State cops defend shooting

TheeBadOne

Moderator
Amid criticism over death of William Henkle, trooper tells what was done and why.

WILKES-BARRE – Ever since state and local police unleashed 39 shots at a chain saw-wielding man outside a Forty Fort home, police have heard rumblings from the public, questioning their actions:

Why didn’t the officers use a taser gun instead of pumping 17 bullets into 40-year-old William Henkle?

Why didn’t police back off and discuss a better plan of attack?

And why not wait for the saw to run out of gas?

The answer, state police Capt. Kenneth Hill said, to each is simple:

The officers did not have tasers.

There was no time to talk strategy.

And, it’s impossible to wait when a man charges you with a chain saw.

Henkle had a “seriously maladjusted” thought process and charged “full bore” at a trooper before the officers could take other steps to calm the early morning situation on Feb. 21, Hill said.

One trooper, Michael Hartzel, was struck on the shoulder, back and buttocks with the saw, but escaped with minor injuries before Henkle was hit with the flurry of shots.

In hindsight, Hill, the commander of the Wyoming barracks, can’t think of any other way police could have defused the seven- to 12-minute standoff, he said.

Hill said Hartzel hoped to sneak around Henkle and tackle him before gunfire erupted. But Henkle eyed Hartzel, locked his sights on the trooper, and charged the 17-year veteran less than one minute after Hartzel arrived at the scene.

“But for the grace of God, (Hartzel) would be dead. He should be dead,” Hill said. “A chain saw could decapitate someone in a half second to a second, sever a spinal cord in an instant.”

Hill said he would have difficulty asking Hartzel: “Why didn’t you wait for the chain saw to run out of gas while it’s running up and down your back?”

Hill and state Trooper Tom Kelly met with the Times Leader Friday to further explain the incident that unfolded in the quaint River Street neighborhood at 4:45 a.m.

Police initially responded to Henkle’s home at 378 River St. with medics for a report of a person suffering a heart attack.

Upon arrival, the medics found no emergency. The Forty Fort officer returned to his cruiser to contact 911 and make sure he had the correct address.

A short time later, the police and medics heard the chain saw. They encountered Henkle in a driveway alongside the home and saw him drinking from a bottle. Police later found a bottle of rum in the area, but they are unsure if it was Henkle’s. Police have not yet received Henkle’s toxicology reports, but said they have since learned he had a history of mental illness.

The officer returned to his vehicle to call for backup while the medics locked themselves inside Henkle’s home.

Nine additional officers arrived at the home within five to 10 minutes, positioning their vehicles to act as a barricade, Hill said.

Henkle shouted at the officers and told them his neighbors were trying to kill him, Hill said.

The officers, as they arrived, formed a semicircle around Henkle, standing about 25 to 30 feet away, leaving Henkle an opening to retreat to his home, Hill said.

The officers urged Henkle to drop the saw.

“They’re talking to him,” he said. “He decided to challenge and engage.”

Henkle responded by bombarding the officers with obscenities and telling them they would have to shoot him to get the saw.

Nothing the officers said calmed Henkle.

“You could have had the top negotiators … I don’t believe it would have been any more successful,” Hill said.

Henkle repeatedly stepped toward various officers during the standoff, preventing them from discussing a detailed plan of attack, Hill said.

At one point, officers used pepper spray.

Henkle responded, “That s--- doesn’t bother me,” Hill said.

“He’d get closer, they’d back up,” Hill said.

One officer even promised to put his gun in his holster if Henkle dropped the saw, Hill said. The officer holstered his weapon. Henkle ignored the officer and kept the chain saw.

At some points, Hill conceded, Henkle was not threatening officers. But those moments did not last very long.

When Hartzel arrived, he assumed a position at the end of the semicircle, Hill said. His plan was to sneak around Henkle and tackle him.

But Henkle locked on to Hartzel and charged, from about 30 feet away.

Hartzel shouted for Henkle to stop and drop the saw.

Henkle ignored him and got to within 10 feet of Hartzel.

The trooper, backpedaling, fired three or four shots, before turning away from Henkle.

When he turned, Henkle cut Hartzel’s uniform with the saw as Hartzel continued firing over his shoulder.

