LA - Michael Noel, mentally ill man killed by deputy

[drjones]

When a fear is irrational, as many are when dealing with the mentally ill, sometimes trying to calm them doesnt work. When it comes time to say "this is going to happen now whether you like it or not" sometimes it is not going to go well, no matter what. Sometimes the person will be hostile and become agitated on sight of LE and there is no time to reassure them of anything.

 

[drjones]

You don't have to leave the person unattended. Backing off would mean stop trying to restrain them, step back and calm things down while waiting for backup to arrive.

I never said to leave them unattended. I said to leave them be, by which I meant just what you describe - stop contact with them, step back, take no further action.

 

[Sonya610]

When a fear is irrational, as many are when dealing with the mentally ill, sometimes trying to calm them doesnt work. When it comes time to say "this is going to happen now whether you like it or not" sometimes it is not going to go well, no matter what. Sometimes the person will be hostile and become agitated on sight of LE and there is no time to reassure them of anything.

The point is if they were struggling with him and it wasn't working then they need MORE MANPOWER! You don't keep struggling and dragging it out until something awful happens (as it did in this case).

IMO they could NOT control the situation which is why they had to tase him etc...and they still hadn't gotten the upper hand.

 

[drjones]

That is exactly what I mean when I say that these things are going to happen inevitably. Because there is no way to know it is going to happen until it is happening, and they are not going to go to every call with a team of people geared up like you would see doing a cell extraction in prison - and imo that is what it would take. The fact is that this happens in an extremely small number of cases, it doesnt mean its any less upsetting or important, but it does mean that they are unlikely to start planning for it every time.

 

[Archangel7]

<modsnip>

In my own personal dealings, it has to do with how important compliance is needed and in what time frame.

Obviously if a threat becomes combative before other options can be utilized, there is no room for retreat until control of the event is obtained.

So I would conduct myself based on how important compliance is and how quick compliance is needed.

Just my condensed view is that control of the situation was being lost during the struggle and 1) Noel was getting/had the officer's gun, 2) there was an accidental discharge(nobody touched the gun)due to impact with the wall or floor during the struggle or 3) the officer was badly mistaken in his UoF.

 

[katydid23]

http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2261-how-to-handle-the-mentally-ill

Did anybody actually read the link or?

"17. Remember that most disturbed people are afraid. They experience extreme fear because they do not understand their feelings and because they are not certain how others will treat them. When emotionally disturbed persons become aggressive, it is almost always because of fear. Therefore, officers should attempt to handle them in a calm, understanding, and humane way. This will often reassure the people that officers are there to help."

That is great advice in a general sense. However, having had 40 years of experience with my younger brother, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, there are also voices and hallucinations and delusions that can trigger the patient.

We only called LE a few times. Usually my brother was compliant and took his meds. But the few times that he stopped taking them he would have meltdowns. And he sincerely believed the CIA wanted to kill him and had taken over the bodies of friends or family members.

My brother is not really a violent person. But when he is under the delusional state and agitated then he can be very dangerous. He fought back very hard one time when a deputy tried to cuff him. They were rolling around on the floor and the other deputy was trying to get hold of him. My brother was screaming my name because he wanted me to help and he was convinced these were CIA killers coming for him. They hit him with a baton to get him to stop fighting them.



What would have happened if they backed off and retreated, leaving my mother and myself in the back room? We would have had to walk past my angry delusional brother to get outside. If the cops had backed off then we would have been targets. So it is not always that easy to simply 'retreat' once the struggle has begun.


ETA: If my brother had been injured or killed, I would not have blamed the officers. I always worried that my brother would die at anthers hands if he had one of his total meltdowns in public and thought someone was a 'CIA killer'--as he called them. Luckily he was able to find a mix of drugs which has kept him somewhat stable. He still believes the CIA wants to kill him but the meds keep him 'mellow' and kind of tired, so he just lives with it.

But my parents kept their bedroom door bolted and they had baseball bats by both sides of their beds. Sad but true.

 

[Tawny]

In my own personal dealings, it has to do with how important compliance is needed and in what time frame.

Obviously if a threat becomes combative before other options can be utilized, there is no room for retreat until control of the event is obtained.

So I would conduct myself based on how important compliance is and how quick compliance is needed.

Just my condensed view is that control of the situation was being lost during the struggle and 1) Noel was getting/had the officer's gun, 2) there was an accidental discharge(nobody touched the gun)due to impact with the wall or floor during the struggle or 3) the officer was badly mistaken in his UoF.

