Officer who shot woman in bed gets Silver Star

[gnomon]

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/BCPD.pdf

It refers to awards given to Baltimore County police officers. That's great. I fully support the police. Notice the passages with an arrow. It refers to officer Carlos Artson. I have nothing against him. Never met him. I'm sure he's a fine police officer.

The point. Officer Artson was involved in a no-knock raid on the home of Cheryl Lynn Noel. The raid was based on an informants tip and trace amounts of marijuana found in garbage cans outside the home.

The raid was conducted at 4:30A.M. The police forced entry into the home. Carlos then kicked in the bedroom door where Cheryl Lynn Noel was sitting with a legally owned firearm, by family accounts, pointing at the floor. Officer Artson fired two shots hitting Cheryl. He then fired another shot at point blank range.

News report of the filing of a civil lawsuit two months prior to awarding the medal:

http://www.examiner.com/a-210987~Family_of_slain_Dundalk_woman_sues_Baltimore_County_police.html

Talking points.

Is it too early for discussion?

Is it improper to award the medal just two months after the civil lawsuit had been filed?

How often do cases like this occur in the United States?

Does anybody care?

My opinions-Yes I'm already somewhat biased based upon other stories I've read about such cases but I must remember that this case, where the events occured still less than two years ago, have yet to be heard in a court. Some of the original reports I now believed are archived on their respective news sites. The recent articles does echo the original however in stating that the woman was while she was in the bed, that she did have a gun in her hand but the differences of accounts concern whether or not she had the gun pointed at the door when Officer Artson kicked the door to the bedroom down.

Cases like this do occur in the United States and in some of these judges have found that officers acted in a negligent manner. However, there are many unlike the described case above where tactical units go to the wrong address, harm is inflicted upon innocent people and no disciplinary action is taken. What is the wisdom in using no-knock tactics anyway on such raids for simple suspicion of marijuana possession or even gambling?

P.S. Arrests were made in the drug raid against two members of the family for misdemeanor marijuana charges. Also, community friends state that Cheryl had purchased a firearm after her step-daughter was killed nine years prior to the raid.

 

[gnomon]

Credit-I forgot to link to the site where I originally read of this story.

Credit to Radley Balko.

http://www.theagitator.com/

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

 

[standing_alone]

From reading the two sources provided, it isn't enough information to make a well-informed opinion, but it seems to me that the action of the police officer was excessive. The reaction of the lady to grab her gun after having her house busted into and not knowing who it was is not surprising. If it is true that the officer shot her without telling her to drop the weapon, I find that to be nothing but excessive force and murder. Not that I expect there to ever be justice for this murdered woman. But I must admit my low opinion of police officers in general makes me biased. I also have heard of police raiding the wrong houses before, always for suspicions regarding drugs. This, to me, just shows the absurdity of the War on Drugs - that we'd have police busting in homes unnanounced and shooting our fellow citizens over suspicion regarding drugs (a victimless crime).

 

[Pardus]

Is it too early for discussion?
Why would it be?

Is it improper to award the medal just two months after the civil lawsuit had been filed?
It is in bad taste.

How often do cases like this occur in the United States?
Who knows.

Does anybody care?
Nope, drugs involved, automatically she is guilty in public opinion.

 

[Ryan2065]

What is the wisdom in using no-knock tactics anyway on such raids for simple suspicion of marijuana possession or even gambling?

The reason police use no knock tactics is to make sure people do not have time to get rid of evidence. If you only have a little bit of drugs in your house its easy to hide while you are walking to the door... Also theres flushing stuff down the toilet and other things like that.

 

[Pardus]

And they are surprised that they get shot at when they do this? :help:

 

[Jaymes]

The reason police use no knock tactics is to make sure people do not have time to get rid of evidence. If you only have a little bit of drugs in your house its easy to hide while you are walking to the door... Also theres flushing stuff down the toilet and other things like that.

If they have so little that they can dispose of it that easily, is it really that big a concern to the police? Drug dealers are going to have too much laying around to hide or flush. Why worry about the recreational users?

 

[Ryan2065]

Hrm... It is hard to say what happened based on the stories... If the woman had her gun pointed at the ground then it would not be threatening, not even to someone breaking into her house... I would imagine someone whos first instinct is to grab a gun when someone breaks into her house would point the gun at the intruder rather than point it at the ground... You know, incase they had a gun... Both sides have a good reason to lie about where the gun was pointing so it would be very hard to figure out what exactly happened... I just think it does not make logical sense to point the gun at the ground if you think someone is breaking into your house.