Kelly said Hartzel was extremely lucky not to be severely sliced. The blade cut through Hartzel’s clothing, including his T-shirt, but did not deeply puncture his skin, Kelly said.

Once Hartzel retreated, Henkle darted toward another officer while the other officers opened fire.

Police shot Henkle numerous times and he fell to the ground before continuing his assault.

“The only thing he said was, ‘Ouch,’” Hill said.

A total of five officers, including three troopers equipped with .40-caliber pistols and hollow point bullets, fired 39 shots at Henkle.

He was struck 17 times in various parts of the body, including the chest, arms, ankle and hip. He even continued to hold the saw after bullets broke both of his arms, Hill said.

Investigators believe the incident was “suicide by cop.” Luzerne District Attorney David Lupas has said the officers were justified in the shooting.

But police have still faced criticism.

Since the incident, people have questioned whether police could have acted differently.

Kelly said police considered using batons, but they could not get close enough to hit Henkle.

Hill and Kelly said a taser gun might have been effective. But none of the officers was equipped with the weapon.

There also are concerns about lawsuits stemming from the use of taser guns, Kelly and Hill said.

Hill, who has been Wyoming’s commander for 13 months, wonders if the harsh public reaction would have been the same had Hartzel been killed.

Or had a neighbor, medic, or Henkle’s mother been hurt by Henkle.

In this case, the officers stood their ground in not letting Henkle wildly roam through the neighborhood or into homes to hurt anyone, Hill said.

If Henkle never charged at Hartzel, police would have stayed there “all night” trying to negotiate, Hill said.

“These guys didn’t let anyone else get hurt,” Hill said.

“I don’t see anything the officers could have done differently.”

article
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There will always be MMQB's
 
Story

Wow and i thought I had kept up with this one a little bit.
Whut were they to do ,Run down to the nike store and buy running shoes so this clown can chase them till he runs out of fuel?
And I am no liker of the police either,wave a chain saw at me and live.....
This is one of those thin lines and I need to study and read on it.
Some one tried to do me with a non running weed eater in the driveway one yr. No contest or hesitation.
 
This is what drives me nuts:

when you have a pretty clear cut justifiable use of force.. the media goes ape**** over it..

when you have a highly suspicious shooting... they and the police agencies do nothing!!

btw: I agree. 12 guage. No officer should ever actually have to endanger his own life, i.e. trying to tackle a guy with a running chain saw!
 
I only have 1 problem with the whole incident, and thats that an officer was even injured at ALL! They should have pumped him WAY before that officer got hurt.

I am disturbed by 1 fact tho.....

fired 39 shots at Henkle. He was struck 17 times

Man....like I said before, somebody needs some range time. Now I realize the guy being sawed at would be a bad shot under the circumstances, but the other officers were in shooting stances, weapons trained on suspect, 20-30 FEET away, and they hit LESS THAN 50%!? WTF....they coulda wacked half the neighbors out watching!
 
People watch too much TV. I'm guessing that most of them think that the LEO's should have just done a "shot the chainsaw out of his hands" then do one of them fancy cowboy holster action deals and then ride off into the sunset.

I also vote for the 12 gauge :D.

Wayne
 
holding a chain saw isnt commiting a crime, but threating life, signs of a very druken state, and his refusal to cooperate with police would shown sign to me that a situation is escalating and tackling imo would be out of the question....



now i have no problem with the shooting and wished the officer wasnt hurt.


but i wonder if a fire truck nearby would want to hose this guy down and then use ladders or other long style objects to pin him. i only say this because the situation lasted way over 5 min. kinda like i saw that ny police did to a crazy guy weilding a samurai sword.

but with my wonderings im not saying that they shouldnt of shot. they did what they had to with avalible tools and how this idiot chain saw holder dictated the situation.

hope the officer gets better. and i seriously hope the public "outcry" doesnt get that bad, because saying watiing for his chain saw to run out of gas is pathetic
 
It was self-defense. End of story.

I live in the Wilkes-Barre area. The shooting was clearly self-defense, as the deranged individual (I won't say "bad guy" because he was apparently not right in his head) ATTACKED the police with the chain saw, which is of course a deadly weapon. He even succeeded in cutting a trooper with it, although not badly, but that still shows that a "reasonable person" could easily believe his life to be in danger from the chain saw.