Is the subject a threat before becoming combative?

 

[Archangel7]

The point is if they were struggling with him and it wasn't working then they need MORE MANPOWER! You don't keep struggling and dragging it out until something awful happens (as it did in this case).

IMO they could NOT control the situation which is why they had to tase him etc...and they still hadn't gotten the upper hand.

Just an FYI to consider....At one agency we patrolled 700+ sq miles. Five of us, plus a Captain, a Lt. and two dispatchers. We were single staffed car and backup was 20 minutes away on a good day. Sometimes gang arresting isn't possible, although it seemed that the officers that could negotiate and or fight lasted longer than those that were less talented in talking/negotiations and more talented in the other area.
Just a data point........

 

[Woodland]

http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2261-how-to-handle-the-mentally-ill

Did anybody actually read the link or?

"17. Remember that most disturbed people are afraid. They experience extreme fear because they do not understand their feelings and because they are not certain how others will treat them. When emotionally disturbed persons become aggressive, it is almost always because of fear. Therefore, officers should attempt to handle them in a calm, understanding, and humane way. This will often reassure the people that officers are there to help."

This is the most reasonable response and way to look at such situations imo.

I think before the first tase was administered, the officers should have backed off (the situation could not have been going well) - to the door would be reasonable in order to keep an eye on his movements. At that point more officers would not be necessary.

Then see what he is going to do and reassess what is required to carry out the assigned task.

The officers were sent to do one job - take MN into protective custody and deliver him to a specific location. To say that any force can be used if resistance is present is going sideways and contrary to the job they were sent to carry out. To me, that points out the core problem.

All jmo.

 

[katydid23]

If the guy isn't an immediate threat to anyone at that moment then back off and get more officers on the scene to help take the guy into custody.

I can only explain it in terms of my own mentally ill brother. He has only had a violent type meltdown a couple of times. He was hospitalized for months at a time and stabilized for years. But occasionally he would have a paranoid schizophrenic crisis type of attack. He would decide that my husband was not really my husband, but was sent by the CIA to kill him. NOTHING could convince him otherwise. He heard voices telling him it was the truth and that he should take proactive action. He took my husbands duffel bag suitcase outside and stabbed it hundreds of times with an ice pick, screaming DIE!!!!!

That was happening while I was on the phone calling 911. I made my husband leave and take our baby away immediately.

My brother fought with the 2 cops. If they had backed off he would have done something desperate during that time. Maybe set the house on fire or climbed the back fence or killed himself? He would not have sat calmly by waiting while back up arrived.

Many schizophrenics have major obsessive thought patterns. You cannot start a physical fight and then walk away and expect that they are sitting peacefully. It is an intense, desperate type of mental state when agitated and in crisis.

 

[drjones]

I dont think anyone has said that any force can be used if there is resistance. I think (it may not be here anymore) that the only verified LE on the thread has actually stated the opposite, every level of force must be justified. So the argument "I shot him because he was resisting" would not be valid. That is not appropriate or legal force. And since we do not know what happened exactly in this case, we cant really say why each level of force was used.

"I think before the first tase was administered, the officers should have backed off"

What was the precise reason the first taser was administered? Exactly what did MN do that caused the officer to tase him?

 

[Archangel7]

Is the subject a threat before becoming combative?

Always, except when you're ambushed. It's called pre assaultive behavior and is recognizable. Most contacts, when/if they become a threat are usually detectable prior to being combative.

If I understand your question.

Not every contact is a threat in the strict sense, but could potentially be, so you watch specific things while interacting.

 

[katydid23]

This is the most reasonable response and way to look at such situations imo.

I think before the first tase was administered, the officers should have backed off (the situation could not have been going well) - to the door would be reasonable in order to keep an eye on his movements. At that point more officers would not be necessary.

Then see what he is going to do and reassess what is required to carry out the assigned task.

The officers were sent to do one job - take MN into protective custody and deliver him to a specific location. To say that any force can be used if resistance is present is going sideways and contrary to the job they were sent to carry out. To me, that points out the core problem.

All jmo.

I am not sure that what you described is very smart tactically. If the officers backed away and stood at the doorway, watching him, what do you think a paranoid schizophrenic, in mental crisis, is going to do? I'd say it was most likely they would lunge at or aggressively approach the officers. Then what? They would have no choice but to shoot, most likely. If they had tasered and it had no effect, and he was now coming at them combatively, they would have few options.

