PDA

View Full Version : Another SWAT OP gone astray? How will this cookie crumble in federal court?


alan
August 12, 2006, 11:14 PM
Family of slain Dundalk woman sues Baltimore County police

Luke Broadwater, The Examiner
Aug 10, 2006 5:00 AM (2 days ago)


BALTIMORE - The police never knocked on her door.


They threw a flash-bang grenade and used a battering ram instead.

Then they shot the startled 44-year-old Dundalk mother to death in her bedroom without reason.

That’s the argument laid out in a federal wrongful death lawsuit filed Wednesday by family members of Cheryl Noel, 44, whom police shot and killed during a Jan. 19, 2005 SWAT team raid of her residence.

The 11-page lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the family in connection with the loss of Noel’s life and the “companionship” and “care” she provided to her husband, mother and two sons.

“This was a tragedy that should never have happened,” said Terrell Roberts III, an attorney for the Noel family.

Roberts claims in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore that five police officers and Baltimore County violated Noel’s constitutional rights by killing her.

Officer Carlos Artson “made an unreasonable seizure of the person of Cheryl Lynn Noel by shooting and killing her, violating her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution ...” the suit states.

At 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 21, 2005, Noel and her husband, Charles, were asleep in the master bedroom of their row house when the heavily-armed Baltimore County SWAT team stormed through her home. According to the suit, officers had found “trace amounts of drugs” in trash cans outside of the home.

Cheryl Noel feared criminal intruders had broken into her home and grabbed a lawfully registered gun and held it pointed at the floor, the suit states.

Artson kicked in her bedroom door with his boot and, without identifying himself or telling Noel to drop her weapon, shot her three times, including once after she already had slumped to the floor, according to the suit.

“The use of a SWAT team to execute a routine drug warrant was excessive and overkill,” Roberts said. “The woman never knew the police had entered her home. She was doing everything that could be expected of a law-abiding citizen to protect her own life. She was shot and killed without any warning that the police were present or to drop her gun.”

Roberts said his clients “vigorously dispute” arguments that Noel was pointing her gun at the police officer when the officer shot her.

“Clearly, a third shot was wholly unnecessary and grossly excessive,” he said.

Baltimore County Police spokesman William Toohey said police did nothing wrong and the Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s backs the officers.

“The State’s Attorney’s Office ruled that the shooting was justified,” he said.

lbroadwater@baltimoreexaminer.com

Examiner

Wildcard
August 12, 2006, 11:33 PM
Its ok, the cops were able to go home at the end of their shift.

Heist
August 12, 2006, 11:45 PM
Don't worry, a small baggie of drugs will be found - curiously enough the correct size to fit into a tactical cargo pocket - and that will justify the whole thing!

liliysdad
August 13, 2006, 01:10 AM
It really irks me that cops are out there digging in people's trash to find "trace" amounts of dope. Myself, I have better things to do, and real criminals to catch.

ccwolff
August 13, 2006, 01:21 AM
She had a gun? In her own home no less. What was she thinking?:rolleyes:

“trace amounts of drugs” in trash cans outside of the home.

Yeah, that sounds like a reason to break in to a home and kill people.:barf:

Some more info.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2005/01/29.html

Apparently they were druggies and did deserve it.
Thank you Baltimore County police.

joab
August 13, 2006, 01:26 AM
That’s the argument laid out in a federal wrongful death lawsuit filed
“This was a tragedy that should never have happened,” said Terrell Roberts III, an attorney for the Noel family. Roberts claims in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore that five police officers and Baltimore County violated Noel’s constitutional rights by killing her.
Officer Carlos Artson “made an unreasonable seizure of the person of Cheryl Lynn Noel by shooting and killing her, violating her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution ...” the suit states.
According to the suit, officers had found “trace amounts of drugs” in trash cans outside of the home.
Artson kicked in her bedroom door with his boot and, without identifying himself or telling Noel to drop her weapon, shot her three times, including once after she already had slumped to the floor, according to the suit.

“The use of a SWAT team to execute a routine drug warrant was excessive and overkill,” Roberts said. “The woman never knew the police had entered her home. She was doing everything that could be expected of a law-abiding citizen to protect her own life. She was shot and killed without any warning that the police were present or to drop her gun.”
Roberts said his clients “vigorously dispute” arguments that Noel was pointing her gun at the police officer when the officer shot her.
So much indisputable evidence from so many unimpeachable witnesses, how could the cops be anything but guilty.

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 01:28 AM
How about the other side of the story? This one tells her family's side....other than her husband were the rest of the family in the bedroom too?:confused:

Flashbangs and battering rams a well known tactic of criminals:rolleyes:

liliysdad
August 13, 2006, 01:35 AM
What she did or did not do, what her family saw, or did not hear, what the police did or did not say is immaterial.

The police department secured a search warrant based on THE TRASH. If I am the only cop that sees this as wrong as hell, then I am sorry. I am not about to dig through someone's trash to get into their house. If they are not doing anything other than that, they arent that big of a fish to fry, in my opinion.

Real bad guys do stuff to other people, outside of their homes.

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 01:52 AM
Real bad guys do stuff to other people, outside of their homes.

By using this logic then, you would wait until a murder is committed instead of intervening while it is in the planning stage?

I stand behind my previous comment that this is one side of the story told by the family. The cops may be guilty as hell of using poor judgment, but they are still inoccent until proven guilty.

liliysdad
August 13, 2006, 01:53 AM
If you are honestly attempting to equate the digging in trash cans for a little bit of dope to conspiracy to commit murder, than I have no comment.

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 02:01 AM
Ok, no problem child abuse inside the home??

liliysdad
August 13, 2006, 02:22 AM
Again, I fail to see the correlation with a crime with no victim, i.e., the dope in the trash can, to a crime with a true victim.

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 04:20 AM
Again, I fail to see the correlation with a crime with no victim, i.e., the dope in the trash can, to a crime with a true victim.

If there is dope and kids in the house how could you not see that as child abuse. Not to mention if you are addicted to illegal drugs there is no such thing as a legal gun in your posession. I don't believe that is what the cops were thinking in this case, but I'm talking about your comment now and not the article. Or did the neighbor throw their dope in these peoples trash can?

Bud Helms
August 13, 2006, 05:26 AM
DonR101395 said:Or did the neighbor throw their dope in these peoples trash can?
I suppose that's possible. But I'd hope the traces of dope found in the trash wasn't an instance of once. I'm also sitting here wondering why a police department would be going through residential garbage/trash. There had to be a reason for suspicion. They don't have the time and resources to go around town going through everyone's trash, do they?

I'm trying to think this through without the obvious slant from the article, which I can understand. I am not a defender of dynamic entry at a residential address in the middle of the night, but ... if this was not an outright, "Oops, wrong address!" again, then I wonder what the reason was for the original suspicion.

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 05:33 AM
Said much better than myself Bud. That was where I was going....or attempting to go with my original post.

joab
August 13, 2006, 07:47 AM
The police department secured a search warrant based on THE TRASH.No, they found the drug residue during the search the report does not say that the warrant was secured based on that evidence.
This one tells her family's side....other than her husband were the rest of the family in the bedroom too?No, the family had already been secured downstairs before the officers went upstairs to find the woman alone in her room pointing a gun at them.

Do cops routinely do silent take downs after having flashbanged themselves into the house?
This one tells her family's side....other than her husband were the rest of the family in the bedroom too?An informant has been credited

rangermonroe
August 13, 2006, 08:04 AM
What was the husband doing whilst Wifey was defending home and hearth?

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 08:08 AM
What was the husband doing whilst Wifey was defending home and hearth?

Maybe he was too stoned to hear the flashbangs??:confused:

joab
August 13, 2006, 08:40 AM
"the family had already been secured downstairs before the officers went upstairs to find the woman alone in her room pointing a gun at them."

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 08:56 AM
At 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 21, 2005, Noel and her husband, Charles, were asleep in the master bedroom of their row house when the heavily-armed Baltimore County SWAT team stormed through her home


Joab this is what the article says. Do you have another source?

joab
August 13, 2006, 09:30 AM
Yes I do, but I cannot find it. I'll keep looking. My bad for not posting the link, but then I could have mixed stories.

But I did find that she was a government worker

Ausserordeutlich
August 13, 2006, 09:36 AM
"By using this logic then, you would wait until a murder is committed instead of intervening while it is in the planning stage?

I stand behind my previous comment that this is one side of the story told by the family. The cops may be guilty as hell of using poor judgment, but they are still inoccent until proven guilty."

I agree. In this case, the murder could have been stopped by having arrested all the cops before the incident happened, or by throwing a flashbang into their "planning room" session, then shooting each of them three times, just to make sure that they didn't go forward with their murder.

liliysdad
August 13, 2006, 10:09 AM
I was not attempting to pass judgement on this isolated incident. The family may very well have been big time cartel members, or tweakers. The police may very well have been justified, and I hope they are, for their sake. I was not there, nor do I attempt to pass judegement based on one biased article based on comments by a money hungry attorney.

I was simply making a comment on the degradation of civil rights as a whole, and the depths which we, as police, have gone to to secure a drug arrest. It is a symptom of the larger problem, in my opnion.

Bender711
August 13, 2006, 10:51 AM
$100 says that no one hangs for this like they should.

DonR101395
August 13, 2006, 11:01 AM
I was not attempting to pass judgement on this isolated incident. The family may very well have been big time cartel members, or tweakers. The police may very well have been justified, and I hope they are, for their sake. I was not there, nor do I attempt to pass judegement based on one biased article based on comments by a money hungry attorney.

I was simply making a comment on the degradation of civil rights as a whole, and the depths which we, as police, have gone to to secure a drug arrest. It is a symptom of the larger problem, in my opnion.

I'll give you that one lillysdad. That is all I was saying. How about we get the whole story then decide if they should be crucified.

gdm
August 13, 2006, 12:07 PM
"I agree. In this case, the murder could have been stopped by having arrested all the cops before the incident happened, or by throwing a flashbang into their "planning room" session, then shooting each of them three times, just to make sure that they didn't go forward with their murder".


caught me off guard on that one..:D coffee everywhere and not a drop to drink.


im sure later after they tear apart the house that an arsenal will be found, a kilo of coke with their names clearly written on the bag and a an entire meth cooking lab discoverd in the cellar.

DasBoot
August 13, 2006, 01:10 PM
No mention of it's being the wrong address so there must be more to this.

They don't have the time and resources to go around town going through everyone's trash, do they?

No, they don't.
So there's probably a good reason for the initial warrant.
More facts needed.

Don't worry, a small baggie of drugs will be found - curiously enough the correct size to fit into a tactical cargo pocket - and that will justify the whole thing!

Now there's an unbiased opinion!:rolleyes:

Rich Lucibella
August 13, 2006, 01:25 PM
Yup, we're definitely not getting the whole story. The whole court case is probably a sham...after all:
- A warrant was issued...they don't just hand those out on hearsay and rumor, you know.

