Must have been a long blade to be able to reach the top of a garage.

Yea I don't really understand the officer-suspect positioning at all. He's on a wall? A roof?

I do wonder what inspired this guy to go so crazy. Tox report might be interesting.

@3 (?!?) indeed! firing down from atop a garage is quite a different scenario that the description in the previous posting (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…) in which the reasonablity of the Detective feeling threatened and having no alternative to firing generated a reasonable debate.

Obviously neither of us was there, but this sure sounds like the Detective just didn't want the suspect to get away. Not sure that's a valid use of deadly force.

According to reports, they were both on the roof. The detective went up there after him.

I don't take what SPD says at face value, but if indeed a guy with a knife charges a cop, they can expect to die.

I would be interested to know why any cop climbed up there after him instead of just waiting him out.

Just a thought: six or seven shots fired doesn't mean every one hit the suspect. We always think people trained with guns never miss, but it's quite possible that less than half the shots hit Spaddford. (I would also note that we shouldn't rush to a conclusion based on the fact that the detective has shot suspects before. If he's been a robbery detective for 15 years, it's plausible that he's had to legitimately use his gun in the line of duty before.) None of that conclusively determines whether the the detective acted reasonably or within his authority in this instance (e.g., whether he should have been permitted to use deadly force). Hopefully an investigation will actually reveal what the circumstances of the shooting were and whether it is justifiable.

This is a weird story all the way around. No denying that the guy both was an apparent danger (brandishing a pellet gun as though it were real to threaten bank patrons) and driving recklessly enough to crash his vehicle in the escape attempt, as well as brandishing a knife -- whether he had the ability to use it to do immediate harm to anyone is a separate matter related to the deadly force question. Based on the reactions of those who knew him, seems like mental illness/intoxication of some sort could have been at play. Strange, strange, strange and tragic for all involved.

Since the two of them were alone at the time of the shooting, I feel pretty certain that Detective Rodger's account of the incident will end up as the official explanation of 'what happened'. Lucky for him, huh?

#9 You really don't think the man who just threatened to murder several people while robbing a bank at gunpoint could have been feeling a little homicidal/suicidal when he met up with Rodgers? In your mind it's easier to believe a cop who woke up thinking it was going to be just another day randomly decided to kill a man when he didn't have to?

ok, reading another source it sounds like the detective climbed a wall to the roof, not realizing the suspect was already on the roof.

If you look at the photo of the gun on the SPD blotter, it looks very real. I don't see how bank employees or the cops could easily tell that it's air pistol.

@11 I was confused when reading it too. The "article" above seemed a bit misleading, but re-reading the linked report makes it sound like they were both on the same level. From the report:

"As the suspect ran across the garage, away from officers and out of view, one detective scaled a wall adjacent to the garage to get to higher ground and get a better view of the suspect. As soon as the detective ascended the wall, he saw the suspect standing nearby, holding a large fixed-blade knife."

Regarding the airsoft pistol, it doesn't matter if it's real or fake. He held up a bank acting as if it was real and the people at the bank thought it was real. The police thought it was real. Everyone thought it was real.

Do the police never try to shoot a leg, which would probably bring down someone with a knife?

@14

Absolutely not. If a police officer is going to fire at all, he or she is supposed to fire only when the antagonist poses an immediate threat to someone's life. And in that situation, you don't want to miss, and you want stop the person as fast as possible. They're trained to aim for the center of mass, more or less.

We definitely don't want cops firing "warning shots" before a situation is critical, or shooting at people to maim them in ways that might not stop them from doing whatever harm they're trying to do.

Also, while it's super sad, it does sound to me like this particular event might be a case of "suicide by cop."

It doesn't matter if he dropped the knife and started to run away. With a violent felony like robbery, the cop would still have had the authority to use deadly force, even to prevent escape. The only way a person suspected of a violent felony can't potentially authorize the police to use deadly force would be if they surrender. The cops are going to be in the clear on this one. And I think it would be foolish to try to combine the active pursuit of a bank robber with other completely different cases that the police actually provoked (like the woodcarver shooting or the recent Albuquerque shooting).

Delirian @16 has the best understanding of the legalities involved here of any of you. And yes, you can kick and scream and hold your breath as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a legal, legitimate shooting.

A realistic-looking fake gun counts as a real gun, for all intents and purposes, in a situation like this. How is anyone going to know in the heat of the moment?

