Spokane7
68°
September 29, 2011 in City
Police shooting details emerge
Agency finds bit of shotgun shell outside deceased man’s workplace
A suicidal man who police shot to death after a nearly two-hour standoff Monday apparently fired a shotgun outside his workplace before officers arrived, according to information released Wednesday by the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.
A sheriff’s K-9 team recovered a portion of a shotgun shell known as a wad in the area where a witness said James Edward Rogers fired a shot before fleeing in a van. No one was injured by that shot.
But about two hours later, Rogers, 45, was fatally shot by Spokane police after refusing commands to put down the shotgun and exit the van, which he had crashed and overturned at East Seventh Avenue and South Hatch Street while fleeing officers.
Authorities have not indicated why officers felt they needed to open fire on Rogers after nearly two hours of negotiations.
Investigators canvassed the neighborhood Tuesday gathering witness accounts and are interviewing officers who were at the scene.
Detectives also interviewed Rogers’ co-workers at SL Start, an assisted living facility at 811 S. Hatch Road. Rogers had worked for SL Start for about a year when an employee called 911 Monday to say he was suicidal and had a firearm.
Authorities recovered the shotgun and were searching the 1993 Chevrolet van Wednesday, said sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Dave Reagan. The Sheriff’s Office is leading the investigation.
The van and shotgun belong to Rogers’ father, Alonzo Rogers. Rogers’ family had spent Monday looking for him as he called them repeatedly from different locations, talking of suicide. Rogers was an alcoholic, his family said.
Rogers’ sister, Angela Crigger, was on the phone with police when she heard gunfire. Alonzo Rogers was en route to the scene to help police persuade his son to surrender.
Alonzo Rogers said the shotgun was difficult to reload because of a malfunction. “He would have had to take time to dig it out and put in another one,” Rogers said.
Rogers doesn’t know if his son had extra shotgun shells in the van.
“I’ll be curious to see if they found any in the van,” he said Wednesday.
Reagan would not say Wednesday if the officer or officers who fired shots have given tactical briefings or full interviews but said the information will be released “in the near future.”
Human trafficking suspects released 
DHF on September 29 at 5:42 a.m.
Lots of unanswered questions. I would like to know if a loaded round was in the chamber and if there was extra shells in his possession. Did he point the gun at the police, The van was on its side. Was all the glass intact. Why take two hours to negoatiate and then kill him. Ouestions, Questions, Questions. Now we need Truthful answers.
ramboyd on September 29 at 6:33 a.m.
The officers will be cleared of any wrong doing! Unless the shooting was caught on tape, its the officers word against the citizen. Officer wins. Period.
Orphan on September 29 at 7:25 a.m.
What does firing the shotgun have to do with the Cops shooting him 2+ hours later. None of the Cops at the scene of the shooting “knew” that he had fired the shotgun. In a court of law the Cops could not say they knew he fired the shotgun.
The_Seer on September 29 at 8:02 a.m.
This latest OIS is being handled just like all the other recent OIS. The “investigators” leak “information” piecemeal which culminates in the public being handheld through their latest connects the dots fantasy.
Once a liar, always a liar.
And don’t remove this post, Ruth. Their is strong evidence that the SPD has issued lies in the past. As a “journalist” you are supposed to be dedicated to publishing the truth, not censoring it because a small portion of the public find it offensive. People should be offended by public officials lying.
The_Seer on September 29 at 8:08 a.m.
This story was posted last evening and has many associated comments. Read further here.
Maybe Ruth can figure out a way to carry forward story commentary instead of serving as an online, seemingly paid-off referee?
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/sep/28/man-killed-police-fired-shot-chase-began/?c=350483&comments=1#c350483
TheRoo on September 29 at 9:20 a.m.
There seems to be nothing new in this story. If details are “emerging”, I missed them.
It’s unseemlly for the police to withhold a full account of what happened; they’ve had plenty of time to find out.
And, we deserve a truthful accounting.
meadman on September 29 at 9:24 a.m.
interesting how most everyone gripes about the “lack of details and facts” (which is true), but then they quickly leap to the conclusion that the shooting was unjustified and there will be a coverup…… here is a novel idea – before spouting your “conclusions” why not wait for the investigation to be completed and facts made known…?
valleyman on September 29 at 9:36 a.m.
