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

[Erebus]

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.

Agreed, but the quote below states that unless deadly force is applied it wasn't a life and death encounter. And that is what I was addressing. If someone is trying to cut my throat it IS a life and death situation whether I kill them or not. If someone is shooting at you and you run away it was still a life and death encounter. They were trying to kill you and you took action that prevented it. Whether it involves killing them, subduing them or fleeing it doesn't diminish the level of danger you faced.

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".

 

[Ctone03]

I am not defending the logic, it's just what I've been told. My wife got the same scoop at her CCW class. I would not try to subdue or attack a large, drunken, and enraged man, I have tried that before on several occasions and the results are always different. Even with an electric cattle prod, you cannot guarantee that he will stop killing someone or become incapacitated

 

[Erebus]

This shooter didn't appear to have a choice in the matter. But even if he goes home tomorrow a free man with not as much as a footnote on his record he still has to live with the fact that he killed his wife's brother. This family will never recover from this completely. I hope it doesn't harm his relationship with his wife and in laws. The guy was a dirtbag, but he was still someone's brother, someone's son, someone's father. Their pain will not be relieved one iota by the fact that he deserved it.

My overall point is that if you have a choice it's better if no one ends up dead.

 

[cyanide]

Unless this guys lawyer is a bona fide Cyanide... he will walk, minus atty. fees.

Edited by Don Gwinn because "retard" is a verb. I'm sure you knew that.

 

[gc70]

This is a very enlightening discussion. In one camp are those who would consider whether there might be alternatives to shooting. In the other camp are those who favor shooting and being done with it.

My question for the "go ahead and shoot 'em" camp is where would you have shot?

 

[NineseveN]

This shooter didn't appear to have a choice in the matter. But even if he goes home tomorrow a free man with not as much as a footnote on his record he still has to live with the fact that he killed his wife's brother. This family will never recover from this completely. I hope it doesn't harm his relationship with his wife and in laws. The guy was a dirtbag, but he was still someone's brother, someone's son, someone's father. Their pain will not be relieved one iota by the fact that he deserved it.

My overall point is that if you have a choice it's better if no one ends up dead.

I agree completely. It's a terrible situation all around, as is any shooting, but what compounds this is that there is no disconnect between those that survive the aggressor and the shooter...this guy will have to see the faces of those that have been affected by this necessary, yet terrible act instead of being able to disconnect and not deal with the relatives and friends of the deceased outside of a courtroom.

Shooting someone is never a good thing, but it's sometimes a necessary thing.

 

[NineseveN]

My question for the "go ahead and shoot 'em" camp is where would you have shot?

It depends on what the target presented to me. It sounds like the deceased was in transit between his first victim and the shooter's wife, so collateral damage may have been a non-factor depending on distance, skill and the angle of the shot. In any event, if presented, you shoot for COM.

You play the hand you're dealt.

 

[Ezekiel]

In one camp are those who would consider whether there might be alternatives to shooting. In the other camp are those who favor shooting and being done with it.

Geez, I wish I'd come up with that sentence: damned succinct.

My stance? When you shoot, you are never -- even best case -- done with it.

I, also, like to believe there are "always alternatives."

You play the hand you're dealt.

Once.

It sounds as if this loser hand was played on multiple occasions... "Yuck."

Someone needed to shuffle long before this incident.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

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.''

He (Akron Police Chief Michael Matulavich) decided to not fire him because Beitko was off-duty, and his wife gave inconsistent statements and didn't want to press charges.

.

Which was likely to happen again, despite plenty of witnesses this time.

``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.

Translation: the "t's" were crossed and the "i's" were dotted, Legal and HR cleared it, so I/we are not to blame.

``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.''

I've held several jobs where a single DUI or DV conviction would get me fired before the ink dried; having a co-worker pull me off a handcuffed suspect because I had my hands around his neck would get me fired or worse on the spot. Civil penalties + prison; "awarded" RIR + "awarded" brig time + "awarded" (that just cracks me up ) forfeiture of pay...neither the military nor the civilian world tolerates such behavior, yet the super-civilian/pseudo-military does.

