Another SWAT OP gone astray? How will this cookie crumble in federal court?

[Rich Lucibella]

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]

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]

parlay, Rich

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]

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]

FF...what a tricky spot to be...

Yes, would be my first thought.....

 

[joab]

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 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]

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. )
Rich

 

[joab]

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 lawyer

So 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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??

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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 mind

Frankly 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]

You are pissed 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]

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.
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.

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

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]

You clearly HAVE come to judgement

And 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