Milwaukee Police Giving LV Metro A Run For Dumbest PD In Country

[Izulde]

Wanted felon shot, wounded inside Children’s Hospital | FOX6Now.com

In case the title doesn't come through the link, basically Milwaukee police served a warrant on a suspect with weapons charges in the NICU of a children's hospital. The sheer stupidity of this staggers me, and I'm used to urban police departments not being very bright.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Wanted felon shot, wounded inside Children’s Hospital | FOX6Now.com

In case the title doesn't come through the link, basically Milwaukee police served a warrant on a suspect with weapons charges in the NICU of a children's hospital. The sheer stupidity of this staggers me, and I'm used to urban police departments not being very bright.

What did LV Metro do to earn the thread title?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

What did LV Metro do to earn the thread title?

Trigger happy as hell - numerous lawsuits awarded in favor of plaintiffs who have sued Metro for wrongful shootings.

They also have a tendency to act like stereotypical roided up meatheads.

Quite a striking contrast from the very pleasant, calm, effective campus police, who are wonderful people from my experience.

[murrayyyyy]

It's the in thing to do here in Vegas.

People forget that:

In 90 percent of incidents involving Las Vegas police, the shooting subject was armed, though not always with a gun. Cars were identified as a weapon in 16 percent of incidents. In a handful of cases shooting subjects were considered to be armed if they attempted to take an officer's weapon.

An officer was injured in at least 10 percent of incidents.

At least 70 percent of those killed by police had drugs or alcohol in their system. At least half had arrest records.

Las Vegas police rank high in shootings | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Basically here is what happens (or did during the time period). Crips and Bloods moved in from LA because of the hugs boom here in the 00's. Property values were double, everyone had money flowing... then the tourist market crashed with housing. When the housing market went to shit because everyone had AMR then they went nuts. Most just moved back to Cali. The Boulevard Mall was the biggest and best Mall in Nevada in 2000. Now it has a occupancy rate of 50% and is the worst mall in the city. That area is close to what locals call "Naked City". It's not as bad as it was 5 years ago but when people steal your trash to burn in the middle of the street to keep warm, you know it is a problem area.

It also depends on what Cops you run into. On the strip they have about 400 calls a night. They never get to all of them. For the most part, they just take your drugs off you and send you on your way. Why? Because they don't want a high arrest stat about the strip to scare off visitors and they don't have enough cops in that area. Try doing the shit that people do on the strip in another town. You are going to the po-po houses...

Also I'm pretty sure Iz went to U of A where cops would follow you home while you were drunk driving and would help you into your house.

Also to go along with the high Cop killing rate, Las Vegas is #1 in suicides!!!

[RainMaker]

Chicago has paid out like $80 million for a detective who decided he would torture a bunch of people into false confessions. Lawsuits are still pending.

Oh and he still gets his 6-figure pension.

[Uncle Briggs]

In the linked article, the second paragraph says they were responding to a report of a man with a gun in the hospital. I'm going to guess that OP was incensed by the headline and didn't bother to read any further.

[Lathum]

IMO the only mistake the officers made was not killing the guy.

I don't see the outrage.

Cops confront wanted felon, wanted felon flees, wanted felon pulls a gun, wanted felon runs into empty hallway, wanted felon points gun at cops, cops shoot wanted felon.

Where is the issue?

Would it be better for the cops to let him go? Maybe he takes a hostage? Maybe he fires his weapon and kils a newborn? Or a new mother? Or some other innocent.

Seriously, why the outrage?

Those cops should be given a medal.

[Izulde]

He was there visiting his child, and yeah because of the potential for hostage or weapons firing is exactly why you don't confront him in the damned NICU. You secure the exit he's going to go out of and serve him outside the hospital.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Izulde

He was there visiting his child, and yeah because of the potential for hostage or weapons firing is exactly why you don't confront him in the damned NICU. You secure the exit he's going to go out of and serve him outside the hospital.

Who he is visiting doesn't change the fact that he is an armed and wanted felon.

If they took the track you suggest what happens when he decides he wants to take the baby with him and shoots some nurses? Or sees the cops waiting for him and shoots someone in the waiting room who is there because they cut their finger making dinner?

What if they lose him because he goes out some back stairwell and he kills someone in a carjacking?