 

[RioShooter]

Grand Jury to Decide

Slaying case transferred to grand jury
Brother-in-law faces charge in shooting of Akron detective
By Ed Meyer
Beacon Journal staff writer

BARBERTON - The case of a 32-year-old New Franklin man charged with murder in last week's shooting of an off-duty Akron police detective was transferred Wednesday to a Summit County grand jury for possible indictment.

Jacob A. Carlson, the defendant, appeared in Barberton Municipal Court before Judge Michael Weigand through a video hookup with the Summit County Jail, where he is being held in lieu of a $250,000 cash bond.

Weigand maintained Carlson's bond at that amount and scheduled his arraignment for Aug. 11 before Summit County Common Pleas Court Magistrate John Shoemaker.

There were no additional proceedings in open court.

Jenny Carlson, the defendant's wife, was present with other family members in the rear of the courtroom and left in tears when the brief hearing concluded.

Jacob Carlson was arrested July 26 by New Franklin police on a murder charge after the fatal shooting of the detective, Michael S. Beitko, 41, at a family gathering that suddenly became violent.

Beitko, a 14-year Akron police veteran, was Carlson's brother-in-law.

Carlson's lawyer, James L. Burdon of Akron, has said the murder charge was not appropriate because his client acted to defend himself and his wife during a violent outburst by Beitko as the family gathering was breaking up.

According to tape recordings of the 911 calls from the Carlson home on Clement Avenue, Beitko hit his wife and attempted to choke her, then turned his attention to his sister, Jenny Carlson, as he was about to leave, Burdon said.

Burdon also appeared in court Wednesday after discussing the case with Weigand in the judge's chambers.

When Weigand ended the proceedings in open court, Jenny Carlson and other family members gathered in a circle in an unoccupied courtroom, held hands and quietly recited the Lord's Prayer.

Burdon said Jenny Carlson, who placed the 911 calls on the night of the fatal shooting, did not wish to comment at this stage of the case.

``It's hard to imagine that there could be a more difficult position to be in,'' Burdon said. ``The defendant's wife is also the decedent's sister, which means that her father has grandchildren on both sides of this tragedy.''

New Franklin Detective Sgt. Michael Korach said six children were at the family gathering on the night of the shooting -- four from the Beitko family and two from the Carlson family.

Beitko, according to Akron police and Summit County court records, was suspended three times in his police career. He was disciplined by the department after a 1993 DUI conviction, in addition to violent incidents with a handcuffed suspect and his wife.

A check of area court records showed the only previous offenses by Carlson were minor traffic violations.
Ed Meyer can be reached at 330-996-3784 or [email protected]

 

[Daniel T]

...he is being held in lieu of a $250,000 cash bond.

That is utterly ridiculous.

 

[cordex]

My question for the "go ahead and shoot 'em" camp is where would you have shot?

I'm not sure I fall so squarely into the camps as you see them, but if I felt I had to shoot someone who was strangling his wife or charging at another soon-to-be victim after he had attempted to strangle his own spouse, I'd probably shoot him as squarely in the visible center of mass as I could manage while attempting to ensure the backstop was safe enough. If I had to aim lower than chest height to avoid striking someone behind him, I'd probably try to shoot for the pelvis.

I'm not sure what the purpose of that question is.

 

[Snake Eyes]

My question for the "go ahead and shoot 'em" camp is where would you have shot?

In the exact same place he actually was shot.

Seems to have done the job pretty well.

 

[gc70]

My question for the "go ahead and shoot 'em" camp is where would you have shot?

I'm not sure what the purpose of that question is.

Most of the "go ahead and shoot 'em" comments were made before it came to light that Beitko had released his wife and was charging his sister.

There was much discussion about the need to act immediately to prevent a 300-pound, enraged drunk from choking his wife to death or snapping her neck, while not getting close enough to grapple with him. Given that situation, I started considering what would have been both effective and safe (for the wife) shots that could have been taken. Normal COM shots sound risky with the victim in a headlock.