- The cops did a dead of night raid...these teams have better things to do than bust down doors in the middle of the night for minor warrant service. She was probably dealing drugs anyway....a Death Sentence is appropriate.

- She had a gun...At Four AM any law abiding citizen would be able to discern and identify the well known sounds of a police ram and flashbang to identify that the intruders were "friendlies".

- Her husband wasn't armed....Proof Positive that it was a druggie house. He was probably zoned out or flushing the goods while she laid down covering fire.

Serves her right, I'll bet. And now the family's gonna claim she was a "victim".

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.
:rolleyes:
Rich

Dreadnought
August 13, 2006, 01:32 PM
Ok, the original post quoted from the article states the shooting took place on Jan. 16, 2005. It took 20 months for this to get to trial? Or this only the civil suit after the criminal courts found the defendants not guilty? The only nail in the coffin seems to be the excessive use of force, being Artson's final shot.
The only thing that keeps stuff like that from happening is tireless practice, otherwise the "we were in a house and someone pointed a gun at me and I shot him/her because of the adrenaline and nerves" defense gets kind of old. I am no cop, let alone a SWAT member, but I know the way to keep things from being reactionary instead of calculated is incessant practice. I wonder if Artson was a rookie/green SWAT member and if he has been involved in other shootings.

Don't get me wrong, I support law enforcement fully, those guys are in harm's way all the time. But this case seems like it is gold diggers going after the cops after the case was dismissed from criminal court, otherwise how did it take nearly two years to get a trial?

Rich Lucibella
August 13, 2006, 01:36 PM
The only thing that keeps stuff like that from happening is tireless practice
Incorrect. Practice is only ONE way to keep stuff like that from happening. A BETTER way is to curb the use of No-Knocks in the first place. No-Knocks like this one put good cops in needless danger, get innocent citizens killed and undermine the fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights for all of us.
Rich

gdm
August 13, 2006, 02:06 PM
"Incorrect. Practice is only ONE way to keep stuff like that from happening. A BETTER way is to curb the use of No-Knocks in the first place. No-Knocks like this one put good cops in needless danger, get innocent citizens killed and undermine the fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights for all of us".
Rich


bingo!right on!yes.. way!.




Id vote "rich for the next president"...we need a change.people are getting tired of all the shennanigans these days.I know I am.

Roberta X
August 13, 2006, 03:36 PM
Battering down doors in the dead of night and tossing in flash-bangs is not right. Yes, even if the house is full of tweakin' Commie Islamofascist bomber child-abusers illegally converting longarms to full-auto while mainlining decaf Dran-o, it's not right.

Among other things, door-kicking and flash-bangs make it more likely the officers are gonna pop a cap in the bad guy's hapless little innocent victims, who -- last time I checked -- were supposed to be the real focus of all this, with chalkin' up points by taking out or apprehending malefactors the second or third objective on the list, behind "saving the immediate victims" and "protecting society."

If "officer safety" is the excuse for tactics better suited to the Battle of Stalingrad, why not be safer still and get the suspects one-by-one as they shop for groceries? Why not surround the house with armed and armored Officers Of The Law and call 'em up on the phone? Few people -- and fewer tweakers -- are set up for a siege. Cut the power and water and wait a few days. Yeah, it's not exciting. But you end up burying fewer grandmothers.

On the topic of "tweaking:" there've been no few reports of LEOs using, ahem, performance-enhancing drugs in much the same manner as NFL players. Funny thing, those reports and mistakenly-dead no-knocks rise at about the same time and with similar rates. Connection? Well, a fellow on steroids is usually not much minded to sit and wait.... Perhaps it's all Merely A Coincidence.

You betcha.

JR47
August 13, 2006, 04:11 PM
Instead of generalizing about what's right and wrong, all the time mixing this instance into the generalizations, let's see what the facts are.

The area surrounding Baltimore resembles a war zone in many places. Until someone states the facts of the case for us, we're all too many of us ready to drag up any and every tin-foil hat scheme we've ever heard, happily piling on.

There's no way that the Baltimore County Police Department randomly chooses trash cans to rumage through. The fact that they had enough evidence to obtain a warrant also calls many of the statements here into doubt. As to why the officer shot the woman, and the sequence of those shots, is information that has already been given to a Grand Jury. Their decision is obvious.

You're listening to the opening salvo of a civil suit. Of course the attorney wants to make it sound as terrible as possible. Is there some reason that many here would accept that statement as any more true than that of the police, who have already had a Grand Jury investigation?:confused: :confused: :confused:

gc70
August 13, 2006, 04:33 PM
I also dislike speculation, so what are the facts that are known? The police conducted a no-knock raid in the wee hours of the morning; A woman standing in her bedroom with a gun was killed by the police; The other people in the house were charged with misdemeanor drug possession and released on their on recognizance, and; [A bit of negative evidence] I have seen no claims that anyone in the house had a criminal history.What bothers me is why there was a no-knock raid in the first place. It does not appear that the suspects were hardened, repeat offenders. And the resulting charges show that the suspects were not big-time drug dealers. So why call in SWAT?

While there is no evidence, I get pretty nervous over the possibility that the police may have felt that a no-knock SWAT raid was warranted because they might have known that someone in the house owned a gun.

Wildcard
August 13, 2006, 11:50 PM
What bothers me is why there was a no-knock raid in the first place.

Come on, they have to justify the existence of the ninja team, all the ninja cool toys, or else the future budget will suffer...Plus, its cool, and, they got to go home at the end of their shift. :barf:

Rich Lucibella
August 14, 2006, 02:23 AM
information that has already been given to a Grand Jury
Negative. According to the news report the Prosecutor refused to prosecute. The Grand Jury never heard the case.
Rich

JR47
August 14, 2006, 09:50 AM
Thank you, sir. In that case, the DA had to review all of the pertinent information?

There is still not enough information available as to the reason for the warrant service proceedure. Until we moved to Georgia last June, we lived about 20-25 miles from Balto. Co. They were known more for PC behavior in the PD than for vigorous enforcement of law. It may have been that PC factor that turned this into such a problem. The senior staff of the BCPD are all political appointees, and set department SOP. They may have specified the type of response in that SOP.

As I said, there isn't enough information here to judge, much less convict, anyone for the actions.:)

Rich Lucibella
August 14, 2006, 10:36 AM
JR-
I, too, spent 4 years in Bawlamer. It's hardly East LA.

But that isn't the issue; nor is the issue our ability to put these cops on trial based on the info available. Respectfully, the ISSUE, sir, is the fact that a mother is dead; shot to death in her own bedroom in the middle of the night by agents of the government sworn to protect and serve. And what were the fruits of the raid? One Mis-D, released on recognizance, drug bust.

Now THAT is a subject for which we have enough info to properly discuss, analyze and come to conclusion. My conclusions are simple:
1) The cops never should have been there under these circumstances in the first place; and it happens FAR too often, for increasingly diminishing fruits of the search;

2) THIS woman never should have been placed in a position of having to identify the invaders of her bedroom from a dead sleep in the first place;

3) The officers may have acted appropriately, but only if they can sleep well at night with the excuse that they "were only following orders";

4) The State let this family down and killed a Mother needlessly. Her life is over; no more sunrises; her children will grow up without her.

5) Too many, in the public and even on this board, encourage these types of raids by dismissing lost lives, such as Cheryl Noel's, under the guise of "Well, she must have done something wrong". Just how low do we want to drop the bar to warrant a summary sentence of DEATH?

Rich

Heist
August 14, 2006, 10:45 AM
In four years, the winds will change slightly, and they'll act as if they've never felt differently.

It might take SWAT raids over a 'tip' that someone had a shotgun barrel 1/2" too short, though.

Epyon
August 14, 2006, 01:00 PM
If there is dope and kids in the house how could you not see that as child abuse. Not to mention if you are addicted to illegal drugs there is no such thing as a legal gun in your posession. I don't believe that is what the cops were thinking in this case, but I'm talking about your comment now and not the article. Or did the neighbor throw their dope in these peoples trash can?

Replace dope with alcohol or tobacco, would you still consider it not to be child abuse because it's legal? How do we even know if this woman was addicted? What if she just smoked weed because she enjoys it in moderation like anyone would with alcohol or tobacco? Also, I must say DonR101395 if you woke up STARTLED in the middle of the night with no announcment that police are at your door, and all you hear are the flashbang and that battering ram wouldn't you go armed thinking it was a BG because you don't know it's the police until it's too late? Who's to say a BG couldn't construct his own version of a flashbang if he knew his chemistry? Also, I believe what liliysdad was trying to say is that there are bigger crimes to take care of than to raid someone's home just over something so trivial, should it turn out that this woman was not a dealer and the "trace amount of drugs" is just that, a small amount for personal consumption not intended to harm anyone. Also, I'm sure anyone in LE knows this personally that sometimes a bad cop will plant drugs on people just for an excuse to bust them.

Liliysdad I totally agree with what you have to say, there are bigger problems out there than recreational drug users that harm no one. So far, it does seem that this was overkill, and what I wish to know is what was the warrant for when they raided the house? I don't mean to take sides here, but if LE are supposed to be the good guys they have to follow and operate by the procedures they were trained under and to follow the LAW, not go blasting into houses with the "Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" attitude. Now suppose this warrant was to ambush a house that had an illegal cache of weapons, and amounts of drugs that qualify as "intent to sell" that was run by gang members, and it was positively identified as such, then I could understand that attitude in order for LE to remain safe while making arrests.


Epyon

DonR101395
August 14, 2006, 01:55 PM
I don't mean to take sides here, but if LE are supposed to be the good guys they have to follow and operate by the procedures they were trained under and to follow the LAW, not go blasting into houses with the "Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" attitude.

If you go back to my original post I said how about we get both sides of the story, not just the "victoms" side.(paraphrase) Then make an informed decision.

As to the alcohol and cigarettes, yes I would if they were illegal. You can't substitute illegal with legal and call it a stance. If killing weren't illegal this case wouldn't be an issue.(see how ridiculous that is?) I don't drink or smoke, I don't care for it. Growing up with an alcholic father I know what abuses can take place around alcohol abuse.

johnbt
August 14, 2006, 03:09 PM
"Officers conducted the raid after finding marijuana seeds in the Noels' garbage can."

I found this with google.

Well, duh, they obviously weren't growing the stuff, now were they?

Don't you wish you'd been a fly of the wall at the planning meeting prior to the raid? "Okay, now let's be careful on this one and not shoot the Sunday School teacher? Hey, you in the back row, pay attention."

John

alan
August 14, 2006, 09:14 PM
As I said, we shall have to see how this cookie crumbles, however given that blue is not my best color, I would not care to hold my breath, waiting to see the aggreived parties get a fair shake from the judiciary, either Maryland or federal. This is notwithstanding the large possibility that the news story I posted does not tell all.

