Police: Man attacked trooper with chain saw

[Abe Froman]

WILKES-BARRE, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A man was shot and killed by police Monday after he ignored pepper spray and officers' commands and attacked a state trooper with a chain saw, authorities said.

At least 13 bullets struck William Henkle after state and local officers who had surrounded him opened fire, police said.

Henkle, 40, allegedly struck Trooper Michael Hartzel in the shoulder, lower back and buttocks with the saw. The trooper was treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

Henkle called 911 early Monday and said he was having a heart attack, but when police and an ambulance arrived, he was outside the house with the chain saw running, said Capt. Kenneth Hill, commander of the state police barracks at Wyoming.

About 10 state and local officers formed a semicircle around Henkle and ordered him to drop the chain saw, but he revved the saw and refused to put it down, Hill said.

Police said they used pepper spray, then fired when Henkle lunged at Hartzel.

 

[dabuddha]

Interesting.

 

[quakefiend420]

wtf!?

called 911 for a heart attack and then attacked with a chainsaw?

one more time..wtf?!

 

[Arkitech]

Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: loic2003
Busted you watching TV!

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

well...what would you do if some wackjob was waving a chainsaw in your face?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Except they aren't trained to shoot headshots either. Chest is where you want the bullets to go. Headshots are too difficult in high stress situations.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

If I'm an officer of the law, my life > idiot's life attacking me with a chainsaw. That guy could have been hopped up on drugs or whatnot - rubber bullets would have had as much effect as hitting him with a pillow. Then you endanger your fellow officer's lives, like the one guy who got cut.

10 to the chest = dead suspect >>>>>>>>>>>> rubber bullets

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little lead....

Fixed.

 

[broon]

Shoot to kill>shoot to wound. So the cops incapacitate him by firing into his legs. Then he can't have proper use of his legs and all the pain and suffering=law suit. Cops are better off killing. Plus, drugs are an amazing thing. With the right drugs, even bullets to the legs might not stop someone.

Cops are trained to shoot for the largest mass=torso. If a cop is going to fire their weapon, they intend to kill.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

If I'm an officer of the law, my life > idiot's life attacking me with a chainsaw. That guy could have been hopped up on drugs or whatnot - rubber bullets would have had as much effect as hitting him with a pillow. Then you endanger your fellow officer's lives, like the one guy who got cut.

10 to the chest = dead suspect >>>>>>>>>>>> rubber bullets

what about something like those tazers that fire little barbs on cables so you can take a guy up to 17 feet away? five officers with those and I'm sure one will get a hit. No amount of drugs stops that working.

There are other systems out there... I remembered one that sprayed the attacker with what can only be described as green 'goop'. This stuff was sprayed at the face and then dried really quickly thus incapacitating the person, not unlike spiderman's technique...

or there's teargas

or tranquilizer darts

etc...

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

fvck that sh!t we dont need more assjats clogging up our jails...
kill them now save the taxes to keep them in jail and the space...
Kill all these freaking violent asshats.. jail doesnt do anything but cost us money while they bulk up to kill or rob your ass again...

US Justice system is a joke...
rather have the UCMJ in effect for everyone... Guilty till proven innocent... thats the way to handle things.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

If I'm an officer of the law, my life > idiot's life attacking me with a chainsaw. That guy could have been hopped up on drugs or whatnot - rubber bullets would have had as much effect as hitting him with a pillow. Then you endanger your fellow officer's lives, like the one guy who got cut.

10 to the chest = dead suspect >>>>>>>>>>>> rubber bullets

what about something like those tazers that fire little barbs on cables so you can take a guy up to 17 feet away? five officers with those and I'm sure one will get a hit. No amount of drugs stops that working.

There are other systems out there... I remembered one that sprayed the attacker with what can only be described as green 'goop'. This stuff was sprayed at the face and then dried really quickly thus incapacitating the person, not unlike spiderman's technique...

or there's teargas

or tranquilizer darts

etc...

Tazers cost money which not all police departments have. Every department has guns. (Generally speaking) Hell the Dallas PD only started carrying them and training with them about 6 months ago. Not every officer on the force carries them b/c:

A) Not all are trained
B) Cost of the tazers + training

Darts - the guy isn't a rabid bear

Teargas - only SWAT uses that. Do you really want a blind crying man running around with a chainsaw?

You're pointing out perfect case scenarios in which every department is equipped with tools for every type of situation. That's not the case and can't be the case for every situation.

