It does kind of look like there's damage to the front of the car as well. I suppose this one will be easy enough to prove, since some neighbor will have had a bashed up car and the PD would be able to send you pictures of the front of the car.

The power of a picture. I would very much like to see how the forensic analysis matches with the final position of the car. It allegedly was moving forward with enough force to hit another car, threaten officers, yet it still managed to roll backward and align itself with the truck it had pushed out into the street. I remember the initial news reports and didn't even think to question the account. Why didn't the police bring up a car to block the dead end?

@1 You're joking, right?

Total nonsense from the cops. None of the other cars around have any damage, nor any debris on the ground, and there's no sign of damage to the front of the Mercedes consistent with a serious impact. And it rolled back into exactly the same position? With the remains of the bumper structure tucked right back under the truck's bumper? Bull. Shit.

Crushing its bumper down under the higher bumper and hitch mount of the truck is exactly what you'd expect to lead to locking the vehicles together.

SPD. The more nothing changes, the more everything stays the same. Sigh. Next mayor, are you going to fix this?

Pssht. In America, violence is always warranted, and the more the merrier. That's what weapons are FOR. The SWAT team should have bombed the entire block, burned it down, just to be on the safe side. I'm very disappointed that there weren't 30 or 40 dead.

Three cheers for our militarized police force.

Does the Basic Law Enforcement Academy down in Burien have a training module called "How to Stop an Oncoming Vehicle With Your Sidearm" ?

Just asking. 'cause otherwise I can't help getting the impression that cops are trained to look at fleeing drivers basically as basically the same as game animals.

@4 All I'm saying is that it should be easy to prove one way or the other. I think the PD's story is plausible. The missing car is notable, but it may have already been towed.

A picture of the front of the car, along with the car it ran into, would end the controversy for me. The neighbors don't seem to be claiming they saw what happened - they're going off what the scene looked like the next morning.

the whole 'did the car hit the truck' controversy is missing the point entirely...this show of force for a petty car thief?? its INSANE . and the keystone cop clusterfawk result is entirely preventable, but totally predictable....

seriously, a SWAT team for 1 petty crook in a resi neighborhood?! i hope they investigate the Bellevue PD and the morons at SPD who approved this.

wannabe SEAL Team 6 with penis size issues..

@11,

Bellevue police were serving a warrant related to "a spree of armed robberies"

Are you implying that armed robbery is a petty crime or are you disputing the official story?

Darwin wins again. A piece of trash and known scumbag is no longer using valuable resources.

This is fantastic journalism by the Stranger. Let's see, maybe they could ask Bellevue PD for copies of the police reports related to the robberies by the suspect so that people can accurately judge whether or not the guy was a potential risk. Or, even better, maybe they could get a copy of the search warrant, which is a publicly filed document that would probably give all sorts of information about what the supposed bad guy was doing. Naaahhh. That's too much work.

Instead, let's get quotes by someone who lives across the street but didn't see what happened until after the incident was basically over and based upon his lengthy email appears to have a pretty big axe to grind with the cops, and someone who lives a block away and saw absolutely nothing. Where are the quotes by people in Tacoma or Spokane? They've got about as much information as these two people you've quoted. Again, outstanding work.

@5 -- yes, because when Bellevue PD shoots somebody, it's Seattle PD's fault. Because police.

Jeez ... this takes 'NIMBY' to a whole new level.

A car is a deadly weapon.

I'm sure any of these neighbors, if they were in any of the officer's shoes at that very moment, would feel differently.

I'm making no judgement about the incident, but it doesn't stand out, like say, the John Williams killing stands out.

@15 SPD did not need to allow Bellevue's SWAT team into the city.

@18 -- that's cool. So if a friend of yours gets robbed, raped, or murdered outside of Seattle, you'll be cool with that investigating law enforcement agency not investigating the case if the suspect is in Seattle, right? It'll be the ultimate get out of jail free card. In fact, maybe you can post your address, so they can all come over and stay at your place.

@12..im only judging by what is 'reported' so i couldtotally be wrong. i read/heard on radio that it was a car thief. who knows the real story. but again, it seems like a clusterfck, and who knows the real truth.

the orher weird part is How did the criminal mastermind get into his car in he First place??? there was a Swat team there, and he just gets in his ride and heads off?? weird story.