I believe that it will be that cold day in hell when SWAT activities are really curbed. Have the antics of the BATFE, as it is currently known, off point perhaps, ever been checked? Some of their actions have been egregious to say the very least.

Omega blood
August 14, 2006, 10:53 PM
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(note: section 2-5 omitted)

At 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 21, 2005, Noel and her husband, Charles, were asleep in the master bedroom of their row house when the heavily-armed Baltimore County SWAT team stormed through her home. According to the suit, officers had found “trace amounts of drugs” in trash cans outside of the home.


Is this really probable cause or just really bad and lazy police work?
This is just me but I would think you would at least try to dig up more evidence than just digging through a trash can. Keep in mind that a trashcan will eventually end up in the street where anyone can drop something into it.
Did the LE steak out the house or follow the occupants to see how they were getting or if they were selling drugs?
How about looking for specious activity?
What did they find? Some resin from some pot?

Regarding issue with the 14th amendment looks clear to me. She was deprived of life with out the due process of law. I am sure if they did some basic police work they could have found out where she worked and arrest her there. Or if she did not work find out her routine and arrest her when she was out and about.

Another question, is the husband in jail for the drugs they were looking for? Did they even find drugs? If so which ones? How much? Did they find any evidence of criminal activity at all? How about the kids (if any)? Are they in foster care or living with relatives?

It just seems to me that Cheryl Noel died at the hands of an over powered, over zealous, lazy, heavy-handed police force.

P.S. Trace amounts of drugs can be found on American money.

azurefly
August 14, 2006, 11:15 PM
No, the family had already been secured downstairs before the officers went upstairs to find the woman alone in her room pointing a gun at them.


Joab, you know that she was "pointing a gun at them" how, exactly? :rolleyes:

It's funny how you claim people rush to judgment to condemn the cops, and then you make "factual" statements that at this point have not been proved true or false.

You stated that the woman was pointing a gun at the police. Has that been established by an unimpeachable, irrefutable source?


Now, yes, there seem to be some rather hinkey goings-on with both sides in this case. I find plenty of reason to doubt whether the family was upstanding citizens. If it is true -- and forensic evidence demonstrates it -- that the woman was shot a third time after having already collapsed, then that should go toward a wrongful death finding. After all, if any of us shot an intruder in our homes twice, and then plugged him a third and final time once he was face-down on the floor, for example, we would not be sleeping at home for many more nights, that's for sure.

I would like to see more information about how the cops came to suspect drug activity in this home;
why "trace" evidence of drugs out where any member of the public can tamper with it is reason enough for a warrant;
why the cops could not arrest the couple outside their home in a normal manner, rather than storming a home where children were present.


-azurefly

Epyon
August 14, 2006, 11:27 PM
Anyone who's an addict regardless of legal or illegal substance is capable of abusing those around them. As for my statement on whether or not it was legal, (this is about to go off topic a bit) it would've been irrelevant as to the legality of the substance if the person was NOT an addict and was NOT an abusive parent and used that substance in moderation, how are they abusing their children? What if the children are happy with their lives at home, and the mother and father are loving parents? So pot smoking parents are suddenly abusing their children when they smoke in moderation and don't abandon/beat their kids? At this point we don't know what the warrant was for, the "trace amount of drugs" was found AFTER the raid, still if it was a drug charge busting in like that is overkill. I've known people who do drink and smoke (both legal and illegal) but raise their kids well. Not to single out a specific group but it is known that in certain cultures consumption of cannabis is perfectly okay because it is accepted as something to help relax, enjoy, and for spiritual purposes. So what's the big deal about a substance that has been used by humans for thousands of years, and has only been outlawed in the last century or so? Sometimes the legality of certain things are questionable.


Epyon

joab
August 14, 2006, 11:29 PM
You stated that the woman was pointing a gun at the police. Has that been established by an unimpeachable, irrefutable
source?Let's see the lawyer for the family says that she had a gun no one involved with the case has at any time denied or disputed that she was in possession of a gun at the time if the incident. Is that irrefutable an unimpeachable enough for you?
If you want split frog hairs about the definition of "pointed at" go somewhere else.

f it is true -- and forensic evidence demonstrates it -- that the woman was shot a third time after having already collapsed, then that should go toward a wrongful death finding. After all, if any of us shot an intruder in our homes twice, and then plugged him a third and final time once he was face-down on the floor, for example, we would not be sleeping at home for many more nights, that's for sure.Wouldn't that depend on whether the first two shots could be determined to have been instantly fatal or at least incapacitating to the point that could be no twitching and/or involuntary muscle movement

azurefly
August 14, 2006, 11:53 PM
Let's see the lawyer for the family says that she had a gun no one involved with the case has at any time denied or disputed that she was in possession of a gun at the time if the incident. Is that irrefutable an unimpeachable enough for you?

Nope, considering that the article that started the thread states that the lawyer said the woman was pointing the gun at the floor, not at the cop.

Cheryl Noel feared criminal intruders had broken into her home and grabbed a lawfully registered gun and held it pointed at the floor, the suit states.

So, Joab, since you seem to have been there when it all went down, and feel at liberty to change the story of how it proceeded, why don't you just write a letter to the DA in Baltimore and tell him that you will come in and meet with him to tell him what really happened? :rolleyes:


-azurefly

azurefly
August 14, 2006, 11:56 PM
"If it is true -- and forensic evidence demonstrates it -- that the woman was shot a third time after having already collapsed, then that should go toward a wrongful death finding. After all, if any of us shot an intruder in our homes twice, and then plugged him a third and final time once he was face-down on the floor, for example, we would not be sleeping at home for many more nights, that's for sure."


Wouldn't that depend on whether the first two shots could be determined to have been instantly fatal or at least incapacitating to the point that could be no twitching and/or involuntary muscle movement

Gee, joab, you don't think that the entry and/or exit points for the first two shots might be somewhat different from that of the third shot, alleged to have been fired once she had collapsed to the floor? :rolleyes:


-azurefly

johnbt
August 15, 2006, 01:53 PM
"If you want split frog hairs about the definition of "pointed at" go somewhere else."

The question is was it pointed at the floor or pointed at the policeman.

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 02:10 PM
Nope, considering that the article that started the thread states that the lawyer said the woman was pointing the gun at the floor, not at the cop.


Where she was pointing the gun should have no basis at all on the justification of the shoot.

Let's assume for a minute that she was a dirtbag protecting her turf. 4am, shouting, flashlights, lots of men running around in her house. Sleepily grabs her gun to protect the "innocent children" under her care. Armed man enters her bedroom on the second floor, (presumably) shouting...yet she still doesn't fire.

Which one of us, "Honest, law-abiding", under the same circumstances, wouldn't have been reloading before the 1st cop hit the floor.

It seems to me that the untrained civilian woman criminal showed more restraint than the SWAT pro.

Before y'all go nuts on me here, I know that she was an alledged criminal, and I probably would not have fired on the cop at all....let alone got off a full mag.

I think that this situation is total crap.

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 02:19 PM
This whole thing is absurd. If the police conduct an unfruitful, 4 AM raid into your home and you're pointing a gun at the bedroom door as it crashes down, who is at fault for your death? Why should you be required to determine who they are in a fraction of a second, while they are under no requirement to determine who you are, given all the time and resources in the world....before they launch the offensive assault on your castle.

Just how many of these cases are we gonna dismiss as "bad luck" or even "justifiable shooting" before we start taking these Agencies to task for the absurd Policies and Procedures that virtually guarantee more Cheryl Noels?
Rich

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 02:31 PM
Well said rich

Eghad
August 15, 2006, 02:50 PM
Cheryl Noel's stepdaughter had been murdered several years earlier, and her son had recently been jumped by thugs on his way home. So the family had a legal, registered handgun in the home, and Noel had reason to be frightened.


When a SWAT officer kicked open the bedroom door, Noel sat up in bed with the gun, apparently pointed downward, not at the officer. The officer, who was wearing a helmet, mask, shield, and bulletproof vest, and who came in behind a bulletproof ballistic shield, fired twice. Noel slumped over, and the gun slipped out of her hand. The officer then walked over to her and ordered her to move further away from the gun. She couldn't, of course. When she didn't, he shot her a third time, essentially from point-blank range.

That's Charles Noel's version of events. But it's supported by the autopsy done on his wife. And early police accounts of the raid have since been revised. The Baltimore Sun, for example, first reported that police said Noel was pointing her gun at them when they entered. That has since changed. She was holding the gun, but not pointing it at anyone.

After her death, neighbors circulated a petition vouching for her character and integrity. She ran Bible study groups on her lunch break. She's dead not because she's any sort of threat to society, but because Baltimore County police decided to conduct a 4:30am, no-knock raid after finding seeds of marijuana in the family trash.

I'll have more on this later. I've spoken at length with Charles Noel and with Roberts, as well as with several friends of the family.

as Rich said dangerous for the Cops too:

Back in November 2002, Lewis Cauthorne was in the basement of his Baltimore home when heard the screams of his mother, girlfriend, and three-year-old daughter. Baltimore police were conducting a no-knock raid on his home, based on a tip from a single, anonymous informant. Police never announced themselves, and raided in street clothes. Cauthorne emerged from the basement with a handgun, shooting and wounding four of the invading police officers. Cops returned fire. Fortunately, no one was killed in the crossfire.

Cauthorne spent the next seven weeks in jail. Finally, in January of 2003, prosecutors dropped the charges against him, concluding that Cauthorne had reason to believe his life was in danger. Damn right, he did.

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026909.php

What Charles Noel and the family members eneded up being charged with were misdemeanor possesion of marijuana, he posessed over 5 lbs of blackpowder and they were released on without bail.

Pretty damn sad state of affairs when we start killing our citizens over a couple of baggies of marijuana. I just dont understand the need to do a full blown no knock raid on people who have no history of criminal violence. Incompetence, laziness and arrogance by some person in charge.

smooks75
August 15, 2006, 03:20 PM
Well put Rich.

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 03:37 PM
The officer then walked over to her and ordered her to move further away from the gun. She couldn't, of course. When she didn't, he shot her a third time, essentially from point-blank range.


On the one hand, 'That doesn't matter to me at all. If he was justified to shoot to kill one time, then who is to say when is enough?'

On the other hand, 'If he came to arrest in the dark of night, in fully protective garb, invading a home where children slept, what would a reasonable person expect to encounter? A person lying prostrate on the floor, awaiting what fate may come? Or an outraged homeowner protecting the lives and property that fall under her charge?'

A Homeowner is not allowed to set a booby trap in his house to kill a burglar. Not only that you might kill the innocent, but also the guilty. The punishment must fit the crime. Burglary is not a capital offense.

Marijuanna (or heroin) possesion is not a capital offense.