 

[Cosmoline]

Sounds like a good shot, but the powers that be will try to slaughter him anyway. In their mind if you kill a cop for ANY reason, you must be made to pay. Hope he gets a good jury and judge.

 

[Desertdog]

We must remember, the police powers of any jurisdiction very, very seldom has a chance to give a black eye to CCW holders.

Let's hope and pray that the Grand Jury finds the shoot was self-defense.

Question to those that know something about law; if the GJ finds it self-defense, would Mr Carlson have good grounds to sue for false arrest?

 

[jp1034]

I am amazed at the amount of people that know little or nothing about this incident condemning this officer. I hope to God if something of this magnitude happens to you or your family, that hundreds of strangers will trash you and say you had it coming. I want everyone to listen to the 911 tape of this horrified man that shoots another man four times in the chest at point blank range. Listen real close as the women scream and then right before the phone disconnects this poor individual that was so terrified he had to kill this man say, and I quote, "Where you at now Bitch?" Very ghetto style. I hope these won't be the last words you hear when you die. As for Mr. Carlson, when he is convicted of murder, I intend on sending him a card while he sits in jail asking him, where you at now bitch. Everyone needs to realize this is not a CCW issue.

 

[carebear]

So, a stressed out comment by a man just forced to shoot in defense of others, his family and loved ones in fact, means that we should completely overlook that the shootee, a paragon of law enforcement virtue, had been recognized as having a drinking problem, had at least been accused of mistreating suspects and was confirmed to be a wifebeater (by his own employer nonetheless)?

That he had, immediately prior to being shot, been choking his wife in a drunken rage and was heading towards another woman he conceivably should at least feel some familial affection for, apparently to administer a little of what he had just been giving the wife?

Ok, if I overlook all that, I guess I can feel some sympa....

Nah.

He had it coming.

 

[RioShooter]

New Franklin Demographics

http://www.city-data.com/city/New-Franklin-Ohio.html

New Franklin is a small town with a population of slightly more than 2,000. The PD can't have more than a few employees for a town this size. I would wager that most of the citizens knew of this officer's reputation for abuse. The deceased should have been dealt with a long time ago.

If the "victim" was not a small town cop where the citizens enabled his behavior, the shooter would not be sitting in a jail cell.

 

[RioShooter]

Correction

After re-reading the story I noticed that the deceased was with the Akron police and not the local PD. However, that doesn't change my opinion that this shooting isn't being handled very well. At least the case is going to a grand jury.

If I was on the jury I would vote not to indict. In Texas, I believe quite a few people would say the detective "needed shooting."

 

[Ezekiel]

Listen real close as the women scream and then right before the phone disconnects this poor individual that was so terrified he had to kill this man say, and I quote, "Where you at now Bitch?"

Uh oh.

This doesn't go along well with the shooter's prior assertive statement of "I will (emphasis added) kill you!"

 

[buzz_knox]

"Where you at now Bitch?" Very ghetto style.

Or, just maybe, an expression of the tension the shooter was under. Spend some time reviewing shooting cases, other attacks, or even bad car wrecks and you'll find all sorts of statements being made under such stress. In a far lesser context, I had a malfunction during a drill. When the excercise was completed, the instructor reminded me that asking for cover fire was a better use of my breath than cursing the weapon and its designers. I have absolutely no recollection of saying anything. I wouldn't be surprised to find the shooter has no recollection of that either.

 

[Deavis]

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."

Yep, that's right. Enjoy the wonderful world of not being second guessed, when deadly force is involved, that I live in. I love Texas.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or...

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Ezekiel, you might be the baddest hombre to ever walk this earth but since I'm not I appreciate Texas giving me options. I don't have to kung-fu, garden hose, or beg myself out of a deadly situation. I get to use the most effective tool ever made and why? It isn't because I'm a trigger happy moron who wants to kill someone, nor is it because I'm don't want to exercise my brain enough to find alternatives to subdue someone using deadly force. It is because I don't enjoy putting myself into harms way when I don't have to by physically confronting a drunk 300lb man, with a history of violence, when I have a neck injury and more importantly, because I don't have to.