@10 It's impossible to be certain from the angle and the quality of the image, but I don't see ANY sign of damage to the front of the car, let alone an amount consistant with a significant collision.

I'm not positive, but I think that's a Mercedes E-class, about 5 years old. I can't find an on-line image from anything like that angle, but the reflections off the hood look to me like there's no damage up front.

The first blockquote says the only exit from the block is off to the left, in the direction that the truck is facing, so they couldn't have towed the allegedly-hit other car first unless the towtruck pulled it down the sidewalk past the locked-together vehicles. Not very plausible.

The cops are lying to cover their asses. Without any eyewitnesses, they'll get away with it.

@17 That car was locked to a two-ton parking brake at the time. It wasn't going anywhere.

@17,

Nice try, but I'm sick of hearing that tired, chickenshit line: "A car is a deadly weapon, blah, blah, blah."

Deadly, sure, except that unlike a firearm, or a knife, or a tire iron, when a perp aims a car at you, shooting them accomplishes exactly nothing in terms of neutralizing the threat. Even in a bona-fide honest-to-god scrape with two tons of rolling metal coming right at you, what good is putting two rounds of hollow-point .40 cal in the driver's head? Fuck-all, that's what. You're still standing in front of the same deadly threat you were facing before, only now there's a limp sack of potatoes in the drivers' seat to boot.

But, hey, good shoot!

Oh, and in case anybody is curious, this shooting will, eventually be found unjustified.

The problem is that when you shoot a fleeting driver 23 times, they lose control of the car, and a frontal collision follows. Somehow this car ended up backed up against a pickup.

Only way that could have happened as claimed is if the driver, even as he took 23 rounds, somehow stopped the car, put it back in reverse, and drove backwards into the same pickup truck he'd just backed into once already.

I'm skeptical.

Gosh, it's good to know our city has the law enforement experts of Columbia City who can figure this all out with their email list without actually seeing what happend. And it is even better to know that the children of these fine email list members are special. Unlike those horrible children on the other side of the lake who armed robbers put in harms way. But armed robbers are not dangerous on the way to their day jobs. Gosh Columbia City resident thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us.

Guy Davis...Calls the Strangler? To give his after-the-fact opinion of what happened?

Hearsay "journalism" at its finest Anna Minard.

@20: Bellvue SWAT are not detectives. They were not "investigating" anything, you dumb fuck.

@14: If you'd bothered to actually read the article before entering troll mode, you would have known that the Stranger requested the police report from the BPD, and received no response.

You really are working overtime to make an ass of yourself in this thread. Too bad you didn't work as hard reading the article you're trashing.

I live on the block where this happened, almost directly across from the house BPD was heading to deliver the warrant.

I did not see the shooting. I don't believe anyone besides the Bellevue SWAT team saw the shooting. I awoke to the sound of yelling, followed by shooting.

I remain surprised there's still no mention on the number of shots fired. I saw SPD -- which ran the investigation of the scene -- lay out markers for 19 shell casings on the street and sidewalk, and an additional 4 markers on top of the Mercedes.

I don't know what those 4 markers on top of the car meant, but I personally saw an individual shell casing for each of those 19 markers.

So, Bellevue PD fired a minimum of 19 shots and perhaps as many as 23.

Watch the video coverage from some of the TV networks. They have shots of those markers on the sidewalk as well, but I don't believe they got shots of the ones on the car roof.

Also, the Mercedes engine was still running at least an hour after the shooting. Again, I saw this with my own eyes. The exhaust was coming from the rear end. I watched with binoculars from my house. The engine was not turned off until SPD SWAT took over from Bellevue SWAT. The characterization that the Mercedes and truck had to be pried apart by a tow truck is not accurate. SPD started the truck up and separated them, simply by pulling the truck forward. The tow truck showed up on the scene AFTER the vehicles were separated.

Still as a witness to the events immediately following the shooting, and the voices and sounds preceding the shooting, I can't figure out how the Mercedes engine was still running for at least an hour after the shooting but the car was not moving. Was it in park? In neutral? If yes, who did that? Does a car sitting there with its engine running but not moving contradict the BP statement that he pulled forward and so was shot?

Lots of questions. This was an incredibly disturbing event and an absolutely scary show and use of force.