Cauthorne spent the next seven weeks in jail. Finally, in January of 2003, prosecutors dropped the charges against him, concluding that Cauthorne had reason to believe his life was in danger.

So he was in effect "punished" for seven weeks for protecting his own life.

I see a wider and wider net being cast that ensnares both the guilty and the innocent, all in the name of safety for us all.

It seems that it is making allies of the crook and lawabiding. I will consider the accused to be innocent until proven otherwise.

JR47
August 15, 2006, 04:38 PM
The Baltimore City Police Department, and the Baltimore County Police Department are separate entities. The City of Baltimore exists as a stand-alone, just like another county, in Maryland.

Rich, I agree with you that there has been no evidence supplied that would justify a "no-knock" warrant. However, all we seem to be hearing is the information released by the family's attorney, and the people in the house, wherever they were located during the incident. That through the filter of the media, a source of unimpeachable accuracy, right?

I also find it troubling that many are also already convinced that the outcome of the events, should they not be in favor of the deceased's family, simply means that the fix is in. Are we that close to thinking like the rioters in the Rodney King Trial? :confused:

Wildcard
August 15, 2006, 04:41 PM
This whole thing is absurd. If the police conduct an unfruitful, 4 AM raid into your home and you're pointing a gun at the bedroom door as it crashes down, who is at fault for your death? Why should you be required to determine who they are in a fraction of a second, while they are under no requirement to determine who you are, given all the time and resources in the world....before they launch the offensive assault on your castle.

Read that again.

while they are under no requirement to determine who you are, given all the time and resources in the world....before they launch the offensive assault on your castle.

Well said. There should be more that rights violation charges being pursued.

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 04:49 PM
However, all we seem to be hearing is the information released by the family's attorney, and the people in the house, wherever they were located during the incident. That through the filter of the media, a source of unimpeachable accuracy, right?

What I hear is publically announced accusations by the (victim's) family.

What I have not heard is any justification by the armed, home-invaders who perpetuated a homicide.

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 05:10 PM
JR47-
I'm not arguing against the actions of the individual cops in this case....for the hundredth time, I'm arguing against the No-Knock POLICY in routine cases.

With that understood, here's what we know:
- The raid provided no evidence of real criminal activity in the home....none; zero; nada; zip

- No serious charges were filed against ANYONE in the Noel household.

- ANOTHER US citizen is dead; gunned down by agents of the State in her damned BEDROOM AT 4 IN THE MORNING

- Many on this very web site are looking at it as "just another day" in the law enforcement life of the "Most Free Nation On Earth".

How could freedom loving Americans NOT be incensed by this growing trend?
Rich

gb_in_ga
August 15, 2006, 05:55 PM
How could freedom loving Americans NOT be incensed by this growing trend?
Agreed. From the perspective of the homeowner, what does that no-knock raid look like? A home invasion, a kick-in robbery attempt of the type that is becoming all too common nowadays. And even identifying themselves as police while performing the no-knock raid does nothing to diffuse the situation since it has also become all to common that kick-in home invasion perps are doing the same thing: announcing themselves to be police, etc.

The police have the DUTY to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt. The police & courts have the DUTY to diligently pre-screen these no-knock raids so as to minimize the incidence of raids on the innocent. I do believe that the police should EXPECT to find armed homeowners of the innocent variety any time they execute such a no-knock warrant, and be prepared for such, so as to minimize the chances for unwarranted loss of life.

After all -- if someone comes busting in my door, I'm drawing! I don't have the luxury of hanging around and trying to ascertain whether or not it is a bad guy or a good guy -- they are BUSTING DOWN MY DOOR! It is the cops' job to defuse the situation, not mine -- after all, they instigated the situation.

Eghad
August 15, 2006, 06:02 PM
Like Rich said you cant blame the officers or the guys in the field because they were doing what they were briefed to do. You can blame the policy of doing no knock raids on locations where there has been no history of criminal violence. Now if it was a known crack house with violent offenders out the wazoo who are armed a no knock raid would probably be appropriate.

What makes me mad is the fact that these folks had no history of any criminal violence. Where did the tip that these folks have drugs come from. How hard can it be to check a location and persons for a criminal history. What was going through the heads of those that are entrusted to be in charge and make sure its a good bust?

Now there is a cop who has to live with the fact he killed a wife and mother because those he trusted to lead him messed up or were too zealous. If I were a CCW holder or had a weapon at home I would be very nervous about these type of situations happening. Having a CCW may get you killed in a no knock raid if the police check.

Our rights to self defense and civil liberties are being nullified by the state with these no knock raids. In a no knock raid if the address is screwed up or its charges blown out of proportion you have the right to die. The law enforcement ageny says sorry and thats about all you get from them in some cases.

The second part of this equation needs to be accountability.

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 06:06 PM
The police have the DUTY to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt. The police & courts have the DUTY to diligently pre-screen these no-knock raids so as to minimize the incidence of raids on the innocent. I do believe that the police should EXPECT to find armed homeowners of the innocent variety any time they execute such a no-knock warrant, and be prepared for such, so as to minimize the chances for unwarranted loss of life.

After all -- if someone comes busting in my door, I'm drawing! I don't have the luxury of hanging around and trying to ascertain whether or not it is a bad guy or a good guy -- they are BUSTING DOWN MY DOOR! It is the cops' job to defuse the situation, not mine -- after all, they instigated the situation.

Apparently I really suck at delivering my thoughts and opinions on this subject.

Allow me to try once again:

The police, having the inteligence (reason for the raid), decide that 4am is the correct time to execute such raid.

The police, have the intellignce, that the one to be raided is armed.

The police, having the aforementioned intelligence, decide that the public good is best served by hostile, home invasion tactics.

At 4 am, the armed homeowner is raided, and killed.

Why?

It seems to me that the police were dirrectly responsible for that death.

joab
August 15, 2006, 06:21 PM
Nope, considering that the article that started the thread states that the lawyer said the woman was pointing the gun at the floor, not at the cop.Once again read the entire comment, not just the part that fuels your attack If you want split frog hairs about the definition of "pointed at" go somewhere else.Clear enough for you?
And as long as we're playing the word twisting game, where did I say that she was intentionally pointing it at the cop?
Where did I even imply that she could not have been righteously targeting the threat behind the door, which just happened to be a cop?
Where have I made any judgment of the legality or righteousness of her actions?
Can't find that anywhere can you smart guy?

And for the record I am not so stupid as to believe that anyone would try to defend their home with a handgun by threatening to ruin the carpet
So, Joab, since you seem to have been there when it all went down, and feel at liberty to change the story of how it proceeded, why don't you just write a letter to the DA in Baltimore and tell him that you will come in and meet with him to tell him what really happenedMore TwistyBoy BS from AF. Read this again if it helpsIf you want split frog hairs about the definition of "pointed at" go somewhere else.

Gee, joab, you don't think that the entry and/or exit points for the first two shots might be somewhat different from that of the third shot, alleged to have been fired once she had collapsed to the floor?And your point is?
Or did you even think that comment out enough to have a point.
Or are you saying that someone one who has dropped to the ground after being shot must also be assumed to have been killed instantly, and that if the shots were fatal there could be no involuntary muscle spasm while on the ground that would have the appearance of reaching for the gun or attempting to fire it.
Read the post again.
You can read real slow and even move your lips if you need to
Wouldn't that depend on whether the first two shots could be determined to have been instantly fatal or at least incapacitating to the point that could be no twitching and/or involuntary muscle movementNot one single word or implication about whether she as standing or laying down after those first two shots, now is there?

It is obvious that your only reason to post here is to attack me yet again. And yet again you resort to easily refuted juvenile attempts at word twisting.

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 06:34 PM
Names don't need to be called.

Especially when we have taken a single news story, and picked it apart to molecular levels.

But, you are still wrong, joab..... :D ;)

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 06:56 PM
Joab-
Why do you keep focusing on the 3 seconds of the confrontation, while continuing to ignore the 30 hours that led up to it; the 30 hours and MORE if they needed it! In fairness, this thread is not about those 3 seconds, but about those 30 hours:
- the 30 hours during which the State could re-check their charges, evidence and sources.

- the 30 hours during which the State could recheck the motto on their own patrol cars, had they forgotten what The State stands for.

- the 30 hours during which the State could re-evaluate the risk to its own Officers vs the benefits to its own Constituents.

- the 30 hours during which the State could choose to act as a key component of the Most Free Nation on Earth, vs a Banana Republic Death Squad.

Why do you keep doing that?
Rich

gc70
August 15, 2006, 07:14 PM
joab, I have entirely too little information to render any sort of reasonable judgement about the actions of the police during the raid. However, the indisputable evidence of the results of the raid strongly suggest that there was not adequate justification for a no-knock raid in the first place.

joab
August 15, 2006, 07:25 PM
Why do you keep doing that?If you read my posts from the beginning you will see that I am not focusing on any time frame.
My contention has been that an article that gives only the family and trial lawyer's account of the incident is enough evidence for some to start with the cop bashing that seems so prevalent on these boards.
When that same level of "evidence" against an arrested gun owner would be dismissed as propaganda

My reference to those three seconds in my last two or three posts was a direct response to AzureFly's attempt to paint me as a hypocrite.

You will also see that I have made no judgment either way on this case, although some here ,predictably, paint me as a sheep for the state because I refuse to rush judgment and condemnation of people who happen to be cops based on a one sided article.

Perhaps coincidently but every post prior to my first was simple cop bashing and nothing more.
The post immediately after mine was a call for more info before judgment.

I have no opinion on this particular raid because there is no reporting on the issues that led the police to conduct the raid in this fashion.
And I have no training or insight on what exactly goes on in the planning of these raids, this one in particular.

I do have an opinion on how these cop bashing threads reflect on us as a community or group
Of the last three people I have directed to this site, and one other, two have come back and said that we seem like a bunch of anarchists and their opinion of "gun nuts" was only strengthened by the encounter.
The other just laughed it off and called us the anti Brady Bunch, implying that, in his opinion we were as nutty and zealous as they are and hs wife called us scary.

.

joab
August 15, 2006, 07:31 PM
the indisputable evidence of the results of the raid strongly suggest that there was not adequate justification for a no-knock raid in the first place.Perhaps so but is there indisputable evidence that..
Its ok, the cops were able to go home at the end of their shift.Don't worry, a small baggie of drugs will be found - curiously enough the correct size to fit into a tactical cargo pocket - and that will justify the whole thing!cops are out there digging in people's trash to find "trace" amounts of dope. $100 says that no one hangs for this like they should.And my favorite bit of vitriol, cheered on by you by the waythe murder could have been stopped by having arrested all the cops before the incident happened, or by throwing a flashbang into their "planning room" session, then shooting each of them three times, just to make sure that they didn't go forward with their murder". And one from you im sure later after they tear apart the house that an arsenal will be found, a kilo of coke with their names clearly written on the bag and a an entire meth cooking lab discoverd in the cellar.
I'll admit that this site steered the thread in a more constructive way than the other did, for the most part, but is all that really necessary?