As for post-traumatic shock to the officers involved-- well, I suspect that none of them will be renting "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" for some time to come.
 
One year later

big309caboose.jpg


Wednesday marked the one year anniversary of the suicide by cop drama at the Red Caboose Daycare in Madison.

It was early morning March 9th, 2004 when Gregory Velasquez entered the Red Caboose Daycare and attacked staff member Gary Dosemagen with meat cleavers. Velasquez then took another staff member hostage in front of a group of young children and police stormed in. Velasquez refused to drop the cleavers and was shot and killed by police.
Sandra Spann's daughter elizabeth was in the room when Gary Dosemagen was cut by Velasquez, but did not see police open fire. A year later, her daughter seems to have put it behind her. Sandra is still impressed with how the daycare handled helping the children deal with the violence.

At the daycare today it was business as usual. They are trying to put the incident behind them. Gary Dosemagen is back teaching.

The two Madison Police Officers who shot and killed the man at Red Caboose Day Care were cleared of any wrongdoing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I remember when this happened, do you? No outcry about 'the Police' shooting this guy (unlike the chainsaw incident). Guess kids being there makes all the difference....
 
Two rather disturbing issues in there.

1. 44% hit percentage on an almost stationary target, with plenty of time to draw/aim/fire.

2. What in the heck business of it in the first place is it for officers to respond to the sound of a chain saw? Is cutting trees illegal? Is running a chainsaw illegal? Was there any report of anyone being threatened? (no, apparently not).

I agree that IN THEN END, it was a justifiable shooting. But that doesn't answer the question of why the cops were harassing him to begin with instead of minding their own damned business. Since when is the sound of a small internal combustion engine running probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion? It's not. If they see him with a chain saw, the proper procedure is for the LEO to ask himself, in his mind, "Is there any evidence of a crime being committed here, or other emergency?" The answer is no, there's some dude with a chainsaw. Trees are in danger, but not the public safety. Therefore, his duty and responsibility was to LEAVE THE SCENE and make a report, of an apparent error or false call (it's unclear WHO made the heart attack initial report). His duty is NOT to call for backup and goad this man, seems to me. I could be wrong, though..

can’t think of any other way police could have defused the seven- to 12-minute standoff, he said.

Well, genius, how about leaving him the freak alone!?! Go home. Go get some ice cream. Go catch some criminals. Something. How is it a crime to possess a chainsaw on your own property? I see a dangerous precedent here, for gun owners who wish to walk around their own property with a gun, if they choose to....
 
FirstFreedom said:
What in the heck business of it in the first place is it for officers to respond to the sound of a chain saw? Is cutting trees illegal? Is running a chainsaw illegal? Was there any report of anyone being threatened? (no, apparently not).
FF, please read before you type. The cause for officer response is clearly stated; it had nothing to do with a chain saw.
Rich
 
I did read it Rich. Thoroughly. What you say is precisely my point. They were investigating a heart attack (medical emergency). When they failed to find evidence of THAT, then what does it matter that they heard a chainsaw - why was it their duty to investigate something unrelated to the call if no crime is being committed? It says that the officer determined (how, it doesn't say), that there was no emergency (no heart attack). It was then that he heard the sound of a chainsaw nearby. Now my question is, at that precise moment in time, what made him go investigate the sound of the chainsaw?

1. Is it probable cause that a crime is being committed? The answer is no.

2. Is it even reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? The answer, again, is no.

Even if it WAS proper for them to investigate the sound of a small internal combustion engine, what about the next steps...when they see him standing there in good health, then obviously HE has nothing to do with the original call. And how is seeing him take a drink relevant? It is not illegal to get rip roaring drunk on your own property. It's not even illegal to get rip roaring drunk on your own property and operate a chain saw, now is it? The article says that the police admit that they did NOT know of his history of mental illness until later, so that could definitely not have played a part in their decision-making process at that time. So the officer says something like "I want to ask you some questions; please put the chainsaw down." When/if he fails to comply, as is what happened, then the officer's proper course of action is to shrug, say goodbye, and go back to work. No crime being committed there. He has the perfect right to remain silent. Again, once the guy charged an officer, he's fair game for deadly force. But I'm just wondering how the public interest was being served by them harassing him, on the basis of what they knew at that time?
 
