Officer-Involved Shooting at Torguson Park in North Bend

The King County Independent Force Investigation Team (IFIT) is investigating an officer-involved shooting overnight that left a 33-year-old male deceased at Torguson Park.

According to IFIT spokesperson Meeghan Black, at approximately 11:15 PM, November 16, 2021, a Snoqualmie/North Bend Police officer was involved in an altercation with a man at Torguson Park.

The man reportedly reached for the officer’s weapon at which point the officer fired his weapon.

The police officer involved was uninjured and has been placed on administrative leave while the investigation occurs.

Early Wednesday morning, detectives were on scene at Torguson Park conducting their investigation. It is expected they will be on scene throughout the afternoon.

The King County Independent Force Investigation Team was created in response to state legislation that went into effect at the beginning of this year requiring the independent investigation of officer-involved use of deadly force or bodily injury.

13 local law enforcement agencies belong to IFIT, including the Snoqualmie Police/North Bend Department.

IFIT is the lead investigative agency for this officer involved shooting incident. The City of North Bend will monitor information as it becomes available from IFIT throughout the investigation.

This is the first officer involved shooting in the history of the Snoqualmie Police Department.

Comments are closed.


  • “Officer-involved shooting” is passive.

    The police officer shot and killed a suspect.

    1. Come on, “office involved shooting” is neither passive nor aggressive. It’s a simple statement of fact that a shooting occurred and a police officer was involved. Isn’t it a little premature to imply who was the aggressor?

    2. > The police officer shot and killed a suspect.
      Your statement is just as passive as the one you complained about….the police officer shot and killed a suspect *that threatened the officer*

      1. It’s not passive at all.
        It is direct and clear.
        You can add the statement that the officer shot and killed a suspect who threatened an officer, but that does not change the direct meaning of the sentence “the officer shot and killed the suspect.”

        1. No, it’s not clear. It leaves unanswered WHY the suspect was shot. And it’s direct to a fault, leaving a bulk of the culpability on the shoulders of the officer. Who knows what the evidence will show, but the country has had an immeasurable amount of violence stemming from misunderstood altercations, and it’s better to not the fan the flames when these unfortunate events happen.

          1. It’s direct and clear that the shot was fired by the officer.
            I agree we don’t know *why*, and I’m not speaking to that.
            I’m speaking to the euphemism for shootings. They don’t just happen. Someone has the gun and fires it. In this case, it is the officer who shot the suspect.
            We will find out the results of the investigation in due time, but it’s not likely going to change the shooting from “the officer fired the gun” to “someone else entirely shot the gun.”

            1. Yes, shootings don’t just happen. Someone does have a gun and fires it.
              But at the same time, the person that fires the gun doesn’t fire for no reason. Something provokes him to shoot. There is the firing of the gun, and there is the reason the gun was fired. You want to make it clear a person fired the gun, which is fine, but you want to gloss over what provoked the person to fire the gun. That is equally important.

              The riots of 2020 were fueled by misinformation spread by the media who seemed to enjoy the destruction. Don’t be part of that machine. That machine is evil.

              1. “but you want to gloss over what provoked the person to fire the gun. ”

                Lordy, I do not, and you make my point even more strongly. The person who chose to shoot the gun did so as a matter of choice. They could have made the choice to do other things, but they chose to shoot a gun and potentially kill someone. You do not aim a gun at someone and shoot it without the plan that you will either injure them severely enough to stop them or kill them. There is no other use for a gun in that scenario.

                I am not glossing over the reason, not at all. I’m just not emphasizing that part of the situation. Let’s indeed talk about the need for violence as the ultimate tool for resolving conflict, and how that pervades all of society.

                But initially, the point here is that the press release from the government was simply repeated as-is with no “news” analysis of what actually happened. Removing the agency from the officer means that we are led to think that a shooting just happened, when the entire time the action of the shooting was entirely at the control of the person who shot the gun.

                1. > The person who chose to shoot the gun did so as a matter of choice.

                  Yes, and the person who chose to attack the cop did so as a matter of choice. Your reasoning goes both ways, no? And yet, you only see it one way???