It was the suspect who pulled a gun and ran. It is insulting to be critical of the officers putting their lives on the line.

[Izulde]

But the situation has a much higher chance of escalation and the type of damage you're talking about by taking place inside the hospital itself. Plus, you're also dealing with children there.

Outside? Yeah, potential for escalation and damage, but it's in a much more open space and with fewer people in the immediate area/close at hand.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Outside? Yeah, potential for escalation and damage, but it's in a much more open space and with fewer people in the immediate area/close at hand.

But you're arguing they should have secured the exits and barricaded him inside (and hope that he surrenders when he gets to the door), aren't you?

Without knowing all the details (for all we know, this guy was a sex offender), I'm sure if you asked 100 police departments and 100 police officers their opinion about how to handle this, there's be some variety of responses. There's a lot of big judgment calls that have to made every day, and it's guaranteed that most people who read an article about what happened think their idea is the correct one, no matter what course is taken. I've been involved in a lot of officer training, including regarding warrant service, and if I brought up this incident, a few cops would immediately react the way you are, and others would bring up reasons for the approach that I had never even thought of. Edit: I am going to guess that even in Milwaukee, warrant service in a hospital of any kind is unusual, so I'd guess there was some unusual factor at play - and there still might be reasonable differences of opinion about whether the circumstances called for that approach.

[Izulde]

Yeah they're still sorting out the details. I do imagine a lot of it depends on what the woman who called the guy in said.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

It's the in thing to do here in Vegas.

People forget that:

In 90 percent of incidents involving Las Vegas police, the shooting subject was armed, though not always with a gun. Cars were identified as a weapon in 16 percent of incidents. In a handful of cases shooting subjects were considered to be armed if they attempted to take an officer's weapon.

An officer was injured in at least 10 percent of incidents.

At least 70 percent of those killed by police had drugs or alcohol in their system. At least half had arrest records.

Las Vegas police rank high in shootings | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Basically here is what happens (or did during the time period). Crips and Bloods moved in from LA because of the hugs boom here in the 00's. Property values were double, everyone had money flowing... then the tourist market crashed with housing. When the housing market went to shit because everyone had AMR then they went nuts. Most just moved back to Cali. The Boulevard Mall was the biggest and best Mall in Nevada in 2000. Now it has a occupancy rate of 50% and is the worst mall in the city. That area is close to what locals call "Naked City". It's not as bad as it was 5 years ago but when people steal your trash to burn in the middle of the street to keep warm, you know it is a problem area.

It also depends on what Cops you run into. On the strip they have about 400 calls a night. They never get to all of them. For the most part, they just take your drugs off you and send you on your way. Why? Because they don't want a high arrest stat about the strip to scare off visitors and they don't have enough cops in that area. Try doing the shit that people do on the strip in another town. You are going to the po-po houses...

Also I'm pretty sure Iz went to U of A where cops would follow you home while you were drunk driving and would help you into your house.

Also to go along with the high Cop killing rate, Las Vegas is #1 in suicides!!!

Yeah I understand all that - doesn't change the fact that Metro has the highest % of stereotypical macho, hyper-aggressive officers of any place I've lived in.

FWIW, La Crosse, where I finished my undergrad, was notorious for nailing anybody and everybody for traffic violations and house parties. But they weren't jackasses about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

More details today

The officers found Hendricks in the neonatal unit on the hospital's seventh floor, where he was holding a baby. Soon after officers began talking with him, Hendricks put down the baby and tried to run away. He ran through the unit and down an empty hallway, where he pointed a pistol at officers, police said.

"The suspect's threatening behavior forced our officers to take action to protect themselves and innocent bystanders," Stanmeyer said in the email.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/m...232043821.html

[Izulde]

FWIW, I don't think the issue is them shooting him for most people (I myself think that was the correct call given he pulled a guy on them apparently).

What I do find interesting is that MPD didn't contact County. You think they would, given the jurisdiction thing.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Lathum

IMO the only mistake the officers made was not killing the guy.

I don't see the outrage.

Cops confront wanted felon, wanted felon flees, wanted felon pulls a gun, wanted felon runs into empty hallway, wanted felon points gun at cops, cops shoot wanted felon.

Where is the issue?

Would it be better for the cops to let him go? Maybe he takes a hostage? Maybe he fires his weapon and kils a newborn? Or a new mother? Or some other innocent.