What if they went outside to wait for back up and he attacked his family? Or killed himself? Or set the house on fire? Or retrieved a gun and began shooting at them from inside? Cops have a lot to consider when they begin to restrain someone under the ORDERS of Protection, and then back off. They would probably be considered for a very bad write up if they had done so, and he did something worse during that time.

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip>
But if you fare in a physical struggle with someone who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and they are in an agitated state, it is not possible to take a few steps back and watch. They are desperate, obsessive, paranoid, and IRRATIONAL at that time. They see you as the enemy and they are not going to stand calmly and wait.

 

[bluesneakers]

Breaux Bridge man shot by police had history of schizophrenia*, bipolar disorder**

A form requesting the order was filled out and signed by Noel's family less than two hours before his death, according to the order obtained by KATC Investigates through a public records request. Noel refused to seek medical treatment and was "not taking meds, talking constantly, hearing noises, talking to people that don't exist," a family member wrote as the reason Noel needed immediate hospitalization.

....
A statement requesting the order was completed by Noel's family and approved by the parish coroner at 4:45 p.m. Dec. 21. Two deputies arrived at Noel's home near Breaux Bridge at 6:30 p.m.,

Of All U.S. Police Shootings, One-Quarter Reportedly Involve The Mentally Ill

At least 125 people with signs of mental illness have died in police encounters in the U.S. so far this year, according to the latest accounting from The Washington Post.

People with mental illness 16 times more likely to be killed by police

At a time of heightened concern over police shootings, a new report estimates that people with mental illness are 16 times more likely than others to be killed by police.

About one in four fatal police encounters involve someone with mental illness, according to the report, released Thursday by the Virginia-based Treatment Advocacy Center, which focuses on the needs of people with serious mental illness.
...
People who suffer from paranoia often panic when confronted by police, Snook said. People who hear voices may not understand a police officer's commands to stop, drop a weapon or put their hands up. Instead, they may continue walking toward an officer, leading police to fire in self-defense.

--
* Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that interferes with a person’s ability to think clearly, manage emotions, make decisions and relate to others. It is a complex, long-term medical illness, affecting about 1% of Americans.
https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Schizophrenia#sthash.CG4deN40.dpuf

** Bipolar disorder affects approximately 5.7 million adult Americans, or about 2.6% of the U.S. population age 18 and older every year
http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_statistics_bipolar_disorder

 

[Archangel7]

I dont think anyone has said that any force can be used if there is resistance. I think (it may not be here anymore) that the only verified LE on the thread has actually stated the opposite, every level of force must be justified. So the argument "I shot him because he was resisting" would not be valid. That is not appropriate or legal force. And since we do not know what happened exactly in this case, we cant really say why each level of force was used.

"I think before the first tase was administered, the officers should have backed off"

What was the precise reason the first taser was administered? Exactly what did MN do that caused the officer to tase him?

Any as in any tool on the officer's belt, using his car to hit an armed suspect as seen recently in the news in Arizona.

It has to be reasonable given the event. So it has to be reasonable in reference to the amount of resistance

 

[Sonya610]

What was the precise reason the first taser was administered? Exactly what did MN do that caused the officer to tase him?

Police tase folks for not complying all of the time (and I don't have a problem with it most of the time, unless it is a non-violent mentally ill person).

Personally I do believe this individual probably was combative, I don't believe the family's claims saying he has no history of violence.

 

[Woodland]

Always, except when you're ambushed. It's called pre assaultive behavior and is recognizable. Most contacts, when/if they become a threat are usually detectable prior to being combative.

If I understand your question.

Not every contact is a threat in the strict sense, but could potentially be, so you watch specific things while interacting.

I can see this thinking at times - but not in this or similar cases. There is no differentiating between a known mentally ill person and someone resisting arrest for a crime.

Again, I think this points to a problem in the LE/public relationship.

All jmo.

 

[katydid23]

Is the subject a threat before becoming combative?

In my opinion, the subject is a threat if there is an 'order of protection' attached. That in itself means that the subject is irrational, in a fragile mental state and could be a danger to himself or others.

 

[katydid23]

I can see this thinking at times - but not in this or similar cases. There is no differentiating between a known mentally ill person and someone resisting arrest for a crime.

Again, I think this points to a problem in the LE/public relationship.

All jmo.

Mentally ill subjects who are in the middle of a mental crisis can be very dangerous and volatile.