What if this same activity was happening in poor communities across the country?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/davi…

@30, 31 - Swat teams typically go in and serve high risk search warrants, like say in the case of armed robbery suspects. They secure the scene, then let detectives come in and do whatever investigation they need to do, like collecting evidence and talking to witnesses. For example, in the case of an armed robbery suspect, the stuff that was stolen may be in the bad guy's house, so detectives would collect it. I'm sorry that you're clueless and don't understand this, but that's not my fault.

Additionally, I'm not talking about the police reports from the shooting scene, which clearly are not going to be completed the day of the incident, but the reports from the robberies that led to the officers getting the search warrant. Or a copy of the affidavit for the warrant, which is typically a summary of the evidence presented to a judge. That information would of course be very helpful to allow people to come to a rational, reasoned decision about whether the guy that for shot was actually dangerous, and whether the response was excessive. Again, I'm sorry that you don't understand how these things work, but it's not my fault you've comment on things you're clueless about.

If the car was in drive, or first gear, it's not just going to "roll back" into the truck. The only way it got there is if it was in neutral, or it never went forward after he backed into it.

@ 34 SWAT teams were originally developed to respond to hostage situations and other, existing, violent situations. Environments where the cops are expecting a massive shootout. Police have gradually expanded their role to serve warrants, of all types. They have a basic assault plan that they follow when they serve these warrants. They wait til late at night, toward early morning, when people are most likely asleep and break the bedroom windows to toss in flash grenades to stun the sleeping occupants. At the same time, other SWAT officers use a ram to break down a door and they swarm the house and shoot anything that looks "potentially" dangerous. Like Todd Blair. An innocent man who grabbed a golf club to defend himself and his family because he thought criminals were breaking in to harm them. That's just a standard operation. Almost every SWAT raid goes down exactly that way. SWAT are military in nature. Police have no business using military tactics to serve warrants. This is not a war zone. It gets innocents killed and also people who, maybe, are wanted for crimes, and maybe, possibly are guilty, but don't deserve to die for a petty crime. There's nothing wrong with knocking and loudly announcing and waiting five minute for somebody to answer the door before you break it down.

By the way, try watching a video of SWAT officers shooting Todd Blair. He sees they're cops and, almost comically, relaxes and you can visibly see the relief on his face when he realized they were cops. Then they shot him dead.

@ 35. That's an excellent observation. I live on that block, and though I did not see the shooting, I watched the scene immediately afterwards and for hours on as we were on lockdown in our house.

Some other things to think about, wrt the Mercedes, as I saw it with my own eyes... I saw the car rolling backwards toward the truck. The Mercedes engine was still running at least an hour after the shooting. The exhaust was coming from the rear end. I watched with binoculars from my house. The engine was not turned off until SPD SWAT took over from Bellevue SWAT.

I can't figure out how the Mercedes engine was still running for at least an hour after the shooting but the car did not budge. Was it in park? In neutral? In reverse? Did someone set the emergency brake? If yes, who did that? Does a car sitting there with its engine running but not moving forward at all contradict the BPD statement that he pulled forward and so was shot?

I just watched the Todd Blair video you reference in @37. I hope BPD SWAT had cameras on their helmets and/or vehicle. It's about the only way we'll ever get independent information on this.

@38 ummm.... If you saw the car roll backwards toward the truck then that is fairly good evidence that the car did pull forward after smashing the truck. No comment from me on whether the shooting was justified but your own statement indicates that the SPD/BPD statement about the car moving forward may have actually been a factual statement (amazingly considering SPD's reputation).

@39... the Mercedes rolling backwards very soon after the shooting is one piece of data. It's what I saw. You can combine it with the fact that the Mercedes clearly backed into and pushed a large red truck into the street. And then I saw the cars separated, with the truck standing still and the Mercedes rolling backwards towards the truck. But from there, I don't know what version of events it implies.

It leads to questions in my mind.

* If the suspect did drive forward, how then is the car rolling backwards after the shots are fired?
* Based on the BPD statement of what went down, shouldn't the car have been in drive and still heading away from the truck? (I'm no car nut, and haven't taken the time to research it, but am guessing a Mercedes is automatic.)
* The driver was not in the car when I saw it rolling backwards. The driver door was open. Did BPD SWAT open the door, after firing, and pull him out? Did the suspect open the door and fall out?

I did see BPD SWAT carry the body from the scene soon after the shooting, from the street next to the driver's side of the car to SW corner of 43rd & Hudson.