FF-
You're really reaching here. What the article clearly states is that they responded to a 911 call on a heart attack. No heart attack. When the cop returned to his car to check the address:
A short time later, the police and medics heard the chain saw. They encountered Henkle in a driveway alongside the home and saw him drinking from a bottle.
Hardly like they went rampaging the neighborhood chasing small engine sounds. Let's not make this the fault of the overzealous cops.
Rich
 
I know, I know. And if you'll read what I said, precisely, it is quite evident that I already understood all of this.

When the article says that the cops "encountered" him - that ain't the whole story. HOW did they "encounter" him, exactly, if he was in a driveway beside the house - not out in front? That's copspeak euphamism for "they went snooping around into something they shouldn't have, which cause them to 'encounter' him". Notice they said "alongside the home" - which means he wasn't out front - otherwise they would have said that - he was out of reach of the purview they had, given the status of the call as already determined to be a false call. And even if they could see him, so freaking what? Sir, will you talk to us please? No? Then there's no crime, so I'm leaving. But cops are supreme asses, who think that you have to comply with them, even if they have no right to tell you what they're telling you (by and large they are, anyway, with notable exceptions). You have to read between the lines and think critically. I don't think I'm reaching at all. If you read between the lines, it seems that this dude is a little whacky, but that was his only crime, UNTIL he was unduly harassed. YMMV. :)

Let's not make this the fault of the overzealous cops.
Why shouldn't we, if it is? It's not the cops' fault in the immediate analysis - HE caused it by charging with a deadly weapon. But step back and look at the big picture, and it seems that the cops are anything but blameless here. They are not the proximate cause of the death, but they ARE it seems a sine qua non, aka a "cause in fact". You don't see the dangerous precedent this sets? "Mr. Lucibella, why are you holding that gun on your property there. Put it down and talk to me; answer my questions". "No, sir, I'd rather not put it down. It's my property and I'm committing no crime. And I don't feel like answering any questions, thank you very much." Then, they call backup, and stand there in a circle and harass you until you either (a) do something stupid like this guy did and charge/brandish and thus die, or (b) more likely in your case, do something which you don't feel like doing, and are under no legal duty to do, where no crime has been committed (that is, disarm AND speak to them). Unless there's at least *reasonable suspicion* of a crime, then they should leave and go catch some criminals.
 
I don't think there's any information in the article to defend or decry the police "investigation" into the crazy chainsaw man. It simply doesn't say who "started it".


I think it might be most polite to assume that the drunk, chain saw wielding, mentally ill man might have been more proactive in escalating the "encounter" then the cops involved.

Assuming otherwise speaks of an agenda, or paranoia.
 
Of course I have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. My agenda is exposing civil rights violations, for the betterment of a fair and civilized society. Of course I'm paranoid. You should be too. If you're not, then you're not paying attention to how LEOAs routinely run roughshod over people's rights, particularly gun owners, and particularly in yankee states. Having said that, of course you're right Handy, that there's not enough facts here to tell what really and truly happened. But that FACT itself (the lack of facts) is quite telling in and of itself, since it's the LEOs' side of things which is being reported. There's quite a lot of omission there which can be fairly inferred to be evasiveness - HOW exactly did they determine it was a false call - who did they talk to. And HOW exactly did they 'encounter' him. See, if he were alive, you might have the actual facts to tell. Oh well, yall can have the last word - I'm out. Not enough detail available to be worth arguing over.
 
All that the "lack of facts" is telling of is that the article had to fit within a certain number of lines.


Beware of advancing one's agenda on the backs of the innocent. Making the public aware of civil rights violations is not a good trade for libeling those who committed no wrongs.
 
FirstFreedom said:
My agenda is exposing civil rights violations, for the betterment of a fair and civilized society. Of course I'm paranoid. You should be too. If you're not, then you're not paying attention to how LEOAs routinely run roughshod over people's rights, particularly gun owners, and particularly in yankee states.

Lessee: We have "Running Roughshod"; "Gun Owners"; and "Yankees"....all the food groups necessary for "Righteous Indignation" from those unwilling to read. You're dismissed now as an impartial commentator on the issue. God Forbid the Jack Booted Thugs should ever shoot a rapist off your lady's back.....it'd be a "Police Incident". :rolleyes:
Rich
 
Back
Top