                  As a general rule, if you attack a cop in the dark, in an unpopulated area, while the cop is alone, I would expect the cop to shoot 100% of the time unless there was a very, very substantial size difference. It is too risky to hope the fight “goes your way” and leave that up to chance. The cop has no idea if you have a tire iron, a knife, mace,or a gun. Any of which could tilt the odds immediately away from the officer.

                  1. The person who shot the gun is the person who shot the gun. This is the entire meaning of the phrase “officer-involved shooting.”
                    I’m not sure what the rest of the argument here is. We are comfortable with violence being used to resolve an issue of after-hours park use. The death penalty seems harsh for this infraction.

                    That’s just me.

                2. Or look at the other article on this site that has more information on what happened:

                  “The officer asked the subject to leave since the park was closed. Investigators say a fight quickly broke out between the officer and the 33-year-old man.
                  The officer was knocked to the ground and sustained minor injuries. As the subject fought the officer, he attempted to grab the officer’s weapon, and the officer fired one round resulting in the subject’s death.”

  • I am sad about the desth of a 33-yesr old. What a tragedy. He had so much to live for. I sure hope the officer’s action was necessary. Glad the incident is being investigated.

  • I guess the thing that is most interesting to me is how a discussion about how to describe what happened–a police officer (not “cop”–let’s not use derogatory slang for employees of the state sworn to uphold and defend the law) shot and killed someone.

    I see a distinct inability to just talk about that as the fact–that we can’t even describe what happened without softening it with euphemisms and phrasing that takes away the actor.

    What I see is an attempt by many to justify what was done–which is a separate argument–but what I don’t see is an understanding of how we are reluctant to talk about violence done in our name.

    A police officer shot and killed someone in our Valley, and according to what we read here, this is the first time ever. I’d think we’d want to be more sober-minded about what happened and think about what this says about our Valley.

    Is this what we are now?

  • Hi Steven! I think what it says about our valley is that increasing permissiveness to loitering and vagrancy results in people coming that will take advantage. Just like Seattle. Are we ok with tents? More open drug use? Parks occupied at night? Open fires when its cold? People sleeping in the doorway of the car dealership? Our stores dealing with people that just walk in, take what they want and leave?

    it’s all coming. The pattern has already repeated in all of our big cities. A few weeks back I had to step over someone laying on cardboard in front the Staples in Bellevue. Bellevue! Are we ready??? IF the big cities with their enormous tax base and generous big companies can’t solve this, how can the valley?

    1. I appreciate the concerns you have for both the housed and the unhoused. We indeed should take care of the least of us. Many of the houseless are ill with either mental or physical disabilities, or both. We don’t have a good plan in place for those who cannot afford a place to live AND do not have the ability to function in life. (Where do we put those who are mentally ill and incapable of working? Do we just let them starve?)

      And I think you acknowledge the point that a humanitarian crisis does not mean we should shoot to kill people who are looking for a place to live. That is a violently dysfunctional society, and no one would be proud of such a community that decided to simply let the hungry starve and the sick die.

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply and agreement that we want to be a better place to live than that.

      1. Do you think Seattle, with all their money, has a good plan in place? Because Seattle IS a disaster. If someone is mentally ill and not able to work, then they need to be ward of the state. Not eating out of a trash can. They need help! And yet, Seattle isn’t helping.

        If someone decides to fight a cop and try to take his gun, the expectation must be that either the attacker or the cop will be killed–that attack is a declaration that “one of us is going to die.” If a person is mentally unbalanced and they attempt to take the gun, that is a failing of the system. .A failing because that person should not be out and about. They should be a ward of the state until they are better.

        Seattle is a mess because most people there see this precisely as you do. These same people would never allow THEIR kid to live on the streets. But they are happy to let the children of others live on the street. And it’s getting worse by every measure.

    2. Luckily for us our extra rain and cold should keep them at bay. Just dont allow pot shops like the ones all over Seattle and the other east side cities

  • Have they released the toxicology on the perpetrator? Sounds like bath salts to me or perhaps he was on meth.

  • Living Snoqualmie