Just yesterday in Dallas cops were directing traffic - some guy ignored the cop and hit him in the hand with his vehicle. The cop fired one shot, so the guy turned around in his 4Runner and gunned it for the cop. 3 other cops opened fire on the guy, hitting him in the neck and the chest. What are you supposed to do then? Tell the guy "hey stop, let me lay down this spike strip so your tires blow, mmmmmmmmk thanks". You're forced to make life and death decisions in an instant, taking into account not only your life, but your fellow officer's lives. Why should you give a sh!t about the idiot who is trying to harm/kill you?

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Sounds like too much Resident Evil 4.

 

[Rogue]

Tazer = guy falls with running chainsaw and severs body severely, then sues department for loss of limbs and wins

Unfortunately, the way the legal system and lawyers work, cases like this means it's far better to kill the guy than risk the alternatives. Just about anything an officer does to control or incapacitate someone leaves them responsible for the consequences. If I handcuff a drunk and he slips and falls and busts out his teeth because I didn't maintain physical control of him, I am now liable for that even though he incapacitated himself through his use of alcohol and subsquent run-in with me. It sucks, it really does.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

If I'm an officer of the law, my life > idiot's life attacking me with a chainsaw. That guy could have been hopped up on drugs or whatnot - rubber bullets would have had as much effect as hitting him with a pillow. Then you endanger your fellow officer's lives, like the one guy who got cut.

10 to the chest = dead suspect >>>>>>>>>>>> rubber bullets

what about something like those tazers that fire little barbs on cables so you can take a guy up to 17 feet away? five officers with those and I'm sure one will get a hit. No amount of drugs stops that working.

There are other systems out there... I remembered one that sprayed the attacker with what can only be described as green 'goop'. This stuff was sprayed at the face and then dried really quickly thus incapacitating the person, not unlike spiderman's technique...

or there's teargas

or tranquilizer darts

etc...

Yes, please hold on, kind chainsaw wielding man while I get my gas grenades out of the trunk.

I fully support the police?s use of deadly force when threatened with injury or death. People need to realize that there are some things you just don?t do and this is one of them. If the person can?t come to terms with that then too bad.

 

[PG]

You dumbazzes don't seem to understand that tasers don't work well or at all with thick clothing and if you miss you're screwed.

 

[jlee]

Aggravated assault/battery towards a law enforcement officer (or anybody, for that matter)..he deserved to get shot, IMHO.

 

[SagaLore]

Wilkes-Barre is the armpit of America. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[hysperion]

The only sad part about this incident is the injury to the officer and the fact that 12 extra rounds were used that we as taxpayers have to pay for.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Do police shoot to kill in those cases or do they just kind of fire at random? I would think they would just shoot to wound the idiot so they can figure out what the hell is wrong with him.

They shoot to kill, saw some documentary on it Their reasoning is that the intent to wound (arm/leg shot) can have mixed results, from incapacitating someone to doing virtually nothing - while chest/head shots have a far higher chance of quickly ending the danger they and others are in.

Busted you watching TV!

Not sure if I agree with the whole shoot to kill idea in the US. 13 rubber bullets or similar would have had the guy on the floor with the chainsaw out of his hands, for sure.

Ok, the guy was dangerous and it the police shouldn't have to put themselves in unnecessary danger, but in this day and age we should be able to come up with a system that incapacitates but doesn?t kill. The guy obviously had some serious mental issues, does that warrant a death sentence?

Having said that, the gene pool does need a little chlorine....

If I'm an officer of the law, my life > idiot's life attacking me with a chainsaw. That guy could have been hopped up on drugs or whatnot - rubber bullets would have had as much effect as hitting him with a pillow. Then you endanger your fellow officer's lives, like the one guy who got cut.

10 to the chest = dead suspect >>>>>>>>>>>> rubber bullets

what about something like those tazers that fire little barbs on cables so you can take a guy up to 17 feet away? five officers with those and I'm sure one will get a hit. No amount of drugs stops that working.

There are other systems out there... I remembered one that sprayed the attacker with what can only be described as green 'goop'. This stuff was sprayed at the face and then dried really quickly thus incapacitating the person, not unlike spiderman's technique...

or there's teargas

or tranquilizer darts

etc...

Ridiculous. Man with chainsaw attacks officer = man dead. You shoot to kill in those situations.

 

[gabemcg]

I'm not a fan of guns in genera, but I have to say that this sounds like a situation where the officers acted judisiously(sp?) and did the right thing. He kept going after pepper spray after all... They did what had to be done.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Well, for those of you who advocate peaceful measures... seeing as the guy called about a heart attack... I dont think they were expecting a chainsaw waving maniac