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 07:48 PM
You will also see that I have made no judgment either way on this case
Joab-
I am about sooooo done here.

- You can't make a judgment about the 4 AM STORMING of a US CITIZEN RESIDENCE that the EVIDENCE SHOWS was not engaged in drug trafficking?

- You can't make judgment regarding the RESPONSIBILITY of AMERICAN CITIZENS to protect their families against home invasions in the dark of night?

- You can't understand what all the hubub is when a MOTHER is gunned down for pointing a LEGAL FIREARM at/toward/near/around a [might have claimed-to-be] INVADING STATE AGENT IN HER BEDROOM AT 4 IN THE MORNING?

- You can't make a judgment as to how many Noel Family Terrors go unreported by the press....because they don't result in shots fired; just families terrorized? Is it 10:1 Noel? 50:1 Noel? 100:1 Noel? If you can't venture a "judgment", would you AT LEAST venture a GUESS?!!!!

- You need a Judge to tell you how you should think on these issues?....they are each FACT or ramification of the FACT.

Well, then....I suggest you should relinquish your right to VOTE....until, of course, you have "all the facts" before Election Day. :rolleyes:
Rich

FirstFreedom
August 15, 2006, 07:54 PM
According to the suit, officers had found “trace amounts of drugs” in trash cans outside of the home.

Do you know how many times I've picked up trash from my front yard, my next door neighbors' yards, and the street in front of my house, and placed it in my trash can? And since there was a crack house on my street 3 houses down a few years ago, do you know how incredibly easy it would be for 'trace amounts' of drugs to be found on some trash I grabbed off my lawn?

I know what would happen if I was king for a day. The police chief AND the magistrate who authorized this would be publicly hanged, and I'm not kidding. We have GOT to start holding the government accountable for their wrongful deaths, in a big way.

If there's any justice, the Baltimore cops will be bankrupt and the lady's family very very rich when this is all over.

gc70
August 15, 2006, 07:59 PM
joab, you decry cop bashing - so do I. But do you not see any teeny, tiny hint of a problem with the system that allowed this raid to occur?

Heist
August 15, 2006, 08:01 PM
If there's any justice, the Baltimore cops will be bankrupt and the lady's family very very rich when this is all over.

Unfortunately, there's this thing called the "thin blue wall"..

Look at the guy who shot the drunk off duty cop with a history of DUIs when his wife was being attacked by him. The police *in his area* (Not an indictment of all good officers* are doing everything in their power to get him put away on murder charges.

We should all know our place and not mess with the superior class, donchaknow. They're the only ones professional enough to _____ .

joab
August 15, 2006, 08:01 PM
You can't make a judgment about the 4 AM STORMING of a US CITIZEN RESIDENCE that the EVIDENCE SHOWS was not engaged in drug trafficking?No Rich, lack of evidence is not positive evidence to the contrary

You can't make judgment regarding the RESPONSIBILITY of AMERICAN CITIZEN'S to protect their families against home invasions in the dark of night?Where have I said that I can't make that judgment
Where has that been factually established as the motive for the woman arming herself?

You can't understand what all the hubbub is when a MOTHER is gunned down for pointing a LEGAL FIREARM at/toward/near/around a [perhaps unknown] INVADING STATE AGENT?Where have I said that?
I have stated my position on what you call "hubbub"? My stated position is simply against the unwarranted attack on the police noting more.
Perhaps I should have said that have not presented my opinion or judgment instead that I have made no judgment, there may have been less room for twisting
Well, then....I suggest you should relinquish your right to VOTE....until, of course, you have "all the facts"
Well, I try to arm myself with at least some of the facts before I vote. Don't you?
I certainly don't make my choice simply based on an article presenting the opinion of the opposing party
:) Right back attcha

joab
August 15, 2006, 08:07 PM
joab, you decry cop bashing - so do I.But you do it so well, want to see it again.
But do you not see any teeny, tiny hint of a problem with the system that allowed this raid to occur?I have not addressed that issue, and so far the only evidence that it was a bad raid is the statements of the family and trial lawyer.
Don't you see any teeny tiny hint of what I am saying here

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 08:07 PM
No Rich, lack of evidence is not positive evidence to the contrary
Joab-
Of course not....unless you live in a Nation of Laws; a Nation where even you, Joab, enjoy a presumption of innocence; a Nation where, when the full weight of the State cannot find a crime, you are generally granted innocence, not only by the COURTS but by Me Also. After all, Joab, you were raided.....you must have been guilty of something.

I'm pretty certain you bear watching, too, Joab....did you fill in those IRS forms without error? Why are you traveling to Yellowstone...you have no family there. You seem to have a whole lot of cash in your pocket....hmmmm, it's "tainted" with cocaine, too. Did you just question my AUTHORITY to search you for dangerous weapons, Joab? My records show you do have a Firearms Permit, no?

All Hail Joe Stalin now.
What an absolutely farcical debate.
Rich

joab
August 15, 2006, 08:13 PM
Of corse not....unless you live in a Nation of Laws; a Nation where even you, Joab, enjoy a presumption of innocence; and when the full wight of the State cannot find a crime, you are generally granted innocence. After all, Joab, you were raided.....you must have been guilty of something.Now who is relying on a judge.
You are ****** because I won't come to judgment based on a one sided article quoting the family and trial lawyer. That hardly compares to the full weight of the state.
All Hail Joe Stalin now.
What an absolute farcical debate.
RichWhat a farcical comment
because I won't accept the testimony in the court of public opinion of the family and their lawyer, I am now a communist sympathizer?

I cannot understand how you can build a soapbox out of one prejudiced article anymore than you can understand how I can't

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 08:24 PM
My contention has been that an article that gives only the family and trial lawyer's account of the incident is enough evidence for some to start with the cop bashing that seems so prevalent on these boards.

Here is my take on the cop bashing:

The enforcers need be more beholden to the law. Vis a vi, they must be more accountable than the citizen.

If I am to trust the LEO to protect me from evildoers, he must himself so distance himself from evildoers to leave himself above reproach.

When any officer of the law, aborts the faith with which he has been entrusted, he destroys the faith in the system, not himself. It is much larger than that with which he has been entrusted.
He has damaged faith in the system.

As, such, he is more accountable to the law, he must be above reproach. One who enforces the law at his discression, is no more than a despot.

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 08:25 PM
OK, Joab-
Let's start over...... nobody called you a Communist sympathizer. I simply alluded to the fact that public statements like yours were the bread and butter of the control exercised by people like Joe Stalin. You can like it or dislike it; or you can refute it with a bit less "wiggle" than you've offered thus far.

You tell me:
What DO we know about this case?

Q: Do we know if any drugs were found?
A: Yes..trace amounts in an exterior trash can.

Q: Do we know if any charges were levied against the family of a woman SHOT THREE TIMES AND NOW DEAD?
A: Yes. Husband released on recognizance.

Q: Do we know why the house was raided?
A: No. The State has not deigned to share that with us....perhaps Cheryl was connected to 911 and it's classified?

Q: Do we know where the perp (victim?) was at the time of the "incident"?
A: Yes, in her bed, ASLEEP!

Q: Do we know what time it was?
A: Yes, it was Four Thirty in the Morning.

Q: Do we know what we value most on this Forum?
A: Yes, unswerving protection of self and family from unknown attackers, REASONABLY JUDGED to intend us serious harm.

Soooooooo-
Have I got any of the "known facts" wrong?
Would you like to add any additional facts to the discussion?
Are you willing to come to ANY conclusions on THOSE FACTS before awaiting "all the facts"?
Rich

joab
August 15, 2006, 08:35 PM
No Rich you have made your mind up based on the information in this oh so informational article.
As you have said the police have not chosen to seek your counsel on the events of that night so they must be guilty as hell of all charges levied against them.
They are murderers who would have come back to plant drugs and guns in the house to bolster their case if not for the intervention of the board and should be shot three times each at their next company picnic
There do I fit in here now?

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 08:38 PM
As you have said the police have not chosen to seek your counsel on the events of that night so they must be guilty as hell of all charges levied against them.
They are murderers who would have come back to plant drugs and guns in the house to bolster their case if not for the intervention of the board and should be shot three times each at their next company picnic
There do I fit in here now?Can't go that way, Brother.

I'm an impossible target to turn into a cop basher. I'm an impossible target into who's mouth you can inject those kind of words. My history, words and works speak for themselves.

What you CAN do is respond to the facts as you know them or continue to back-peddle. On this one, I now give you no quarter.
Rich

gc70
August 15, 2006, 08:50 PM
joab, had I fully understood your attitude earlier, I would not have repeatedly responded to your posts with suggestions that the criminal justice system might be anything other than perfect and infallible.

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 08:57 PM
A: No. The State has not deigned to share that with us....perhaps Cheryl was connected to 911 and it's classified?


No fair, I could make lots of other suggestions...none of which would be germaine.

Below the belt.

FirstFreedom
August 15, 2006, 09:12 PM
You're right Rich. About the only thing we DON'T know is whether she pointed the gun at the intruder. The family vehemently disputes that. But interestingly enough, it's irrelevant since the intruder was just that - an unannounced intruder - a criminal in her mind - against whom she had a right to protect herself, including pointing a gun. Her only mistake was not shooting first. I mean, the police are not disputing they they did NOT knock or announce, are they?

rangermonroe
August 15, 2006, 09:35 PM
Yes, would be my first thought.....

joab
August 15, 2006, 09:49 PM
I mean, the police are not disputing they they did NOT knock or announce, are they?They are disputing the fact that did not announce their presence once inside the house and before they proceeded upstairs. But you won't find that in this article so it is immaterial to the investigation

Can't go that way, Brother.Sorry didn't realize that the word injecting thing was your sole territory
Maybe I should have done a little sarcastic emoticon for you after I asked if I fit in here now:rolleyes: like that
What you CAN do is respond to the facts as you know them or continue to back-peddle. On this one, I now give you no quarter.I need no quarter, where have I deviated from my original point?

Now you think you can bully me into a peripheral argument? Just because I don't automatically jump on the side of the state hater doesn't mean that I am sheeple
I have made my point and stick with it. You choose to minimize it with some happy horse pucky about valuing unswerving family protection, apparently as the basis for all the juvenile cop bashing based on a single one sided article quoting the family and their trial lawyer
My history, words and works speak for themselves.If this argument was written as one sided in favor of the cops and generated as much LEO chest thumping I would be just as adamant on the side of not judging the "perps" on the basis of one article written by the police chief.
My history and my words on this forum and others speak for themselves. As a matter of fact I believe it was you or moderator here that implied that I was a cop basher not all that long ago.
And I took as much heat for siding with a homeowner that shot a couple of cops on his back porch, but that was after all the evidence available was presented.