Please read #16 carefully and see if there has not been a line crossed very dramatically. Fear, indecision, suspicion... These are the reasons for allowing a police officer to use deadly force????? " A SUSPECT scared me so I shot him. Therefore he WAS guilty of whatever crime I suspected hi8m of." Yeah right. That center of body mass multiple round shooting is MILITARY quick kill TRAINING. It is effective where ALL the targets are guilty. Not so much for LEO, eh???

Six or seven rounds and he had to shot to kill?
Could not get a leg to stop him? He apperantly had plenty of time.

If you rob a bank with a gun that only you know is fake then refuse to stand down when confronted by the cops you get shot. If the gun in this situation were real and the cops let this guy run because he only brandished a knife then went on to shoot someone this post would be full of people complaining how the cops should not have allowed that to happen. Take your pick folks. Either the police allow armed robbers to shoot innocent bystanders or the police shoot armed robbers who refuse to stand down. You can't have it both ways. The cops did the right thing from a public safety perspective. They also had the right to defend themselves. They don't owe it to the armed robber and his loved ones to do otherwise.

I know that in light of the major problems at SPD, it's tempting to insist that nothing they do is on the level. But guys, pick your battles.

This man threatened to kill innocent people with a gun (that only he knew was fake at the time), while robbing a bank. So at that point, once he leaves the bank, we have an armed, violent man on the loose who is on camera threatening to shoot people while committing a violent crime, tearing recklessly through the streets in his car. In this whole scenario there are multiple times where innocent people were in real danger of being hurt or killed. You really want the police to use kid gloves in a situation like that? Suicide by cop or not, I don't think they should have taken the situation more lightly.

Do the police never try to shoot a leg, which would probably bring down someone with a knife?

It's not your fault. It's Hollywood. Police are not Navy SEAL Kung fu ninja superhero's.

People keep saying silly things like this. "Can't they shoot 'em in meaty part of the shoulder or in the leg!"

It has to stop.

Firearms, for better or worse, have been trained and refined now for a few centuries. In all that time the only place where "less than lethal" use exists is in fiction about guns.

Just take thirty seconds and think about the physics involved in shooting an irregular shaped randomly moving object on that objects periphery -- like a leg or shoulder. Limbs also move faster than torsos.

Now imagine that object is an armed person moving at you. And imagine shooting his leg or shoulder reliably under pressure while adrenaline hampers your fine moter skills. If your aim is off by only millimeters you miss.

The entire reason we want fewer wanna be hero yahoos to be stomping around with guns in malls and movie theaters is becuase bullets miss bad guys and hit good guys so frequently and so easily.

So bad guy runs at you with knife. You aim for leg. If you DO hit him there is no guarantee you drop him and stop him coming at you. Momentum, adrenaline, distance... A bullet to center of mass where there are large body cavities and organs will more likely fold a person.

Also. Bullets make holes. Right? Holes for blood to drain out of. Blood pressure drops sufficiently the person can't move. Hitting a limb won't do that quickly becuase there is less blood flow to the extremities.

Ok. So know we know:

A) Center of mass is infinitely easier to hit.

B) Guns are not good less than lethal weapons.

C) Being good or lucky enough to hit an extremity is still a much lower chance of stopping an assailant.

That is why every police force on the planet trains to shoot center of mass as a primary target. Every. Single. One.

@10 ...but to play devil's advocate, if the suspect was simply feeling homicidal/suicidal, why would he have used a pellet gun during the crime instead of the real thing? Wouldn't that lead one to believe that he didn't start out with intent to genuinely harm anyone (and, thus, make it a little peculiar that he would later suicidally run TOWARD a cop brandishing a knife)?

If the guy was in a homicidal/suicidal haze and wanted to commit "suicide by cop" or pick off a member of law enforcement or two wouldn't it have made more sense to linger at the crime scene until they took him out? Likewise, if a man has a realistic-looking pellet gun and wants a cop to think he's a threat, why toss that aside and pull out a knife? It's a little odd.

On the other hand, I wonder about the aspects of mental illness in all this. Did the suspect have a history of it, etc.? If the guy genuinely did use a pellet gun in the crime, and then later ran toward a cop with a knife like he was going to kill him, I'd strongly suspect the suspect either had a history of mental illness and/or was taking some kind of major narcotic. In the absence of either of those last two things, I'd be inclined to be much more suspicious of the police account. There's a lot of weird unexplained things about this story.

As someone said above, I'd be curious about the toxicology account, as well as the suspect's psychological history.

@24 -- perhaps he had a pellet gun because he was a convicted felon and knew he'd fail a background if he tried to get a real one? And perhaps he needed something that looked real, even if it wasn't, so he could convincingly pull off a bank robbery by making the people in the bank believe he was going to kill them.

