LA - Michael Noel, mentally ill man killed by deputy

[bluesneakers]

This can't be only about what is exactly right for Michael. There are other people whose safety comes into consideration. If Michael was off his medication he most likely was not only in a crisis and in need of help, he was dangerous. Not defending what happened but pointing out the enormity of the decision that needed to be made. And the potential for mistakes to happen.

This was about Michael.

They consoled a grief-stricken Barbara Noel and described her 32-year-old son as a man who exhibited signs of mental illness but was not a violent person.
..
Barbara Noel on Monday had requested an order for protective custody for Michael Noel the youngest of her seven children, who lived with her, after he began talking to himself and exhibiting signs of a mental unraveling his family attributed to diagnoses of bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia.

No mention of being off his medication, being violent, being dangerous, or threatening anyone. It sounds to me like a mother trying to take care of her son.

http://theadvocate.com/news/police/...-parish-man-said-by-family-to-be-suffering-br

 

[katydid23]

This was about Michael.



No mention of being off his medication, being violent, being dangerous, or threatening anyone. It sounds to me like a mother trying to take care of her son.

http://theadvocate.com/news/police/...-parish-man-said-by-family-to-be-suffering-br

If he wasn't violent or dangerous then why couldn't she and/or some of her older children get him to go to the hospital. If he was not dangerous or combative then why couldn't they do it themselves? Why do they need police to come and get him? If he was not a threatening, difficult, dangerous person, why call two armed deputies to restrain him?

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I read somewhere the deputies were treated for minor injuries. I wonder what kind of injuries?

 

[katydid23]

How do you know he was off his medication?

His mother and aunt have both said he wasn't violent or dangerous.

They also said they often called LEOs to 'calm him down and restrain him.' Why would he need to be restrained if he was not dangerous or combative?

 

[Yvettea]

Family members are identifying the victim as Michael Noel. They say Noel was in his early thirties, a father, and had special needs. They say his mother had called an agency earlier Monday, because Noel was having a "Breakdown," and they wanted him to go to a hospital. When time passed, and no one arrived, that's when they called the St. Martin Parish Sheriff's Office. They say they wanted help from deputies to "calm him down," restrain him, and take him to the hospital. They say they've called the St. Martin Parish Sheriff's Office before, and deputies have responded, and were familiar with their situation.

-He was having a breakdown
-needed to return to the hospital
-wasn't calm
-needed to be restrained

And:
Noel's aunt, who was in the house and present during the shooting, says deputies put a handcuff on Noel, but had difficulty putting the other one on his wrist. She says Noel was resisting the deputies, because he didn't want to go to the hospital. She says Noel was tased twice, and then was shot in the chest by a deputy.

http://www.katc.com/story/30805897/update-deputy-involved-shooting-in-breaux-bridge

 

[Tawny]

I don't know he was off his medicine; how would anyone know if he's refusing to go with them. If he wasn't violent or dangerous when left at home I would back off and leave him at home if I were police person.

So you would refuse to fulfill your duties as an officer?

This man was unarmed, already halfway in handcuffs, and there were 2 officers. If (general) you can't subdue him with just 2, you back off, call for back up, and you approach with more officers. (saying "you" as in, if you're an officer)

The mother states Michael was on the ground and starting to stand back up for a third time (after going down twice due to stun) when the officer pulled his weapon and shot him in the chest. This tells me Michael was very likely NOT reaching for the officers weapon at that time. Had he been in a struggle to gain control of the weapon, it's unlikely he'd be shot in the chest, I think. JMO though, I'll wait for more information.

 

[Tawny]

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

Article outlines how to respond to calls dealing with mentally ill.

"3. Move slowly. Resist the impulse to act hastily. This may be difficult since most police training teaches the importance of quick decisions. With the emotionally disturbed, it is better to take time and carefully assess the situation. Immediate action is necessary only when handling an immediate danger."

"8. Do not rely on your weapons. The threat of a gun is quite meaningless to people who are acutely disturbed. They may grab it and use it, or you may be tempted to use it. A weapon should be used only in the very rare situation when it is necessary to save a life."