Rich Lucibella
August 15, 2006, 10:06 PM
Now you think you can bully me into a peripheral argument?
I've attempted to "bully" you into nothing, Joab....and it's you that continues with peripheral arguments:
- "Well, where was her gun pointed?"
- "Well, just because there were no charges doesn't mean she was innocent of anything."
- "Well, OK then, let's kill all the cops at the annual picnic."

Yet you haven't responded to a single FACT that has been offered; preferring to respond with broad generalizations of how the rest of us "bully" you; preferring a cadenced sidestep of the REAL issues on the floor.

We'll come together on another topic and agree wholeheartedly, I'm sure. But for this one? You're dismissed now. You refuse to talk FACTS and continue to defend a position that became indefensible a half dozen posts ago. Simply....for what? (Don't answer that.....I'm already frightened enough. :D)
Rich

joab
August 15, 2006, 10:06 PM
joab, had I fully understood your attitude earlier, I would not have repeatedly responded to your posts with suggestions that the criminal justice system might be anything other than perfect and infallible.If you had read my initial post it should have been clear exactly where I stand in this discussion.
Notice the cutesy way I highlight all the witnesses and how I end it with a condemnation of rushing to judgment based on the version of events presented only by the family and their trial lawyerSo much indisputable evidence from so many unimpeachable witnesses, how could the cops be anything but guilty.If that is not enough you should notice the incessant use of the term "the family and their trial lawyer"

Nowhere have I presented judgment of guilt or innocence of either party based on the facts of the case, because there just isn't any, no matter how hard some try to say that there is. There is merely supposition based a missing evidence, namely a police response.
Some consider that to be the tie that binds the argument together, I simply consider that to be the missing link needed to prove the theory

If I'm not mistaken gc70 weren't you one of my most vocal opponents on the copshooting thread?

joab
August 15, 2006, 10:25 PM
Come on Rich, I asked you a series of questions a few posts back you responded to none.

Yet you haven't responded to a single question I've asked; preferring to respond with broad generalizations of how the rest of us "bully" you and general sidesteps of the REAL issues on the floor.
I made one reference to bullying and it was directed at you not to some "us". Ease up on the generalizations yourself there.

I'll play your little game since you refuse to accept the validity of my point

Q: Do we know what led the police to believe that were drugs in the house
A: You would if you bothered to do a little research beyond the words of the family and their trial lawyer

Q: Do we know where the perp (victim) was at the time of the shooting
A: No, but her family and their trial say she was asleep so it must be true

Q: Do we know where the husband was
A: No but someone suggested that he may have been flushing evidence

Q: Do we know if there was an investigation into the events
A: Yes the cops were cleared of wrong doing, But the findings of the clearly biased state do not hold weight against the clearly unbiased words of THE FAMILY AND THEIR TRIAL LAWYER see I can do that too who stand to be very rich if things go their way

Q: Do we know the police account of the raid
A: No because unlike the family and their trial lawyer they have chosen not to take the case to the court of public opinion this time, or possibly just because the family and the trial lawyer did not feel like using their fifteen minutes to give that info out.
Or possibly just because no one here has found it yet

azurefly
August 15, 2006, 10:58 PM
This bears repeating, loud and clear:

After all -- if someone comes busting in my door, I'm drawing! I don't have the luxury of hanging around and trying to ascertain whether or not it is a bad guy or a good guy -- they are BUSTING DOWN MY DOOR! It is the cops' job to defuse the situation, not mine -- after all, they instigated the situation.


I sure hope there are people in the law enforcement and legal communities who take note of our concerns and do something about them -- because they should be everyone's concerns.


-azurefly

azurefly
August 15, 2006, 11:04 PM
It is obvious that your only reason to post here is to attack me yet again. And yet again you resort to easily refuted juvenile attempts at word twisting.


Whatever "attacking" I have done has been strictly aimed at your arguments, and unlike you, I have not resorted to petty snipes and very-thinly veiled insults of your intelligence.

Frankly I'm very surprised you haven't earned yourself a ban here.

Pretty disappointed, too.

It would be one thing if someone were to pick up your torch and carry it for you, making the same arguments but without the ad hominems. Sure, the forum might lose something if you were to go bye-bye, but I don't think we'd really lack for stuff to discuss and debate. It would just be that much less acrimonious is all.


-azurefly

Trip20
August 15, 2006, 11:13 PM
This article should have brought on discussion of a disturbing police policy. Instead, it's been a circle of useless arguments over irrelevant particulars.

Someone tried to outline the issue, and get the discussion on track very early in the thread:

Respectfully, the ISSUE, sir, is the fact that a mother is dead; shot to death in her own bedroom in the middle of the night by agents of the government sworn to protect and serve. And what were the fruits of the raid? One Mis-D, released on recognizance, drug bust.

Now THAT is a subject for which we have enough info to properly discuss, analyze and come to conclusion.

Too many, in the public and even on this board, encourage these types of raids by dismissing lost lives, such as Cheryl Noel's, under the guise of "Well, she must have done something wrong". Just how low do we want to drop the bar to warrant a summary sentence of DEATH?

Bolding mine.

Why has this not been the topic of discussion?

By the way, if we were required to wait for every single fact to surface before forming opinions, there would be no discussion on discussion boards, or anywhere else for that matter.

There is nothing wrong with forming opinions based on the information currently available. If we didn’t, there would be no gut-feelings, first impressions, or any other preliminary/cursory assessment.

The problem comes when people are unable (or unwilling) to change their opinion when NEW information surfaces that would cause the reasonable mind to question it's original position.

By debating with this in mind, we should be able to skip the insolence and discuss the real issue – a dangerous police policy.

Frankly I'm very surprised you haven't earned yourself a ban here.

Pretty disappointed, too.

It would be one thing if someone were to pick up your torch and carry it for you, making the same arguments but without the ad hominems. Sure, the forum might lose something if you were to go bye-bye, but I don't think we'd really lack for stuff to discuss and debate. It would just be that much less acrimonious is all.

You have an ignore list; use it. I'm sure there are people that wouldn't mind seeing you go (and me too for that matter) - and I'd also remind them of their ignore list feature. Trust me, I've had my differences with joab in the past, but I hardly think his participation in this thread warrants a ban, or even a slight reprimand.

azurefly
August 15, 2006, 11:14 PM
azurefly: "You stated that the woman was pointing a gun at the police. Has that been established by an unimpeachable, irrefutable
source?"

joab: "Let's see the lawyer for the family says that she had a gun no one involved with the case has at any time denied or disputed that she was in possession of a gun at the time if the incident. Is that irrefutable an unimpeachable enough for you?
If you want split frog hairs about the definition of "pointed at" go somewhere else."

joab, why didn't you address my actual question?? :rolleyes:

I asked you specifically about how it has been supposedly established as "fact" that the woman pointed her gun at the cop, and you brought up the fact that everyone agrees she "was in possession of a gun at the time of the incident." What does that have to do with the price of 9mm Parabellum in China?

Let's see, Joab. You originally wrote the following: "No, the family had already been secured downstairs before the officers went upstairs to find the woman alone in her room pointing a gun at them."

Then you tell me I'm splitting hairs when I bring up the subject that so far, the only source claiming she pointed a gun at the COPS is YOU?

What other source has established this as fact? Were any shots fired from the woman's gun? Was there videotape of the action that took place in that room?

Debating this with you is maddening, because you are evasive and disingenuous in the way you conduct yourself.


-azurefly

azurefly
August 15, 2006, 11:18 PM
Q: Do we know if there was an investigation into the events
A: Yes the cops were cleared of wrong doing, But the findings of the clearly biased state do not hold weight against the clearly unbiased words of THE FAMILY AND THEIR TRIAL LAWYER see I can do that too who stand to be very rich if things go their way

Okay, let's recap:

It's wrong of us to prejudge the state/cops/DA/investigators and believe that there was a whitewash of these events, and doing so shows that we are unfairly prejudiced and biased against the police,

but...

it's okay for joab to dismiss the claims of the family because we all know that if they are upheld in court they will all be paid handsomely for the wrong perpetrated against them.

The fact that they stand to become rich means they must be lying, right, joab?

How is that not hypocrisy on your part, joab?


-azurefly

azurefly
August 15, 2006, 11:21 PM
trip20, who says I want to not read the POINTS that a person has made (which I'd be unable to do if I put them on an ignore list)? There are posts by joab that very clearly INSULT, INTENTIONALLY.

I wasn't whining that I had to read them, and sitting here helplessly not knowing that I could "ignore" him. I was pointing out that he is crossing the line of insult repeatedly.

If you really can't see it, I'll copy and paste some of them for you, but I'd prefer to not have to waste the time.


-azurefly

Trip20
August 15, 2006, 11:50 PM
trip20, who says I want to not read the POINTS that a person has made (which I'd be unable to do if I put them on an ignore list)?

Hmm. You've got me scratchin' my head on this one, azurefly. I could swear that the same outcome is realized through moderator banning.

In addition, if the "POINTS" made by a person are so tainted with "petty snipes and very-thinly veiled insults", why would you want to read them?

I suggested the ignore list because you commented on being pretty disappointed joab hadn't been banned. If you're disappointed due to what you feel is moderator inaction, they give you a tool for just that instance. We are also our own moderators in that sense.

joab
August 16, 2006, 12:00 AM
Whatever "attacking" I have done has been strictly aimed at your arguments, and unlike you, I have not resorted to petty snipes and very-thinly veiled insults of your intelligence.It's funny how you claim people rush to judgment to condemn the cops, and then you make "factual" statements that at this point have not been proved true or false.So, Joab, since you seem to have been there when it all went down, and feel at liberty to change the story of how it proceeded, why don't you just write a letter to the DA in Baltimore and tell him that you will come in and meet with him to tell him what really happened?:rolleyes: Gee, joab, you don't think that the entry and/or exit points for the first two shots might be somewhat different from that of the third shot, alleged to have been fired once she had collapsed to the floor? :rolleyes: Debating this with you is maddening, because you are evasive and disingenuous in the way you conduct yourself.you come here with the single intent to prove me a hypocrite and then whine when I "insult" you. Here's a thought don't come looking for a fight and then cry when you get one.

The fact that they stand to become rich means they must be lying, right, joab?
If you think that questioning the validity of their story to support the opinion that their story is not sufficient evidence to support a call for LEO blood is hypocritical then you are too single minded to see past your mission.
joab, why didn't you address my actual question?? I did repeatedly
Debating this with you is maddening, because you are evasive and disingenuous in the way you conduct yourself
Debating anything with you is maddening because you have one goal in mindFrankly I'm very surprised you haven't earned yourself a ban here.

Pretty disappointed, too.As you have tried and been disappointed before, grow up
It would be one thing if someone were to pick up your torch and carry it for you, making the same arguments but without the ad hominems. Sure, the forum might lose something if you were to go bye-bye, but I don't think we'd really lack for stuff to discuss and debate. It would just be that much less acrimonious is all.I'm not even hardly sure what the hell that means.