@DHF:
I’ll take a crack at your questions:
1) It makes no difference if there was a loaded round in the chamber or not. How does a police officer tell at distance if a gun is loaded or unloaded? How for that matter does a police officer even tell if a gun is real or fake? It seems ridiculous to expect police to have to perform an inspection on a gun in the hands of someone threatening to use it for some to be satisfied. The presumption is that every firearm is always loaded, not every firearm is always empty… That is a universal rule.
2) Again, what do the extra shells prove? How are the police supposed to know if he is armed to the teeth or brought one round with him? Or maybe and empty gun?
3) The police are allowed to use deadly force if they fear for their own safety or the safety of others. If he had a gun, there was justification for that fear - especially given he had already fired that gun once at his former place of employment. People who are acting lawfully do not do that…
4) What difference does it make if the van was tipped over, on its roof, or right side up? Can it not offer a place for an individual to remain concealed and shoot at others from based on its position? And as to your point about the glass being intact, what difference does that make? A bullet can very easily penetrate glass, and that he was armed with a shotgun, I have personally seen how a slug or buck shot can penetrate a piece of glass…
5) The fact that they took two hours to negotiate meant they did not want to kill him. Something tactical changed and someone was forced to open fire. What that was remains to be seen, but it is asinine that anyone would think they would spend all the time and money on a swat callout and a standoff if they intended to kill him all along.
I hope this has been helpful if not educational…
misjustice on September 29 at 9:40 a.m.
DHF asks: I would like to know if a loaded round was in the chamber and if there was extra shells in his possession. ********
My source says the man pointed the shotgun at the responding officer. So what difference does it make if there was a loaded round in the chamber? Was the officer supposed to wait & ask the man if he had a round in the chamber? You point a shotgun at an officer you are asking to be shot.
Don’t ask my source because I can’t, & won’t, say who it is or where I got the info but it is a valid source.
valleyman on September 29 at 9:40 a.m.
@Orphan: The fact he showed up at his former place of employment and fired a shotgun gave police the right to pursue him. It further gave them a right to arrest him. It further gave them a right to have a standoff with him to arrest him. It further gave them evidence he was armed and had used the weapon that same evening. A reasonable person would extrapolate from these circumstances that he might be willing to use the weapon against others.
As to them not knowing, they had what we must assume to be a 911 call regarding him at the location with a gun. How do you know that a police officer didn’t witness him crank off the round? Has that information been released? What if one of his former colleagues saw him fire a round? Police often have to go off the word of witnesses… This is admissible in court. Further, this information, coupled with his flight once police arrived, gave law enforcement every right to pursue him, disarm him, detain him, and determine what crimes if any had taken place.
valleyman on September 29 at 9:44 a.m.
@Seer: What a “small” (actually quite a bit larger than you’d like to admit I suspect) portion of the public find offensive is folks like yourself taking every opportunity they can to twist each and every story about police doing their job into another fanciful tale of police brutality, misconduct, and falsification.
The real fact is you have no evidence anything happened here and you are using your previous assumptions to once again gin up something that isn’t there. Why don’t you wait until something comes out you can actually use to factually make the claims you do. Zehm is the only case that gives your statement any credence, and that is being handled legally…
valleyman on September 29 at 9:46 a.m.
@JustMeAgain: Be careful saying you have sources… You might get accused of being a police officer or a police sympathizer, and there are plenty on here who won’t ever take anything you say seriously. Plus you will be personally attacked at every possible opportunity… Sad but true… I’ve seen it time and time again…
misjustice on September 29 at 9:58 a.m.
I’m not an officer. Not now & not ever. Maybe a sympathizer tho because I get really tired of the losers out there always thinking the officer is to blame for everything that happens. I usually just chalk it up to that person being a law breaker so nothing the police do will ever be right to them.
I know there are those that won’t believe me but that’s their problem & getting attacked is a norm on this site if you don’t agree with the radicals. Yes, sad but true.
brianrbreen on September 29 at 9:58 a.m.
@Valleyman
Help me out on this one. When I started out the only radios were in the cars, and there were call boxes on the walking beats(still got my key). I think today all these young guys have those spiffy walkie talkies they wear on their gear so they can be updated as things transpire. Even though there wasn’t a confirmation that he fired a shot, I’m guessing they all knew the possibility existed. I don’t have a clue what happened and I’ll wait and see what facts come out, we don’t even know how many officers shot, but the two triple taps is kinda interesting.
Squid on September 29 at 9:59 a.m.