Let's assume for the sake of argument (it may well be the case) that Guy Davis’ initial account is correct. Specifically, that the Mercedes one of the suspects was in backed into the F-250 (it weighs about 6,000 pounds), that it got moved backward several feet or yards, and that it became lodged in the vehicle so hard that the two vehicles had to mechanically pry them apart using a winch.

So the suspect saw BPD about the same time BPD saw him. The accounts of SPD and Mr. Davis do not contradict each other at this point. The suspect did not surrender at this point (no account indicates he was told to) but accelerated backwards at a high enough rate of speed to move a 6,000 pound truck, parked at the curb (meaning it was like in Park and may also have had the parking brake on) feet or yards. According to Mr. Davis, it also wedged the vehicles together so hard that mechanical towing equipment was required to get them apart. BPD says at that point they ordered the suspect to “stop.”

Assuming Mr. Davis is correct and the Mercedes never moved forward, BPD officers were facing a non-compliant, armed robbery suspect, for whom they had a warrant, that was still in command of a 4,000 pound vehicle. BPD would have had no way of knowing the vehicle was stuck, and even it if was and the drive wheels on the Mercedes were spinning, they would have to assume it could lurch free at any moment.

RCW 9A.16.020 states in part:

“The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;”

So BPD, or any “person” (see 2 above), had the right to “offer … force” by having their guns out and trained at the suspect.

The statute also authorizes the use of force “by a party (could be a cop or a citizen) about to injured … in preventing or attempting an offense against his or her person …”

Now add in RCW 9A.16.050 which states, “Homicide is also justifiable when … there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the person slain (the Mercedes driver and suspect for which BPD had a warrant) to commit a felony or do some great personal injury to the slayer (in this case BPD, but the law applies to a citizen as well) or any such person (E.g. another BPD officer in this case), and there is imminent danger of such a design being accomplished …”
From BPD’s perspective, the guy had just rammed the vehicle so hard trying to get away from them, that he had moved it many feet, he had not obeyed the lawful command to stop, the engine is running and (taking Mr. Davis account) and could break free and run them or someone else over at any minute. Putting yourself in their shoes, with what they would have seen in the dark at 0500, do you think it reasonable to “apprehend a design” that the Mercedes driver and felony suspect intended to “do some great personal injury” to them and that their was “imminent danger of such a design being accomplished?” I do, even if the vehicle, as Mr. Davis asserts, never moved forward. It was only later, when the vehicles were being pulled apart, that Davis would have become aware the Mercedes was allegedly incapable of moving forward. Assuming that is true, there is no way BPD could have known that in the moment.

If you look further in RCW it gives extra justifications for police to use force, including deadly force in RCW 9A.16.040 we find:

1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

The Mercedes driver was still actually resisting according to all available accounts (i.e. not complying with a command to stop, turning the motor off, putting his hands up).

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

Do you think it would be reasonable to construe the Mercedes, which weighs at least 3,500 pounds, as a weapon considering what the driver had just done and his lack of compliance with a the command to “stop.”? Do you think the Mercedes driver was “display(ing) a weapon in a manner that could reasonably construed as threatening?” Do think, under the circumstances, “there (was) probable cause to believe that the suspect (had) committed any crime involving … threatened infliction of serious physical harm?”

The suspect had showed an intent to escape, and if he got free of the truck in the Mercedes he could drive it on the sidewalk or between a house to get away. Is there a reasonable probability he would run somebody over in doing so, go through a wall into a bedroom, or hit a pedestrian once free of the culdesac? If he escapes, will he commit another armed robbery and actually shoot somebody?

Even if the vehicle was not moving forward as BPD asserts, and could have moved forward, as Mr. Davis asserts, based on observations of the tow truck, in the daylight, there is still plenty of legal justification for BPD (or even a citizen under the statutes that don’t specifically call out “peace officers”) in the same circumstances to have fired.

We need only look at what happened in Hoquiam where a suspect, who was being served a felony warrant for a non-violent crime, opened up on four officers, hitting one in the hip, and then barricaded himself for 20 hours with periodic exchanges of gunfire, before he lit the place on fire and went out the door shooting until shot dead in return.