If you read any of my posts at all you will find that I think most people are full of crap. And most accounts of events given by one party or the other are basically lies until proved true and even then are still laced with lies or at least misrepresentations, take your posts for instance.
As I have said, but you did not bother to read because it does not fit your agenda, I would have reacted the same way if this was a LEO story that everyone was slurping up as gospel.
You will also notice that all but my first post have been in response to posts directed at me, if I am maddening to you hit the ignore button.

I stand by my original point
This one sided article based on quotes by the family and their trial lawyer is not sufficient evidence for the cop bashing that started here. The validity of the story is questionable due to the witnesses that the reporter chose to highlight.
I have stood by that point throughout the attempts to paint me as a goose stepping hypocritical sheep

I have no more respect for those that think that this article presents any facts than they do for me.

Now AzureFly
Since you lack the maturity to ignore me, I'll do it for you.
I will miss your feeble attempts at my character assassination though

Scott Conklin
August 16, 2006, 12:27 AM
You are ****** because I won't come to judgment based on a one sided article

You clearly HAVE come to judgement. You are on the receiving end here because you seem to think your own bias is no bias at all. If not you'd have had no dog in this fight and thus you wouldn't still be going at it. Just the way it works, sorry.

Meanwhile, I freely admit my own bias: 4:30AM no-knock? It's the cops fault simply by the nature of their activity. Sacrificing everyone's rights is not justified, whether the target is a petty recreational drug user or the next 9/11 organizer.

joab
August 16, 2006, 12:28 AM
Did a little googling, now it's a fact ;)
When they made their way to the second floor, and into Noel's bedroom, they found her in bed, pointing a handgun back at them. (http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025952.php#025952)
More "fact"
When they opened the door, the officers allegedly were met by Cheryl Noel, 44, who was pointing a handgun at them, Vinson said. (http://www.finlandforthought.net/2005/01/28/woman-is-shot-killed-by-police-in-drug-raid/)

And the link that DonR101395 asked me for earlier
Baltimore County, Maryland police descend on a home in the Dundalk neighborhood at around 5 a.m. on a narcotics warrant. They deploy a flashbang grenade, then quickly subdue the first-floor occupants -- a man and two young adults. (http://libertarianlifter.blogspot.com/)
Doesn't say that the man was the husband but there were no other men mentioned in the article so draw your own conclusions

And from the same link, more "fact"
When officers enter the second-floor bedroom of Cheryl Llynn Noel, they break open the door to find the middle-aged woman in her bed, frightened, and pointing a handgun at them. One officer fires three times. Noel dies at the scene.

But the family and their trial lawyer said that it was pointed at the ground.

What are some of ya'll going to do two seperate and conflicting "facts" about the same event.
Would this be a version of an Epimenides paradox

joab
August 16, 2006, 12:29 AM
You clearly HAVE come to judgementAnd that would be what?
If not you'd have had no dog in this fight and thus you wouldn't still be going at it. Just the way it works, sorry.Wrong again sparky.
It has been implied that I am a hypocrite and I believe that it has been implied that I am a liar. It has been stated that I am evasive and disingenuous. That's my dog

I was holding those links waiting for someone to call me out on the pointing gun statement (then I lost them again)

But now tell me what are you going to do

You have two conflicting facts written about the same event.
Was she sleeping or wasn't she

Was the husband upstairs or down?
If down why?
Going to work maybe?
Waiting on a buyer?
Would that be a reason for a early morning raid?
Or is this account the false one?
Why were all three of the other occupants in possession of drugs?
What is a small amount?,
Could it be just less than felony weight?
What would that be times three, distribution wright perhaps?
Or maybe it was just seeds ?
Or maybe they didn't have any drugs at all?

It just boggles the damn mind now don't it

Heist
August 16, 2006, 01:15 AM
Wherever she was pointing the gun is irrelevant.

If someone breaks into my house, I will probably be training a gun on my bedroom door.

Would you deny her the same security? Would you say that she deserved to die for that choice? Would you say that I deserve to die should that situation happen to me?

There are no drugs in my house. I have no involvements in any criminal activities and no aquaintances or relatives with any of the same. If someone breaks into my house screaming 'POLICE!' or 'FBI!' or whatever combination of contradictory yells a dynamic entry usually has, I'm not going to assume that the goddamn infinitesimal chance of a mistaken address for a raid has happened. I'm going to be sure that it is a group of criminals exploiting dynamic entries in order to minimize their risk and achieve total compliance and submission.

And Joab, if it is indeed the local SWAT team, do I deserve a death sentence to be summarily handed down from the hands of the master you seem to worship so much, judge, jury, and executioner shooting me down in his infinite wisdom so that he can go home that night, donchaknow? It's a losing proposition. No matter what, whether I don't shoot or do, I will die. If I manage to take cover and kill the first intruders, the following ones will still shoot me, if they are law enforcement. You are not allowed to get away with shooting a brother officer in that sort of situation. I would not be able to surrender fast enough. If they are not law enforcement and the chances of them actually being agents would be so small as to be insignificant seeing as I am not a criminal and I surrender, I can look forward to watching my family being raped and killed. Surrender is not an option. Submission is not an option.

Even if I did live through a genuine SWAT raid, I would be put on death row if even one of them died. Even if they completely screwed it up from start to finish and hit the exact opposite address from where they should have been, I will be painted as someone who should die for defending myself and in the process ending lives, at least the kind that seem to be more special than the other garden variety lives. The thin blue wall will stand firm to ensure that it will be that way.

So tell me, is that justice? Is that something you are proud to envision? Would you be here saying that I 'had it coming', that 'accidents don't happen, he must have been guilty as hell', or that 'a small percentage is a small price to pay for some of our superior class to remain safe'? And if you wouldn't cheer my death, why in the hell would you approve of what happened to this woman?

Eghad
August 16, 2006, 06:26 AM
Joab

They were charged with misdemeanor possesion and released on thier own recognizance.

You didnt read the latest article written by Mr. Balko at the Agitator dated 11 Aug 2006 which was quoted. Yours were dated in 2005.

That's Charles Noel's version of events. But it's supported by the autopsy done on his wife. And early police accounts of the raid have since been revised. The Baltimore Sun, for example, first reported that police said Noel was pointing her gun at them when they entered. That has since changed. She was holding the gun, but not pointing it at anyone.

Nobody is blaming the police as a whole but the policy of no-knock raids unless just cause is demonstrated and the leadership which allows such things to happen.

DonR101395
August 16, 2006, 06:55 AM
And the link that DonR101395 asked me for earlier
Baltimore County, Maryland police descend on a home in the Dundalk neighborhood at around 5 a.m. on a narcotics warrant. They deploy a flashbang grenade, then quickly subdue the first-floor occupants -- a man and two young adults.
Doesn't say that the man was the husband but there were no other men mentioned in the article so draw your own conclusions

Whoooaahh, hold up sailor, I am in the same camp as you on this. I stayed out of it the past couple of days because I figured my brain cells would be better used pounding my head into the wall rather try to continue arguing that it was a one sided article written from the side the press wanted you to see. I don't care who did what to who or how they did it unless, I know who all the charactors are, why they did it and I want all three sides of the story.
After watching this play out for the past few days grand dad was right, there's three sides to every story and only one of them is the truth.

johnbt
August 16, 2006, 07:12 AM
Do you at least admit the woman is dead? I don't see how anybody can explain that away.

:)

John

DonR101395
August 16, 2006, 07:39 AM
Do you at least admit the woman is dead? I don't see how anybody can explain that away.



John

Yep, she was shot three times is how I would explain it;)

But seriously John, I've got no dog in this fight. I'm not against no knock warrants, I believe they have their place. I won't get into a pi$$ing contest about if one should have been used or not in this instance. I'm not against, people defending their homes, bodies or even their property or that of other people, and when you have both of those sometimes they are going to clash. It's a chance I'm personally willing to take. No cops have busted into my house in the last 39 years or the houses of anyone I have ever known. The only time I hear about it is on the internet or the nightly news and there is always a side story that isn't told. No matter what my personal belief about this case is it doesn't matter. I don't live in Baltimore, I won't be a member of the jury, and no one's lawyer in Baltimore is going to call me and ask my opinion.

joab
August 16, 2006, 07:39 AM
Didn't mean to lump you into anything Don, I just happened on all the links at the same time

Wherever she was pointing the gun is irrelevant.I bet it's going to be irrelevant to a lot of people here, now..

Heist
Where have I said or implied that anybody deserved anything? No damn where, Throughout this entire pile on Joab tirade I have maintained one point. Simply that there is not enough information to assume that anyone deserved anything.

Apparently some here are either offended that I have the audacity not to trust the family and their trial lawyer or they simply cannot comprehend the fact that there is absolutely no evidence and/or facts presented in that stupid little article.
So tell me, is that justice? Is that something you are proud to envision? Would you be here saying that I 'had it coming', that 'accidents don't happen, he must have been guilty as hell', or that 'a small percentage is a small price to pay for some of our superior class to remain safe'? And if you wouldn't cheer my death, why in the hell would you approve of what happened to this woman?Pretty speech but what does that have to do with my unwavered position throughout this discussion?

They were charged with misdemeanor possession and released on thier own recognizance.That has been covered before Eghad.
Nobody is blaming the police as a wholePerhaps you should read the first five or so posts. The ones that I initially responded to. You will see my entire stand on this issue.
All other posts have been made as a direct response to attacks made against that opinion.
(Except for Don's, which was a request that I verify info that I posted. Which I should have done in the first place)

It is beyond my comprehension why a group of supposedly intelligent people would react so to a call for more info than a one sided clearly biased report .

Some people have agendas, I understand that, some are juvenile and petty I can accept that.
But others who I would expect to demand journalistic integrity and others who have made completely opposite comments regarding similar events in the past I don't get

Trip20 made a comment a little earlier
This article should have brought on discussion of a disturbing police policy. Instead, it's been a circle of useless arguments over irrelevant particulars.In a way he is right but then he is also wrong.
The conversation had steered in that direction and I stayed out of it while it did.
I was dragged back in by an agenda driven snipe attack which resulted in a pile on by the usual players, with the addition of one more, who refuse to read my initial comment and refuse to accept that I have one agenda here, and that is to point out a rush to blame the cops based on one article favoring the family and their trial lawyer.
That's when the circle of uselessness, word twisting and agenda started

And I missed this comment by rangermonroe earlier
Especially when we have taken a single news story, and picked it apart to molecular levels.If you reduce a **** to molecular level all you have is **** molecules, that has been my position all along.

Now everybody can address that issue, accept that that is my issue, address the comments that I have actually made in the context that they were made without some glorified speeches about anyone deserving death, or simply let it pass.