The police should have announced who they were as they were breaking down the door and should have announced who they were while they were in the house. If they did not announce who they were then I think they are at fault here no matter if the gun was pointed at them or not.

Lastly, the 3rd shot to me was not excessive. Police are to shoot to kill... the first two shots should have killed her. If the police officer didn't see the gun (ie it was under her) and really did believe she was a threat, she could very well shoot them if she was still alive and still had possession of the gun. A 3rd shot is all they could do if they couldn't see the gun. Then again if they could see the gun and knew she was no longer a threat then yes... the 3rd shot was excessive.

 

[Ryan2065]

If they have so little that they can dispose of it that easily, is it really that big a concern to the police? Drug dealers are going to have too much laying around to hide or flush. Why worry about the recreational users?

The dealers could have something set up so they could quickly get rid of drugs as well... Hell hackers can get rid of tons of info on their computers with the press of a button if they are raided... I wouldn't imagine it would be hard for a drug dealer to rig something to get rid of the drugs quickly. There would probably still be some evidence of drugs but they can't exactly speculate what was there without hard evidence.

 

[Ryan2065]

And they are surprised that they get shot at when they do this? :help:

They should be announcing themselves as they break down the door and badges should be displayed (around the neck... like in the movies). If the police did not do this in this case then they were at fault and should be shot at.

 

[gnomon]

The reason police use no knock tactics is to make sure people do not have time to get rid of evidence. If you only have a little bit of drugs in your house its easy to hide while you are walking to the door... Also theres flushing stuff down the toilet and other things like that.

That and it also affords greater protection for law enforcement to move in while suspects.

The question then becomes whether or not such raids violate the Constitution. So far, it seems the courts have upheld no-knocks to be legal if reasonable suspicion exists to warrant such a search. However, at what point does law enforcements desire to obtain evidence override the safety of suspects and innocent lives. More jurisdictions disallow officers from engaging in high speed pursuit to avoid putting lives at risk. Do many no-knock raids on wrong addresses or people killed over misdemeanor offenses or even officers harmed and killed in such operations raise serious doubt on the need for such raids.

 

[gnomon]

Hrm... It is hard to say what happened based on the stories... If the woman had her gun pointed at the ground then it would not be threatening, not even to someone breaking into her house... I would imagine someone whos first instinct is to grab a gun when someone breaks into her house would point the gun at the intruder rather than point it at the ground... You know, incase they had a gun... Both sides have a good reason to lie about where the gun was pointing so it would be very hard to figure out what exactly happened... I just think it does not make logical sense to point the gun at the ground if you think someone is breaking into your house.

The police should have announced who they were as they were breaking down the door and should have announced who they were while they were in the house. If they did not announce who they were then I think they are at fault here no matter if the gun was pointed at them or not.

Lastly, the 3rd shot to me was not excessive. Police are to shoot to kill... the first two shots should have killed her. If the police officer didn't see the gun (ie it was under her) and really did believe she was a threat, she could very well shoot them if she was still alive and still had possession of the gun. A 3rd shot is all they could do if they couldn't see the gun. Then again if they could see the gun and knew she was no longer a threat then yes... the 3rd shot was excessive.

I should have picked a case that had already been decided in a court of law. I was thinking a more recent case such as this one would invite more discussion. However, it is still unclear as to all the details.

A few facts to consider. The raid occured during the morning hours. Knock and announce rules may be pretty irrelevant at the time. Especially in other cases where a battering ram and flash bang grenades are deployed. By the time someone becomes fully cognizant of what is going on after awakening from the initial shock it may be too late to realize that the intruders are police.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Hudson also bears relevance. It allows evidence obtained in cases where knock and announce protocal has been violated to be allowed in court. It essentially removes any incentive for law enforcement to follow strict procedure.

 

[gnomon]

If they have so little that they can dispose of it that easily, is it really that big a concern to the police? Drug dealers are going to have too much laying around to hide or flush. Why worry about the recreational users?

Targeting end users has always been a standard for law enforcement regarding illicit substances. I have suspicions for other reasons.

 

[kiwimac]

I find the police action in this case both excessive and unacceptable. The officer concerned should be charged with negligent homicide at the very least

Kiwimac

 

[gnomon]

I find the police action in this case both excessive and unacceptable. The officer concerned should be charged with negligent homicide at the very least

Kiwimac

I actually don't think the police officer can be held as liable. My exception in this particular case is with the awarding of the Silver Star for an action which is questionable. Especially timed after the recent filing of a civil lawsuit.

I'm more disturbed by the judiciary who keeps interpreting the Constitution to allow for such tactics. The legislature as well keeps writing laws promoting these tactics.