LA - Michael Noel, mentally ill man killed by deputy

[bluesneakers]

I have also experienced it where I arrived as backup, walked inside and at the instant the subject saw me, they went into a violent episode. It is the nature of the mental illness.

SBM and BBM

If you can, please back this up with a link or source. I have never read anything supporting this opinion. The "nature of mental illness" is not violence.

From American Psychological Association:

In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5 percent were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

..
The study didn’t find any predictable patterns linking criminal conduct and mental illness symptoms over time. Two-thirds of the offenders who had committed crimes directly related to their mental illness symptoms also had committed unrelated crimes for other reasons, such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness and substance abuse, according to the research. “Is there a small group of people with mental illness committing crimes again and again because of their symptoms? We didn’t find that in this study,” Peterson said.

From NAMI:

Myth: People with mental health conditions are violent and dangerous. Fact: Having a mental health condition does not make a person more likely to be violent or dangerous. The truth is, living with a mental health condition makes you more likely to be a victim of violence, four times the rate of the general public. Studies have shown that 1 in 4 individuals living with a mental health condition will experience some form of violence in any given year.

From CAMH

Violence and Mental Illness
As a group, people with mental health issues are not more violent than any other group in our society. The majority of crimes are not committed by people with psychiatric illness, and multiple studies have proven that there is very little relationship between most of these diseases and violence. The real issue is the fact that people with mental illness are two and a half to four times more likely to be the victims of violence than any other group in our society.

BBC:

Violent crime statistics tell a different story, though. One survey suggested that only 1% of victims of violent crime believed that the incident occurred because the offender had a mental illness. In the UK, between 50 and 70 cases of homicide a year do involve people known to have a mental health problem at the time of the crime – but these perpetrators make up a tiny minority of the 7 million people in the UK estimated to have a significant mental illness at any given time.

Frankly what you have said perpetuates a dangerous stigma.

One that often leads to people with mental illnesses being abused by LE*, abused by others, have their experiences discredited*, end up wrongfully incarcerated, and denied the treatment they need.

*People with mental illness are more likely than general population to be victims of crime.

 

[Sillybilly]

SBM and BBM

If you can, please back this up with a link or source. I have never read anything supporting this opinion. The "nature of mental illness" is not violence.

AA7 said it was "the nature of the mental illness" (not mental illness in general) which I interpret to mean the mental illness that related to the specific example he gave where a person went violent in that particular incident.

 

[EllieBee]

Might be a while before we get any more information. Seems the department is quite busy right now:

http://www.katc.com/story/30836922/...-four-officer-involved-shooting-in-seven-days

Wow. SMH.

 

[Archangel7]

SBM and BBM

If you can, please back this up with a link or source. I have never read anything supporting this opinion. The "nature of mental illness" is not violence.

From American Psychological Association:


From NAMI:


From CAMH


BBC:


Frankly what you have said perpetuates a dangerous stigma.

One that often leads to people with mental illnesses being abused by LE*, abused by others, have their experiences discredited*, end up wrongfully incarcerated, and denied the treatment they need.

*People with mental illness are more likely than general population to be victims of crime.

Mentally ill people(the ones we are referring to in the context/reference of this thread)can and do have delusions and they can and do become violent. I have experienced it directly and indirectly thru LE Patrol work and thru a group home for teenage street kids, some who are on meds for mental illness.

Do you honestly think a bipolar/paranoid schizophrenic can't or won't become violent?
Read any study, WRT the relationship between childhood trauma and violence or paranoid delusions.

<modsnip>

In addition childhood trauma history has been found to correlate with increased aggression in adults WRT Bipolar alone - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/bipolar-disorder/violence-bipolar-disorder#sthash.GTYztBqU.dpuf

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Who said all mentally ill people are violent? In fact the OP said most of the time he has no issues and some are in extremely bad shape.

 

[Sillybilly]

:modstop:

Stop with the antagonistic approach and get back to discussing the case at hand. This thread is a Michael Noel dedicated thread. It is not about mental health in general or here for the purpose of bashing LE in general.

Any more off-topic, caustic/antagonistic remarks and badgering of other posters, and vacations will be assigned.

:tyou:

 

[flourish]

Edited because I don't want a vacation.
Here's the contact info for where you'd call in this situation in Eugene/Springfield, Oregon. In case anyone cares.

http://whitebirdclinic.org/cahoots/

Again, they weren't called 100 times for the same reason.

 

[Archangel7]

<modsnip>

With regards to THIS CASE and assuming that the paperwork being served was issued as in any other agency to take/seize/etc. Noel to protect others and to protect him from himself he has already indicated the capacity to harm.

He was to be taken into custody and in our laws etc. to be delivered to the psych ward at the nearest hospital. He has no choice. It has been deemed thru due process that he is to go, be taken, by the authority over mentally ill citizens that need help whether violent or not AND whether they BECOME violent are not. Either way he is going per the written laws.

If Noel became combative while being taken into custody the offices would go thru a force continuum up to and including lethal force. That UoF continuum is not absolute it has objectionable reasonableness along with the 4 th Amend. seizure wording.

