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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sad on so many levels

But what the entire article doesn't state is that Beitko had been reprimanded and arrested numerous times before for domestic violence, alcohol and even while on the job he used excessive force.
Beitkos widow, a nurse, is in complete and total denial if she believes that the way Beitko treated her was "acceptable". Battered women tend to deny any wrong doing by their spouses. Sadly, not only did his four small children lose their father they also lost their uncle who fired the weapon. The family is now divided.
The police were called BEFORE the shooting and while you can hear the struggle and Carlson did threaten Beitko--it was a way to garner his attention. Unfortunately it didn't work. Butting Beitko in the head with the end of the gun could've riled him up even more, resulting in more fatalities. And who ever mentioned using garden shears---yeeeeeeeesh.....might as well sign your death certificate up front, because THAT would've seriously pissed this 250+lb man off in a BIG way!

I don't believe that Jacob Carlson should be held responsible for the death of Beitko. He was, at the time of the shooting, incapacitated because of a diving accident earlier this summer--he was wearing a neck brace at the time. He was trying to save the mother of 4 young little girls, not out to purposely kill 4 little girls father and make his wife a widow. Carlson will be carrying this guilt around forever---why punish him even further? It's apparent that Beitkos "problem" was never taken seriously.

Alcohol can make people freakishly strong and as with Beitko, I am sure he was enraged about something--what that was only he and the others that were there that evening will ever know what set him off. He was a time bomb waiting to be detonated.
 
The guy was a dirtbag, but he was still someone's brother, someone's son, someone's father.
All murderers are someone's son, and many have siblings and children. So what? If the drunken cop had not been shot, if instead he had either finished strangling his wife or simply applied a bit more pressure and snapped her neck, he would STILL be someone's son, someone's brother, (maybe) someone's father. He would also be a murderer.

But he would be an alive murderer, with a dead victim. This way we have an alive victim and a dead assailant. I prefer the outcome as reported.
 
Jake is a good man

I know Jake personally. He is neither a man prone to violence nor a hothead. He is a very reflective person who is a great conversationalist; he and I have had numerous conversations about nuances within the Catholic Church of which he is a constant and practicing member.

I agree with much of what has been said in this thread, which matches my understanding of Jake as a loving and caring father and friend, and a man of courage. I do not hesitate to say that I would trust him with my life. Apparently, as borne out by his actions, my trust is not ill placed.

Thanks to all who have seen through to the reality of this tragic situation. Of those who are willing I ask prayers for Jake and his beautiful family, as well as Mike's family, in the midst of their suffering. Posting the assurance of prayers would go a long way because Jake is now out on bond and I will be sending him the link to this site.

By the way, grand jury hearings, as I understand it, began today.
 
amazing stuff

the blue wall rises to defend a guy who was such a good cop that they called swat out on him before. of course if they had taken action then he mighta got help not be dead but hey gotta cover for a brother
 
the blue wall rises to defend a guy...
In this case that blue wall cost this cop his life. Had he been dealt with as he should have been on any one of the previous incidents this would have not happened.
 
I do wonder if there is some sort of defense fund we can contribute to.

While most of the people posting in this thread were sane, I cannot believe the ridiculous assertions some are making. Get a hose? You are assuming that if you know there was a hose there, if there was a hose of that length to reach him, if it can be turned on in time to save his sister from strangling, and if it would've really worked enough to stop the psychopath killing his sister in law. And even if it worked, you know if the piece of sh*t would not have then turned to attack and kill you, since you were already physically handicapped and could not engage in a fight. That's a lot of ifs.

You all then judge the mans actions saying to "seek alternative actions" without offering any "alternative actions" in place. I see, give a worthless quip and easy answer without offering a real solution. Genius. We could use your genius in the middle east. Just say to the people of palestine and isreal, "Guys, make love not war! Seek an alternative to war!", and all their problems will be solved, right? :rolleyes:

The ex-cop had a history of domestic violence and abuse. He was significantly larger than the shooter. Keep in mind this shooter was in a neck brace. The scumbag was strangling his wife to the point of death, then ran at the shooters wife. Here you morons claim that you don't know what he was running at his sister/shooters wife to do. Ok. You could say the same thing about the mall/synagogue/whatever massacres. So you're in the mall and a drunken enraged man with a known history of violence just ran up and stabbed your sister in law. Now he runs at your wife. Hell, this isn't a justified shoot because you don't know what he's going to do. He could just be about to give her a pretty little daisy, right? Or hes just going to stab her in a nonlethal place! :rolleyes:

This shooting was about as justified as any shooting can possibly be. Yeah, the shooter used a bad word, but actions speak louder than words. This is the same bunch which makes excuses when cops do the same, and worse. Such as shooting someone negligently. In those cases its "It was the stress of the situation!""It's muscle memory from training!" Disgusting. It is a travesty this man was charged.
 