Here's another reason why leg shots are stupid:

If you intentionally shoot an attacker in the leg, that's tantamount to saying to a prosecutor or jury that the use of deadly force wasn't really necessary, so you merely decided to maim the attacker for life.

Imagine the hue and cry from the SLOG if SPD had attempted a leg shot and hit the attacker in the genitals instead and blown his package to smithereens. All of the 'leg shot liberals' would be losing their minds.

The people who are arguing for arm and leg shots have obviously never fired a real gun.

Why didn't the cop just shoot the gun and then shoot the knife? He could then shoot the suspect's belt buckle so that his pants would hilariously fall down and trip him. Then the cop would say, "you got caught with your pants down!" while putting him in handcuffs. Roll credits.

Would this even be a story if it had been a young black man who worked at a 7-11? "Young black man robs bank, charges cop with knife, is shot dead." The skepticism here is because he's white and works in a trendy restaurant.

I'm a friend of Cody's, he did not have a history of mental illness and this whole thing is completely out of character. He has had some run ins with the law in the past, but he was never violent. He had also completely turned his life around, was an amazing chef, worked hard to get where he was, and this was completely out of the blue. He wasn't some low life criminal, he was a good man and this whole situation has left a huge hole in many hearts. Whether the shooting was actually necessary will never be known as the cop was alone with him, which should not have happened, but regardless, the whole thing is absolutely tragic and heart breaking. I've read much of the speculation, but please keep in mind that he was somebody's child, and many people's friend.

He was somebody that pointed a gun at a Teller doing their job he scared them more than they have ever been scared before . He drove like a nut case and could have killed people just out enjoying the day lucky that no one else was hurt. So I tell you what friend of Cody I will show the same concern and the same feelings about Cody as he did towards everyone else that day. He did not give a crap about them and so we should not care less that he flushed his life down the toilet. We should just be happy he was the only person to wind up dead.

#31 ftw

@30: "He wasn't some low life criminal"

I'm sure not. But if he did perform those actions, he embodied one that terrible day. I feel for the friends and family who try to make sense of this.

#16 and #31 are correct on this issue.

@27: Anyone arguing for a maiming is an idiot. You don't Lone-Ranger. You don't shoot if a person isn't a threat to life. You hit center mass to kill if they are.

@16 is right. Not only was the shooting justified if the detective thought he was in imminent danger, it was also justified to prevent the suspect's escape. You can't let an armed (and he was justifiably believed to be armed with a gun and knife) suspect flee after a violent crime (and robbing a bank at gun-point is surely that, it is compltely misleading and disengenous to call him "non-voilent" or armed "only" with a knife). If they had let him run he might have killed other people. If an officer had cornered the Cafe Racer shooter between when the first and second shootings, we would hope that officer would have used deadly force to prevent him from fleeing. Likewise, the police in the situation would be justified in fearing he might kill someone if allowed to flee the scene.

@35 - You center mass to stop. The intent is to stop, not to kill. But effect is likely the same. Even if you don't miss someone's leg, it doesn't stop someone who is determined.

If a person is on a violent rampage (holding a gun on a group of people and threatening to kill them meets this standard) then what if the police had backed off, Spafford had escaped from the garage, run between the houses and killed a homeowner five minutes later in the process of carjacking an escape vehicle? Would people on this thread be blaming the SPD for dropping the ball and not protecting the victim by taking down Spafford when they had him in their sights?

@ 30- "He wasn't some low life criminal, he was a good man and this whole situation has left a huge hole in many hearts."

I am very sorry for your loss, but with time perhaps you'll come to understand that the Cody you know was quite obviously leading a double life, and you only saw half of it.

I have a relative in my extended family a lot like Cody. It's heartbreaking to watch them throw their potential away.

Take care.

@30: Please consider not entering threads about Cody Spafford. Some of the commenters here do not wear kid gloves. You will read many hurtful, negative things about your friend. Reading more will only hurt you more.

@19: A guy who had just robbed a bank with a gun, and was holding a knife and charging me? That would scare me, too. If that had happened to me, and I'd been armed, I probably would have shot him.

It's not that it made him guilty of armed robbery (though he was). It's that he was threatening the life of another person in that moment.

And you wonder why both Christopher Montfort and Maurice Clemons did what they did . . . .

"Suspected" terrorist . . . .

Unfortunately a Seattle cops word is a good as a Seattle cops word.

And no witnesses.