An officer effecting an arrest or "seizure" when confronted with resistance can use any force reasonable to effect the "seizure" or arrest. It has to be objectionably reasonable given a high stress environment, where decisions must be made in an instant, with what the officer knows at that specific moment in time and not subject to hindsight knowledge and he is not required to use a lesser force(CS spray, baton, taser, etc)

 

[Sonya610]

<modsnip>

With regards to THIS CASE and assuming that the paperwork being served was issued as in any other agency to take/seize/etc. Noel to protect others and to protect him from himself he has already indicated the capacity to harm.

He was to be taken into custody and in our laws etc. to be delivered to the psych ward at the nearest hospital.

Assuming he was non-combative is there any reason the FAMILY couldn't have driven him to a mental health facility themselves for evaluation?

If they had lived in the area one would assume there would be doctors/facilities that were familiar with this guys mental health history and could have made arrangements to get him admitted.

 

[bluesneakers]

Assuming he was non-combative is there any reason the FAMILY couldn't have driven him to a mental health facility themselves for evaluation?

If they had lived in the area one would assume there would be doctors/facilities that were familiar with this guys mental health history and could have made arrangements to get him admitted.

IMO you would have to ask them.

Maybe the hospital wouldn't open up a bed unless he was brought in by LE. Which makes the most sense because based on reading the info at the Coroner's site I believe it's a stipulation when you file for a protective custody order. And unless he were suicidal they couldn't just drive him to the hospital and check him in on their own.

 

[Woodland]

<modsnip>

With regards to THIS CASE and assuming that the paperwork being served was issued as in any other agency to take/seize/etc. Noel to protect others and to protect him from himself he has already indicated the capacity to harm.

He was to be taken into custody and in our laws etc. to be delivered to the psych ward at the nearest hospital. He has no choice. It has been deemed thru due process that he is to go, be taken, by the authority over mentally ill citizens that need help whether violent or not AND whether they BECOME violent are not. Either way he is going per the written laws.

If Noel became combative while being taken into custody the offices would go thru a force continuum up to and including lethal force. That UoF continuum is not absolute it has objectionable reasonableness along with the 4 th Amend. seizure wording.

An officer effecting an arrest or "seizure" when confronted with resistance can use any force reasonable to effect the "seizure" or arrest. It has to be objectionably reasonable given a high stress environment, where decisions must be made in an instant, with what the officer knows at that specific moment in time and not subject to hindsight knowledge and he is not required to use a lesser force(CS spray, baton, taser, etc)

I can understand this post up to the underlined point.

What should happen when the resistance continues? Un-holstering a loaded gun seems unreasonable in this and similar instances to me. A loaded gun has one purpose.

 

[bluesneakers]

I can understand this post up to the underlined point.

What should happen when the resistance continues? Un-holstering a loaded gun seems unreasonable in this and similar instances to me. A loaded gun has one purpose.

Are we supposed to think Noel could have killed two officers with his bare hands?

 

[Archangel7]

Are we supposed to think Noel could have killed two officers with his bare hands?

Safe to assume at least two guns were there......
Woodland... Any means any. If Noel escalated the event to a lethal force event, he would be responded to with lethal force.

 

[drjones]

I can understand this post up to the underlined point.

What should happen when the resistance continues? Un-holstering a loaded gun seems unreasonable in this and similar instances to me. A loaded gun has one purpose.

What would you suggest should happen?

 

[Sonya610]

What would you suggest should happen?

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.

 

[drjones]

<modsnip>

It is not possible to understand because we do not have enough information. So anyone claiming that this appears to be unjustified is speaking out of ignorance (ignorance ie the dictionary definition, not meant as an insult). Just like anyone claiming that this clearly was justified is also speaking from ignorance. We do not know.

 

[Archangel7]

<modsnip>

See, that is why one needs facts. Hard to radio for help when in combat and he is getting your gun after being tased. Or maybe he was tased for that reason.
Hard to discuss without facts and maybe it escalated so quickly there was no way to retreat if that was ever an option.

 

[drjones]

Im not entirely certain I want LE to back off and wait for backup in situations like this. Now I dont want them to have to kill people either but, speaking in general since we dont know the specifics of this case, if someone is known to be mentally ill, people feel threatened enough to call the police, and the person fights with police when they arrive - should LE back off and leave this person be for any amount of time? What if they arm themselves? What if they attack another person? They are mentally unsound at the beginning, what state are they now likely in after fighting with police?

These cases are tragic but my opinion is that some of them are inevitable. We should try to learn from them and lessen them but, I dont think you can completely eliminate them, and I dont think police are always to blame when it happens.

 

[Tawny]

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."

 

[Sonya610]

Im not entirely certain I want LE to back off and wait for backup in situations like this. Now I dont want them to have to kill people either but, speaking in general since we dont know the specifics of this case, if someone is known to be mentally ill, people feel threatened enough to call the police, and the person fights with police when they arrive - should LE back off and leave this person be for any amount of time?

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.