Maybe the officer should have taken cover, and let Rogers pop his one and only cap. The officers heard over the radio that the shotgun could only be loaded one shell at a time. That was on the scanner. Would be a good time to rush him, or unleash the dogs.
wobble506 on September 29 at 11:25 a.m.
Squid -
Maybe Rogers should have put down his gun, crawled out, and surrendered. He’d be alive today.
If he had done that, this little scenario would not have played out like it did, and it could have been over in, i don’t know, 30 seconds?
but no, lets say stupid things, like, let him shoot at a cop and then jump him,
or DHF - lets try and determine whether he has a round in the chamber first..
Sheesh. He has a gun, he’s already fired a shot.
Orphan - Yes, the other cops knew this because they have this really cool tool called a “radio”, which can broadcast things like that, where other cops can hear it and be prepared.
Sometimes the stupidity of the monday morning quarterbacks here is unbelievable.
If you don’t want to get shot, put the darn gun down when the cops tell you to. Plain and simple. Or maybe some of you folks out there need pictures as well to figure that out??
Orphan on September 29 at 11:30 a.m.
Valleyman You are correct in most of what you are saying and I do not disagree. My point was mainly directed at the reporter but applys to the Cops as well. The fact that he allegedly fired the shotgun several hours before does not by its self justify shooting him later even if the officer that shot him saw him fire the shot earlier.
When he left after firing the 1st shot the threat ended now he is just someone that commited a crime and I agree with you the Cops have the RAS/PC to detain him, arrest him and pursue him. I hope to God the reason he got shot was because he manifested a brand new threat. Otherwise everyone that has ever done something stupid would be fair game for the Cops to shoot on sight.
philipgregory on September 29 at 11:35 a.m.
Authorities have not indicated why officers felt they needed to open fire on Rogers after nearly two hours of negotiations.
This is what needs to be answered.
Both the county and the city cops are known to be too quick to fire their weapons. This is a major issue that needs to be directly addressed by the media and government that represent and SERVE the people!
Squid on September 29 at 11:41 a.m.
Yeah, it was stupid of me to expect cops to do their job and use their resources and brains. It was also stupid of me to think they would do something to regain the public trust, and make themselves look like the heroes they constantly claim to be. It’s also stupid to think that this guy was in a state of mind to give up in 30 seconds. It’s also stupid of me to think he deserved to die, for having a bad day. It’s also stupid of me to think this could end any other way. It’s also stupid of me to think that anyone who makes $190,000 per year, could solve a couple problems in one situation. (Mistrust of public, and ending a standoff without perforating him.)
An $8 per hour guy could have figured out how to fix these problems. Why should I expect any six figure, or collective 9 figure group of employees to solve this in a good way? Or is it 10 figures?
Orphan on September 29 at 11:51 a.m.
Wobble506 The Cops knew that someone said he fired a shot they did not know that he fired a shot unless they were there when the shot was fired. People frequently lie, exaggerate or simply have bad info during 911 calls so I will stand by my statement his firing a shot earlier does not justify shooting him later. There has to be a brand new threat to justify the shooting old worn out threats just wont cut it.
brianrbreen on September 29 at 11:55 a.m.
@Squid
Please just wait, we don’t know what the heck happened and then take your shot. Then if I’m with ya I’m with ya, if I’m again ya I’m again ya. We just don’t know. I know you don’t trust what will come out of the investigation and the recent federal charges against Deputy Brett Peterson only add to that distrust. But, at least wait till it comes out. I won’t even go into my constant crusade for OID inquests, and will argue the crap out of it with Valleyman any time..
It’s just like any other OID. Some will say oh it’s okay, others will say, this is BS. That’s life.
oneanddone on September 29 at 11:56 a.m.
Regardless of any other facts or issues, if you brandish a weapon and ignore police warnings to put it down they have the legal authority to shoot you dead. It’s settled law. It’s also common sense. If you are carrying a weapon and a uniformed officer tells you to drop it and you immediately don’t, expect to wake up dead.
Squid on September 29 at 12:14 p.m.
Brian, we already know what will come out. He pointed the weapon at an officer, whether he actually did it or not. I’m thinkin’ a cop finally had a clear shot and took the shot. Luckily, I’ll be gone till later tonight, so it will be awhile before I make any more comments.
valleyman on September 29 at 1:09 p.m.
@Brian: I’m sure they do have those nice walkie-talkies… I’m also sure that even in your day the dispatcher would have said the 911 caller said the man fired a round from a long-gun outside his business, and you would have gotten that information on your in-car radio.