In Washington State

I'm sure that would be a manslaughter or murder charge. I'm not saying I agree but we have a thing called excessive force here. When I went through my self-defense course my instructor told us that we couldn't even kill an armed intruder unless he had a hand on his gun. I guess the perps need to have a fair chance to defend themselves even if they broke into your home and made threats. Stupid huh? In Texas if someone is trespassing on you property and they refuse to get off, you can shoot them as long as you can prove it went down that way. Not in Washington. If someone won't get off your property you can't even hit them or it's considered assault and excessive force. Seems like the law is protecting the criminal's rights more than the homeowner's.
 
You can't shoot somone in TX for tresspassing alone, that is an old myth. If they are tresspassing there are different degrees of punishment depending on where they are tresspassing at. If in a field it's only a class C Misdermeanor (basically a ticket). If in a commercial business it's a Class B, if in a habitation it's a Class A. None of them alone justifies a property owner using deadly force though, even if the tresspaser refuses to leave. Infact I have seen cases where someone just used force alone (hitting, pushing hard) to eject a tresspaser. In those cases the police where had made to arrests, the tresspasser, and the property owner (for assault).
 
I think you were given a very conservative (and incorrect) interpretation of the law in WA. That is often done during CCW classes to prevent the students from taking the use of deadly force too casualy AND to make the teacher/course not appear bloodthirsty to any critics who may be present.

The definition of "reasonable" and "necessary" is for juries to decide, not prosecutors. This case, given the totality of the circumstances, seems to be a fairly straightforward case of reasonable self-defense in most jurisdictions.

Your attacker need not be armed, much less aimed in, to meet the standards required by law for deadly force to be lawful.

Washington State Law

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
 
god i like it here

we had two guys having a meal in early am at the waffle house 5 other guys showed up picked a fight with the 2 they paid up tried to leave got jumped 5 on 2 in parking lot. one guy made it to his car when 3 guys charged him he fired wounding one killing one. the two guys then fled in fear. cops were called and the guy returned on his own. end result after a cursory investigation was no charges. lucky the waffle house staff were witnesses and lucky the ca here has sense, sometimes
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that would be a manslaughter or murder charge. I'm not saying I agree but we have a thing called excessive force here. When I went through my self-defense course my instructor told us that we couldn't even kill an armed intruder unless he had a hand on his gun. I guess the perps need to have a fair chance to defend themselves even if they broke into your home and made threats. Stupid huh? In Texas if someone is trespassing on you property and they refuse to get off, you can shoot them as long as you can prove it went down that way. Not in Washington. If someone won't get off your property you can't even hit them or it's considered assault and excessive force. Seems like the law is protecting the criminal's rights more than the homeowner's.

PM me the name of this instructor, and I will tear him a new :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: speaking wise. He has no business being an instructor if he cannot correctly cite Washington State law. Washington State has some of the BEST self defense laws in this country, if not THE best. It's even better than Florida's law (save civil immunity), and there's no duty to retreat, and carebear pointed out the relevant statutes. Residential buglary is a FELONY. Under Washington State law, any person committing ANY felony in their presence or against their dwelling will be considered justifiable.

Tell him to turn in his instructor creds because he's incompetent. I'll tell it straight to his face if need be. His advice is not only wrong, it will get someone killed by making them second guess their actions based on merely their caution.

State v. Studd
State v. Reynaldo Redmond

These cases recently stated by the Washington Supreme Court say "NO DUTY TO RETREAT!".
 
Who knows....

I have read a ton of different posts here. Some justifying/defending Jake and some villifying him.

I know Jake. Not too well, but well enough that I have been to the same church and played golf outside of church with him. He does not appear to be an evil person... but who does?

All I know is that being in the area, and reading the newspapers, it appears that Jake did what he thought, was the right thing. Could it have been vindictive? Sure. Could he have been looking for a reason to kill his brother-in-law? Sure.

It is quite possible, given Bietko's history, that Jake didn't like him. Who would like a wife beater? A police man that cheats? A thug?