Texas says that I don't have to look for other alternatives because a drunk 300lb man forced me into a deadly confrontation. I didn't make him try to harm that woman and I didn't make him get drunk. That man chose to use deadly force and the law says that because of his actions, I am justified in using deadly force against him to save that woman. Nothing I did justifies deadly force but rather everything that man did justified deadly force against him.

I don't have to ninja kick him or get close enough to yank his ears. I get to use whatever form of deadly force, be it bat, knife, gun, or your deadly sumo chop hands, that I so chose to protect that woman's life. Me, I'm efficient, I chose to carry a gun because I'm not some modern day Bruce Lee. I don't have the training or the desire to engage in a grappling match. You may say, "Oh you don't want ot get personal you wuss," but guess what, you're right. I don't and I don't have to. There is no logical reason to resort to any technique that could endager my life when I can use my gun and be 100% safe in my person and, based on my accuracy, 100% certain of the attackee's life.

A little side note, even though you've already closed your mind so this is for others, I've been in that situation sans gun. I've struggled to get a 230lb man, all muscle, to release the woman, my girlfriend of 107lbs, he had in a headlock. I wasn't drunk and I was thinking, but despite outweighing him by 30lbs and having more muscle, I couldn't get him off short of disfiguring him. My fists aren't soft and they aren't small, I assure you. I was trying and his groin, face, and kidneys could attest to it the next day when he didn't remember why they hurt.

You might be a macho badass who can make everything happen but I wasn't that night. I was suprised and unprepared for that situation, as most normal people would be. I attempted to subdue his in all the ways that came to my mind at the time, with my brain unconciously saying, "Don't hurt him too bad, he is your friend," even though I look back and realize how stupid that was. It is hard to think about creative options or grab a garden hose when your loved one is struggling and gasping right in front of you. I'm lucky he finally let go and started laughing at what he thought was a big funny joke.

If it happened today... Well, he, my friend, would be tending a bullet wound, not bruises. Been there, done that, I know better. I'm not willing to ever pray a deadly attacker will let go or stop, I'm going to make them stop in the most effective way I can. For you, it may be your amazing physical prowess, but for me it's a HK USP 40. When it comes to life or death, I'm trusting the most effective tools and skills I posess, whether you think it is moral or not. Thankfully the state of Texas agrees with me and not you.

 

[Mojoski]

Amen to that!

Good post, Deavis. I'd have shot the bastard as well. Forget that Ninja crap. Sounds like a good way to get killed yourself.

And for the record, here is a link that says the shooter is now out on bond. His next court appearance is Aug 11th, I believe.

Link

 

[Erebus]

Most of the "go ahead and shoot 'em" comments were made before it came to light that Beitko had released his wife and was charging his sister.

So here's another question. He had his wife in a headlock and released her. Is that deadly force? We have no idea what he was going to do to his sister. Perhaps just scream at her. Perhaps grab her in a headlock and release her. Perhaps take the phone away and hang up the 911 call. Perhaps knock her head off.

As a result of him releasing her could the prosecutor make the following argument? That by virtue of the shootie releasing his wife without killing her he demonstrated that he was not using deadly force. And therefore not a situation calling for DF by the shooter. That coupled with the statements the shooter made could look real bad for him.

Edit: Oh yea plus the shooter may have been drinking. I haven't seen a confirmation of this but a detective did say that everyone involved had been drinking.

People with experience using a headlock on people have stated here that a headlock can result in blackout and death in a very short period of time if done correctly. If I understood them properly, I am sure the defense will have no trouble finding an expert to confirm this in court. The sister stated that the wife was having trouble breathing while in the headlock. If the wife confirms this would that legally give weight to the argument that the shootie was using deadly force?

Any lawyers want to give an opinion on if a prosecutor would try this "he released her, no DF" avenue and what do you think his chances of being successful would be?

Personally I think he let her go only because he saw the sister had called 911 and he wanted to stop that call.