Seriously, why the outrage?

Those cops should be given a medal.

Because the headline sounds much more dramatic than the actual story. So lame.

[Uncle Briggs]

Originally Posted by Izulde

But the situation has a much higher chance of escalation and the type of damage you're talking about by taking place inside the hospital itself. Plus, you're also dealing with children there.

Outside? Yeah, potential for escalation and damage, but it's in a much more open space and with fewer people in the immediate area/close at hand.

So if you are there visiting your child in the NICU and some guy there has a gun in his pants, you are cool with just letting him stay there with the gun until he leaves on his own?

[molson]

I know cops get really nervous with the concept of criminals around children too, in that there's so many custody issues and disputes they get in the middle of. That stress can lead to rash decisions, but it can also lead to appropriately aggressive responses. No idea if it was one of those or something else entirely here.

[illinifan999]

Or the situation plays out differently.

Guy knows he has felony warrants. Decides it's time to hold his kid one last time and go out with a bang. Decides to shoot mom, nurses, doctors, other patients before killing himself.

Now PD gets massacred in the headlines for having knowledge of an armed man with felony warrants in the hospital and standing outside to wait to confront him.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Uncle Briggs

So if you are there visiting your child in the NICU and some guy there has a gun in his pants, you are cool with just letting him stay there with the gun until he leaves on his own?

If he perceives himself as being under no threat, he's not likely to use it. Introduce the cops into the room, and now he's in a position where his freedom is being threatened and the situation's escalated.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Or the situation plays out differently.

Guy knows he has felony warrants. Decides it's time to hold his kid one last time and go out with a bang. Decides to shoot mom, nurses, doctors, other patients before killing himself.

Now PD gets massacred in the headlines for having knowledge of an armed man with felony warrants in the hospital and standing outside to wait to confront him.

Or he feels trapped by the police coming in to the unit for him and shoots up everybody then, whereas that nightmare scenario is avoided if he's arrested outside.

The fact of the matter is, it could have very easily ended far worse than what it did, and IMO, the percentages of the best possible outcome favored waiting outside for him.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Or he feels trapped by the police coming in to the unit for him and shoots up everybody then, whereas that nightmare scenario is avoided if he's arrested outside.

The fact of the matter is, it could have very easily ended far worse than what it did, and IMO, the percentages of the best possible outcome favored waiting outside for him.

Are you sure there's only one exit, and the layout is such that they could be far enough away that he couldn't just run back in when he sees them, but close enough that they could definitely reach him before he reaches the car, perhaps with his kid, who he may or may not have custody of?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you sure there's only one exit, and the layout is such that they could be far enough away that he couldn't just run back in when he sees them, but close enough that they could definitely reach him before he reaches the car, perhaps with his kid, who he may or may not have custody of?

I haven't been to MCH myself or if I was, it was so long ago I don't remember it, but I would imagine there's a specific entrance that's closest to the NICU that people come in and out of. And I doubt he would take the kid, given said kid is in NICU and presumably wouldn't survive for long outside of it.

Had they notified the Sheriff's Department, they would have also presumably had more manpower to be able to cover the bases even if there is more than one entrance equidistant from NICU area.

[molson]

Also, it doesn't appear as though this guy just had a warrant, and the police waited for him to visit a hospital and then hold a kid before deciding that was the perfect time to serve the warrant. No, they got a call from the hospital that a guy was walking around with an apparently visible firearm. And the police did have his name, I guess the hospital staff figured it out because he signed in or something. So police went in the hospital to look for him, and just happened to realize he had a warrant on the way there.

So the police get a call, armed guy wandering a hospital, should they go inside and look for him, or should they wait outside and hope they picked the right exit and are able to spot him, and just hope that he doesn't do anything bad while he's in there? And does the analysis change if they know the guy is a convicted felon with an active warrant?

[Izulde]

But the call specifically said he was in the NICU, I believe, so they knew the area of the hospital he was in and the exits he would take.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I haven't been to MCH myself or if I was, it was so long ago I don't remember it, but I would imagine there's a specific entrance that's closest to the NICU that people come in and out of. And I doubt he would take the kid, given said kid is in NICU and presumably wouldn't survive for long outside of it.