Further, Jake has a broken neck. He was not able to jump on Bietko. Nor was he able to get into any other conflict (ie. with a bat, shovel, etc.)

I don't really like Jake. I will, however allow him to maintain his innocence until proven guilty.

As for Bietko, it did appear that he was out of control. Does that justify killing him? Probably not. But I wasn't there.

The Grand Jury met Friday the 4th. So we'll all know something soon. The bad thing is that he hired a lawyer... who although is well known in the community, has never won a case.
 
The Grand Jury met Friday the 4th. So we'll all know something soon. The bad thing is that he hired a lawyer... who although is well known in the community, has never won a case.

Time to take up a little collection to help Jake get a better defense lawyer. He needs to post a Paypal Account, unless he's so confident in his case that he's trying to save a little $$$.
 
Already has

Jake has already set up a paypal account to help with his defense. Trust me, though the guy (Attorney) can't win too many cases, he charges an arm and a leg. I think I saw something where he is charging the Carlson's 50k to defend him... so it's not a lack of money... just a poor decision.

If anyone is interested in following the case, you can google the Summit County Clerk of Courts and get into his case by searching criminal records and typing in his name.
 
Toby said:
As for Bietko, it did appear that he was out of control. Does that justify killing him? Probably not.

Yeah, see: that's a problem. You have -- at least -- a passing knowledge of the guy [Jake] and are already leaning towards an unjustified killing (which is, of course, murder), even if Bietko was "out of control."

"Seems problematic in front of a jury." :uhoh:
 
Last edited:
Ezekiel

I don't know if I have a preconceived notion of whether Jake should have killed him or not. I personally don't think I could have done it, but I wasn't there.

All I know is Jake has a broken neck, was the only one there who could stop this guy, and chose to shoot him. As for the appropriateness: That's for a jury to decide.

Did you hear the 911 call? If not, google Ohio.com + 911 + Carlson. It should pop up.

I feel bad for all involved and personally, believe that they are all at fault. It's just too bad the children of both families will suffer.

And let me retract a previous statement I made: Carlson's attorney has won a case before... but I can't remember when or how often. I am of the belief that he loses more than he wins.
 
I knew the Carlsons several years ago and am shocked and saddened by what has happened. Do I see Jake as someone who would go off and shoot someone without a very good reason? No. Never would have imagined it. There are no winners in this situation, but I also don't think Jake deserves to go to jail.

When I first heard about this through a mutual friend, the friend alluded to the fact that Michael Beitko was hurting his sister, Jen Carlson, prompting Jake to shoot. I have since found this statement from another friend of the Carlsons-

Last Wednesday night, a childhood friend of one of my close shooting/hunting buddies was involved in a shooting at his home. His name is Jacob Carlson. The whole thing happened when his drunk brother-in-law, Mike Beitko, began beating and choking his own wife and Jakes wife; his own wife over some imagined insult and Jake's wife for calling 911. Jake, who has a broken neck from a recent swimming accident ended up shooting and killing his brother-in-law after he refused to stop strangling Jake's wife...

... A man I firmly believe was doing the right thing and defending his family now sits in jail for shooting his wife's brother while he was strangling her. Her gurgling can be heard on the tape immediately prior to the shots.

Full post can be found here
 
Actually he's out on bond at the moment, but of course at the same time:

Brian M. Pierce, the lawyer for Sue Beitko, the victim's wife, released a statement from her, saying: ``She would like everyone to know that (Det. Beitko) was a loving father and husband and a dedicated police officer who helped many people in this community, and she doesn't feel that has been portrayed.''
Pierce said Sue Beitko does not wish to comment further until the case runs its course in the criminal justice system.
story here

It's really sad that vicitms of abuse more often then not stick up for their abusers, and it's even more sad that the next man she ends up with will likely also be abusive as well.

The other thing that amazes me (actually it doesn't) about all the stories is how they seem to harp on the fact that Mr.Beitko wore a badge, as if that automaticly made him a good person.
 
Lonnie said:
The only reason he's sitting in jail now is because he shot a cop.

Honestly?

"We've no reason to suspect such is true."

The guy is out on bond and the case is moving forward.

Seems normal, as if anything attached to this can be. :scrutiny:
 
hmmm

you ever know of a civilian who has a "gun incident that gets swat called out and not only gets a free walk but gets to keep his gun?
must be nice
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top