveN]

So if someone attacks me with a knife, trying to cut my throat and I manage to wrestle the knife away and subdue him I must stab him to death with the knife or else I wasn't in a life or death struggle, and couldn't have feared for my life?

Um, once you remove the threat of the knife and subdue the attacker, the encounter is over and it neither authorizes nor requires any further force so long as things stay that way. You're talking about what you do after the encounter is over, we're talking about what to do while the encounter is happening. It's not like the shooter in this case waited for the guy to give up and then shot him.

 

[Ezekiel]

It's not like the shooter in this case waited for the guy to give up and then shot him.

Well, we hope not.