Has the information been released yet that a police officer didn’t witness the shot and that information was obtained third party via the 911 call? I don’t know, that’s why I ask the question. I think it’s reasonable based on what’s been reported to believe the information on the weapon and the shot came from the third party, but even if that is the case, isn’t it also reasonable to expect responding officers would believe this information to be true?
I respect the heck out of you for your willingness to speak up for what you believe, and I might even come over to your way of thinking on the OID stuff, provided we get a mechanism in place that doesn’t make the police look even more guilty of covering stuff up when every officer that comes before the investigatory body doesn’t merely say “I invoke my right to remain silent on the advice of counsel based on my protections afforded to me by the 5th Amendment.” If we come to a reasonable way to avoid that always portraying the officer in a bad light, I will support you whole-heartedly.
It seems we’re on the same side more often than not.
brianrbreen on September 29 at 1:42 p.m.
@Squid
There is a HUGE issue here that has not been addressed that will probably be overlooked by most, except perhaps some that actually know. This whole issue will boil down to be, was the shooting justified according to law. When I read the media reports and I don’t know for sure, I think it probably will be justified, whether it was RIGHT or not I don’t know.. The SO has a responsibility to investigate this from the standpoint of whether or not criminal conduct took place, not from the standpoint of whether or not there were alternatives or violations of policy and procedure. I believe the SO will do their jobs.
The question beyond that is when all is done and said what will happen. History dictates that very, very quietly certain changes will be made without admitting fault, and most will not be notice.
The CIP is interesting from the standpoint that all three agencies are involved in the investigation of an OID. If it was me and I was back on the job, I would refuse to take an OID when I’m saddled with a Deputy looking at everything I do, never ,ever, and ever. I’ll take the state cop and he/she can offer whatever he/she has but never someone from the same agency, and pretty soon you will find out why. If Ozzie has any jam he will recommend even more changes to the CIP that completely pushes the involved agency out (Document control etc.).
To put it in simple terms , if you want an independent investigation and I’m the SO investigator that got stuck with this investigation. Then the only City Cops that are going to be within 4 feet of me are the ones across the desk that I’m interviewing or interrogating.
brianrbreen on September 29 at 1:56 p.m.
@valleyman
I know, but I also know those really healthy guys that work out all the time have their own frequency so who knows what they saw or heard.
I think you and I will end up on the same page that it was a “Righteous Shoot” (legal). Whether or not it was a “ Good Shoot” will be up to the powers to be.
brianrbreen on September 29 at 2:31 p.m.
@Valleyman
If you can tell me any other way to do it without having to go through the battle with the guild to get some kind of confidence, I’m in. Look you know I’ve been through this on both sides. It doesn’t matter if the shooter takes five, I would. You don’t need the shooters’ statement or testimony you need an independent look at how good the investigation was conducted, and answers to some of the questions that arise here. That’s all you need. You won’t make everyone happy, you can’t. But at least the fence sitters will gain some understanding. You know Brockett is in favor, along with several others, so what is the big deal. Tucker can do whatever he wants, and if breakdowns in the investigative process are identified then it’s up to City and County leaders to correct them.
Kivaari on September 29 at 4:35 p.m.
Regarding communications. I would expect them to have quite modern gear. I don’t know about their portables, whether or not they are simple VHF or UHF non-digital. But most should have a good cell phone, and I suspect a MDT computer head in each car. We used both VHF and UHF for special details. The digital systems, early on were too expensive for many areas. Rural departments in general found analog radio better. When the Nisqually Quake hit it shut down all cell phone and digital radio for the entire King co. area. Only agencies with analog radio could continue to function. The first thing to fail is communications. I suspect SPD SWAT has redundancy, with alternate channels. If not they should. Our tactical vests were normally filled with an extra radio and batteries. Ammunition wasn’t at the top of the list.
Steve Eugster on September 29 at 5:54 p.m.
It is time for the Spokane City Council to weigh in on these matters.
Tinkering with the so-called ombudsman “system” is useless and meaningless. The council should commence an investigation into the Spokane Police Dept. At least, it should investigate the Police Department as to the protocols it is using regarding what has become known as the phenomena of “suicide by police.”
Yet another community tragedy is unfolding in Spokane. The man who died this week was not alone in his anguish. Nor are his family members, in the anguish of their loss.
What has happened is not unique, and probably was not necessary.
See Spokane Register at http://spokaneregister.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/spokane-police-another-distraught-man-dies/.