Would the people who live on Davis’ street have preferred that? There is a reason that cops, when serving felony warrants, go in with surprise, if possible, and overwhelming force. They want to “shock and awe” the alleged felon into stunned passivity so that he can be cuffed before he goes for a weapon or tries to flee. Davis’ and the neighbors should be grateful to BPD for ending the threat quickly with bullets that stopped in the suspect and the body of the car.

@41...lots of detail there. I am not commenting on all of it.
I do want to comment on and correct this excerpt:

"Let's assume for the sake of argument ... that the Mercedes ... became lodged in the vehicle so hard that the two vehicles had to mechanically pry them apart using a winch."

I can state without doubt that there was no tow truck and no winch needed to pry them apart. Further, there was no tow truck on the scene when the vehicles were separated. I live on this block and saw the two cars get separated. That happened when Seattle CSI (yes, they wear CSI jackets) started up the truck and simply drove it forward and parked it on the E side of the street.

Also, there were no tire skid marks visible in the street at Mercedes' rear wheels. Finally, I was awakened before the shooting by yelling in the street, then heard the shooing. I never heard tires screeching.

Again, I have no feedback on anything else you wrote, mostly cuz it's hella long. But, no tow truck. No winch. Didn't happen.

@38 & 40

It's an automatic, manual E-classes are so rare as to be basically non-obtainable.

If the BPD account is correct, and he pulled forward, hitting another car (a cop car? whatever it is, it's not in the photo), the driver likely would have been about to back up again to get out from behind whatever he hit. He could have been putting it in reverse when he was shot. For what it's worth, I do see a sizable dent in the right-front corner of the Benz, so he at least sideswiped SOMETHING.

This street is on a hill. Even if it was left in drive, it's likely a big 4000lb car like the E-Class would still roll backwards (downhill) without someone standing on the brake.

From the image, to me, it does not look like the vehicle is in "the exact same position" as the original impact to the truck. You can see the marks high up on the Benz's trunklid from the 1st impact where it was submarining under the truck - it was pulled or driven out from under the trucks bumper before it came back to that resting place. You can also see from the angle that the trunklid is bent at that the 1st impact was at an angle, leading with the passenger side of the Benz. As it's resting against the truck in the photo, the car's since been turned to the left. If that's how it had hit & pushed the truck, the trunklid would be bent the other direction, with the drivers side of the buckled trunklid being the high side and the passengers side the low side.

I drove at Evergreen Speedway for 10 years, I've seen plenty of accidents and their aftermath.

Also, wet pavement = no skid marks.

it's odd that only 1-2 people in this thread think its not OK for Mayberry/Bellevue PD to be serving warrants and driving their tanks into Seattle. WTF, Smellevue, we knew you were bored, but you can't get on the horn and let SPD take care of this lone offender? We know for a fact that SPD is well-armed and not afraid to shoot first, ask questions never. We don't need your "help".

As someone who lives in Lake Shitty and expects the overarmed, under mentally-equipped S'moreline Kops to launch a missile into my neighborhood at the first sign of boredom, I'm right with the Columbia City folks.

Fuck you, BPD. Dicks.

The residents of the Columbia City neighborhood where this Bellevue SWAT shooting occurred have organized a community forum (on 4/22) focusing on three topics --- prevention, incident management and crisis management. What could have been done to prevent this incident? How could the immediate situation been managed better? And what's the response and support for communities in the aftermath?

Seattle civic leaders will attend. Bellevue civic leaders have been invited.

You can learn more at this page: https://www.facebook.com/events/24604138…

@ 43. good insight and commentary. a few notes:

re: "If the BPD account is correct, and he pulled forward, hitting another car (a cop car? whatever it is, it's not in the photo)..." that's one of the mysteries here for those of us on the block. no neighbor reported their car being hit. no 2nd car on the block had clear damage. the only police vehicle on the block was the Bellevue swat "tank." it was in front of the truck. no way the Mercedes hit the swat tank.

re: "This street is on a hill. Even if it was left in drive, it's likely a big 4000lb car like the E-Class would still roll backwards (downhill) without someone standing on the brake."
43rd avenue runs N-S. so, not a hill in the way that Hudson (the cross street) is. 43rd is as relatively flat as any seattle street. if anything, it slopes slightly west, which means if slope would have played a role, it would have rolled forward.

re: "wet pavement = no skid marks." that might make sense. there was light rain that morning, even some snow.