"10. Don’t meet hostility with hostility. This is often a natural reaction since hostile people tend to elicit hostility in others. It is important to maintain a professional attitude. Meet hostility and anger by being calm, objective, and accepting. Ask why they are angry or afraid. If they will tell you, they may begin to calm down."

In case this was missed, I think it's extremely important. JMO.

 

[EllieBee]

BBM

Thank you for posting this. I think this describes what happened.

This is how misinformation is spread. There has been no indication, not evenfrom LE, that this was the situation.

 

[EllieBee]

Who knows? There has been nothing to suggest he reached for the gun, so you're stating a loaded assumption as a fact.

Ultimately, I am going to guess that he was shot for being non-compliant, based on what has been revealed so far -- but I have trouble accepting that as a capital crime.

And yet, increasingly, it seems non-compliance, being sassy or heck, even doing like the boss man tells you is handled with a few bullets. Sometimes in the back.

Sickening. And infuriating. <modsnip>

 

[bluesneakers]

BBM

Thank you for posting this. I think this describes what happened.

Um, no it doesn't. They very obviously relied on their weapons. They did exactly the wrong thing and a man is dead thanks to their careless actions.

8. Do not rely on your weapons.

 

[bluesneakers]

And yet, increasingly, it seems non-compliance, being sassy or heck, even doing like the boss man tells you is handled with a few bullets. Sometimes in the back.

Sickening. And infuriating. <modsnip>

I honestly believe some people think all shootings by law enforcement are good shootings, no matter what the circumstance. I wonder why these people even try to back up their arguments, or defend the officer's specific action at all because it always comes down to "A police officer shot and killed someone and that's a-okay because he's a cop with a badge and a gun." However that alone will never be enough evidence IMO to justify killing another human being.

JMO

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I honestly believe some people think all shootings by law enforcement are good shootings, no matter what the circumstance. I wonder why these people even try to back up their arguments, or defend the officer's specific action at all because it always comes down to "A police officer shot and killed someone and that's a-okay because he's a cop with a badge and a gun." However that alone will never be enough evidence IMO to justify killing another human being.

JMO

Just as some think that all shootings by LEO are bad shootings, no matter what the circumstances. They're quick to attack LE before getting all facts and even after the facts prove there was no wrong doing. I've seen it many times here on WS.

 

[drjones]

<modsnip>

Yes, the police should have run away and left the man (ridiculous)... and people would line up to call them cowards when the man went on to hurt someone else.

 

[Tawny]

<modsnip>

Yes, the police should have run away and left the man (ridiculous)... and people would line up to call them cowards when the man went on to hurt someone else.

Who did Michael Noel hurt?

 

[drjones]

Who did Michael Noel hurt?

I didnt claim he hurt anyone. "Someone else" as in someone other than the officers, some other person.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Just as some think that all shootings by LEO are bad shootings, no matter what the circumstances. They're quick to attack LE before getting all facts and even after the facts prove there was no wrong doing. I've seen it many times here on WS.

Bingo. Yes. ITA

 

[kimlynn]

Who did Michael Noel hurt?

So far we don't even know that he hurt an officer. What we do know is that he was shot and killed and his family are upset.
Shootings happen everyday but not all wind up being picked up by media.
There is a reason the family thinks this is unjustified and I trust they have a reason for their feelings.
Not many suffering a loss would go public without a reason. IMO

 

[bluesneakers]

Who did Michael Noel hurt?

No one, thanks to the speedy action of the officer who shot him dead. How lucky for that imaginary person.

JMO

 

[kimlynn]

No one, thanks to the speedy action of the officer who shot him dead. How lucky for that imaginary person.

JMO

I bet the family will think twice now about calling LE and exploiting resources.

 

[Teche]

And yet, increasingly, it seems non-compliance, being sassy or heck, even doing like the boss man tells you is handled with a few bullets. Sometimes in the back.

Sickening. And infuriating. <modsnip>

I believe that the LA. State Police have yet to release details/report of the of the investigation. I would hope that it's more than being sassy or the "boss man" mentality.