Trip20
August 16, 2006, 08:13 AM
joab, you make great points regarding the need to view information sources with a skeptic's eye, as the truth most often lies somewhere in the middle.

This seems to be your point (in its most basic form) through out this thread - or at least that's what I take away from your comments.

I wouldn't agree that everything in the article must be fact simply because it's in the article - especially given the source of the information.

Even under this deduction, in my opinion it is righteous to immediately attack the Baltimore Police due to their use of a no-knock policy - a policy that insurmountably increased the probability of death or great bodily harm on both sides - good guys and suspected bad guys..

Now if we need to be particular and relate that sentiment to the article; all of this avoidable danger and death was - it appears - over a small bag of weed probably kept for personal consumption. This resulted in an unnecessary death, and an arrest of less than principal proportions (given the price paid by both the family and the department), whereby the criminal in this case (husband) was released on his own recognizance - to go mourn the death of his wife no less.

FirstFreedom
August 16, 2006, 09:31 AM
HEIST, you speak wisely, but I would add a slight difference to your assertion here:

No matter what, whether I don't shoot or do, I will die. If I manage to take cover and kill the first intruders, the following ones will still shoot me, if they are law enforcement. You are not allowed to get away with shooting a brother officer in that sort of situation. I would not be able to surrender fast enough.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you think you are being attacked by criminals, and successfully repel the first wave of invaders, perhaps killing one or more of them (in hindsight when you find out they are LEO it will be unfortunate, but we don't have that luxury of knowledge in this scenario), then the force will look to re-group and re-assault your position, and yes, assuredly, they will want to kill you. BUT, *if* you have a strong enough defensive position, and enough firepower to hold them off, then you can hope and pray that the media shows up with cameras, and THEN and only then announce loudly with a megaphone for example that you are coming out unarmed to surrender since you have learned they are LEO since the initial criminal assaults (in your mind). Then, more likely than not, they won't be able to murder you as you surrender. Then you get your day in court to explain how you did nothing wrong, and it was plain self-defense, and you just may win if you can only get your day in court. Dead men don't tell tales, and the cops know this. So the KEY is having a very strong defensive setup, stuff like security bars and other measures giving you the upper hand in the ordinary no-knock raid scenario, which of course, for all you know at 4am is criminal home invaders.

Rich Lucibella
August 16, 2006, 09:37 AM
So the KEY is having a very strong defensive setup, stuff like security bars and other measures giving you the upper hand in the ordinary no-knock raid scenario
Like the Branch Davidians?

FF-
The very fact that you have to think along these lines to protect yourself from mistaken State Sponsored Raids proves the point that most people here are making. Nothing good can come of the continued use of Dark-O-Night No Knocks based on "informant tips" or regarding routine warrant service....nothing.
Rich

rangermonroe
August 16, 2006, 10:17 AM
"We don't live in a bad neighborhood round here? Whats with them burgular bars 'n' such?"

"Cletus, you know I'm honest and upright. Go myse'f to church right often. It's the po-lice thats got me out here hardenin' up my bunker." :D

FirstFreedom
August 16, 2006, 10:44 AM
Rich, the Branch Davidians didn't surrender, remember? They didn't say, we're all coming out with our hands up, so don't shoot, did they?

You make a good point yourself, but I believe you are in error in attempting to invalidate my point, that there is at least one thing which can be attempted, which MAY work, if you find yourself in a situation where you mistakenly defend yourself from real actual LEOs, not knowing they are LEOs, then discovering so and "surrendering" to their authority and bogus charge of murder, so that you can have your day in court and present your defense of self-defense. No, you certainly shouldn't HAVE to do anything of the sort, but the fact remains that there is something one CAN do (in addition to voting and trying to change the current system), if one chooses to expend the time and money to do so, and that is have better than average door locks and other defenses.

Rich Lucibella
August 16, 2006, 10:49 AM
FF-
Of course, in your case, your public comments here would probably sink ay defense you attempted to raise. ;)

The State would argue that you planned and prepped for that fateful evening; that you intended to kill anyone who invaded your domicile; that you were well aware that the people you were shooting might well be LEO's. That you even bought a bullhorn so that you could address the Media. I think the State would probably win.
Rich

DonR101395
August 16, 2006, 11:00 AM
"We don't live in a bad neighborhood round here? Whats with them burgular bars 'n' such?"

"Cletus, you know I'm honest and upright. Go myse'f to church right often. It's the po-lice thats got me out here hardenin' up my bunker."
rangermonroe is offline Report Bad Post


The best laugh I've had all week.

JR47
August 16, 2006, 11:43 AM
Rich, I really don't believe that the outcome of this policy was correct. I do, however, believe that there are circumstances where the "no-knock" warrant service is appropriate. Just like anything else, when there is a right way and a wrong way, somebody in charge will screw it up. To decide that "no-knock" warrants are universally wrong because of this, though, is a lot akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Perhaps it's time for the state legislatures to come up with a means of limiting the "no-knock" process? Maryland and Virginia, where the dentist was similiarly killed, are extremely liberal in many counties. It's appears obvious that the appointed leadership of the various LEAs in these areas lacks the ability to discern risk to it's officers, and it's population.:)

Roberta X
August 16, 2006, 12:00 PM
I, for one, don't support no-knocks. Most of them are sheer self-indulgence, and I suspect often not on the part of the workin' LEOs that have to beat down the door. In nearly every instance, there are slower, less exciting ways to accomplish the same goal. Ways a lot less likely to get headlines and coverage on the evening news.

Nevertheless, blame must be shared by the guys and occasional gal making dynamic entries. It doesn't wash to say "They're only following orders," not when those orders are in violation of the Constitution and contrary to morality. In each individual instance of a no-knock, the people who are in a position to ask, "Gee, boss, couldn't we just stake 'em out and take them down in daylight, outdoors?" or even to say "Nope, I'm not kicking down that door," are officers of the law.

Look at the instance under discussion: a woman was killed over a couple of misdemeanor arrests. Might as well have been jaywalking or running away from an officer who'd Terry-stopped her,* instead of being a part of the idiotic War On Some Drugs. There's no reason for anyone to die over this sort of penny-ante nonsense. No private citizen, no policeman, nobody.

Everyone involved -- that includes us jabbering onlookers -- needs to stand up and say Enough!

But I'm not holding my breath. There's always going to be a little weasel murmuring, "But those people weren't good. Not like me. Better them than me." As long as we remain silent, our future is in the hands of the people whose motto is, "Do it to Julia," just like Orwell's protagonist.

Maybe he got the image wrong -- maybe the future is a boot kicking in the front door of our homes, forever.

___________________
* At least it was a misdemeanor the time I did it. YMMV.

Rich Lucibella
August 16, 2006, 12:28 PM
To decide that "no-knock" warrants are universally wrong because of this, though, is a lot akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
JR-
I've never said that and will never say that. I didn't see where anyone else did, either. There are hostage situations; barricade situations; known violent offender situations. Sure, there are reasons for No-Knocks...but just having a SWAT Team is not a reason; getting your SWAT raid numbers up for budget purposes is not a reason; serving a search warrant on John Q. Public because some uncorroborated slime-ball told you "he's dealing crack in there....now will you let me slide?" is not a reason.

When we take an eight man team and put them in the field for 5 hours to serve a simple warrant for arrest or search, we use up 40 man hours...and people get killed; families get terrorized. Does it not make more sense to put a two man team in the field for 8 hours and serve the subject on the sidewalk? Or maybe walk into their place of work? Catch them coming out of the house in the morning? Leaving work? Arriving home? Going to church?

How on earth did Law Enforcement get anything done prior to the No-Knock?
Rich

liliysdad
August 16, 2006, 12:30 PM
Wow, go away for a couple days, and this happens.

I will state that, as a police officer, I am as skeptical as anyone as to the truthfulness of the story. I am sure the lawyer is grandstanding, gathering sympathy from the upcoming jury pool. Thats his job, and if he were my attorney, I would expect nothing less.

However, the point remains that if the no-knock had no been performed, chances are everyone would still be alive.

No-knocks have their place, but it is a VERY limited place, and one misdemeanor arrest is not that place, not by a long shot.

These types of incidents make me sick. They make me want to get out of the profession all together. My brothers too often forget that we, as peace officers, are sworn to uphold the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. All of them, not just the ones that the USSC and the Police Administration deem valid this week.

We, as guardians of the weak, are tasked to protect the citizenry. ALL of them. We are not judge, jury, nor executioner. We owe those we suspect of a crime the same protection as those who the alleged crime was perpetrated against.

Too many times, I hear that "it is not the individual officers' fault." You know what, it is the individual officers' fault. Every single officer in that long chain of events agreed to do this, to violate some facet of the Bill of Rights, and each and every officer is guilty of that, from the brass that signed off on it, to the guy with the door ram. Each of them has the blood of that lady, however guilty or innocent she might have been, on their hands.


We also must remember that , while the officers were not indicted, this does not mean they were innocent. Its simply means that there was not enough evidence to prove otherwise. When the only people in the crime scene are cops, its easy to make cops look like they are in the right. Ther is a LARGE chasm between "Not Guilty" and "Innocent."

Eghad
August 16, 2006, 06:43 PM
There is a time and place for no knock entries. Such as a known drug house where the inhabitants have a hitstory of criminal violence and are known to posess weapons and wouldnt be hestitant about using them. I have no problem with that. Hostage situations, locations that have a history of violent activities where deadly force has been used.

I do have a problem with a no knock where the folks have not had so much as a jaywalking ticket and the evidence is based on a few marijuana seeds. Where possesion of marijuana by an individual is a misdemeanor. If I was judge and somebody came to me I would want to see evidence that they were distributing marijuana or other drugs from the house. I would want some proof that they were selling mass qunatities of marijuana. If you couldnt prove that they were then my warrant would say that the police had damn well better knock on the door when they serve the warrant.

How hard can it be to stake out a house and watch it for a period of time? Do some homework instead of the word of an informant who may be unreliable.

Dwight55
August 17, 2006, 06:23 PM
Thanks, liliysdad, . . .

May God bless,
Dwight

liliysdad
August 18, 2006, 09:45 AM
Thanks, liliysdad, . . .

Don't thank me for doing what I am supposed to do. Thank my father for instilling what most call naivety into my code of ethics. Thank those cops who most would call dinosaurs for showing me that the calling is for "Peace Officers", and not "Law Enforcement Officers." Thank my wife and daughter for reminding me that what I do is for a real reason, and not for a power trip.

Wildcard
August 18, 2006, 10:22 AM
Nobody is blaming the police as a whole

I am. The police involved in this incident, IMO, are guilty of murder. Plain and simple....Very sloppy investigative work. The war on drugs will be this nations downfall. Rights of citizens lost, a new breed of para-military cop on the streets. This womans death should have never happened, and I blame the war on drugs, the police that were involved, and any police officer and citizen that supports these tactics.