Had they notified the Sheriff's Department, they would have also presumably had more manpower to be able to cover the bases even if there is more than one entrance equidistant from NICU area.

The police didn't have any reason to know the kid's health status when they were looking for an armed guy at the children's hospital, but the potential for a kidnapping is probably something every children's hospital employee, and responding police officer, has to be aware of.

They're there because a guy is walking around with a visible weapon. 99% of the time when they get a call like that, it's just an idiot who doesn't intend to shoot up the place or kidnap anyone. But the dangers are definitely there. There's a danger in sending full manpower to block off all the exits too, he's going to get wind of that and the situation could escalate.

They could have waited outside and just arrested him another day if they missed him, but I have to think where you know there's 1 armed guy, who hasn't shown any sign of aggression yet, 2 officers going into look for him seems like an appropriate response.

[Izulde]

I guess we'll see what happens as the story further develops and more details emerge. It *is* interesting to see the different perspectives as to how to approach a situation like this, because I would suspect in addition to the codified rules and regulations, there's room for different strategies for how to handle it, each of which operates within a philosophy of policing/law enforcement framework that I suspect influences how the respective officers and departments react to other situations.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I guess we'll see what happens as the story further develops and more details emerge. It *is* interesting to see the different perspectives as to how to approach a situation like this, because I would suspect in addition to the codified rules and regulations, there's room for different strategies for how to handle it, each of which operates within a philosophy of policing/law enforcement framework that I suspect influences how the respective officers and departments react to other situations.

It sure is easy to Monday morning quarterback when you probably have never had to make a split second decision in a life and death situation yourself.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Shepp

It sure is easy to Monday morning quarterback when you probably have never had to make a split second decision in a life and death situation yourself.

If there's one thing people know; it's how to be the best cop ever.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

Also, it doesn't appear as though this guy just had a warrant, and the police waited for him to visit a hospital and then hold a kid before deciding that was the perfect time to serve the warrant. No, they got a call from the hospital that a guy was walking around with an apparently visible firearm. And the police did have his name, I guess the hospital staff figured it out because he signed in or something. So police went in the hospital to look for him, and just happened to realize he had a warrant on the way there.

So the police get a call, armed guy wandering a hospital, should they go inside and look for him, or should they wait outside and hope they picked the right exit and are able to spot him, and just hope that he doesn't do anything bad while he's in there? And does the analysis change if they know the guy is a convicted felon with an active warrant?

I think this best describes it for me. If there had been an active warrant on this guy for a while and they decided to serve it in a hospital, the police are the assholes. If they got a call from a 3rd party describing a man with a gun in the hospital, or any call alleging the threat of violence, I would be all behind them using whatever show of force they could spare. A call from (assumedly) a family member of the mother alleging the man had "a history of carrying a gun" is very nebulous. With that said...

Originally Posted by Shepp

It sure is easy to Monday morning quarterback when you probably have never had to make a split second decision in a life and death situation yourself.

Its really not the "split-second" actions of the police on the ground I'm questioning here. I don't agree with Izulde highlighting this as the injustice that deserves to be spotlighted with its own thread here, but there's some questions related to the dispatching that I feel should be answered (why it took so long, what changed to get it upgraded to a priority and when, why the department doesn't have a policy in place regarding this situation). I know how garbled things get in translation, but from a dispassionate reading of the facts available in these news reports, it does seem that they could/probably should have waited to confront the man outside of the hospital, and "Monday morning Quarterbacking" a.k.a. an investigation/review of procedures involved (which the Milwaukee PD seem to be conducting) seems very appropriate.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think this best describes it for me. If there had been an active warrant on this guy for a while and they decided to serve it in a hospital, the police are the assholes. If they got a call from a 3rd party describing a man with a gun in the hospital, or any call alleging the threat of violence, I would be all behind them using whatever show of force they could spare. A call from (assumedly) a family member of the mother alleging the man had "a history of carrying a gun" is very nebulous. With that said...Its really not the "split-second" actions of the police on the ground I'm questioning here. I don't agree with Izulde highlighting this as the injustice that deserves to be spotlighted with its own thread here, but there's some questions related to the dispatching that I feel should be answered (why it took so long, what changed to get it upgraded to a priority and when, why the department doesn't have a policy in place regarding this situation). I know how garbled things get in translation, but from a dispassionate reading of the facts available in these news reports, it does seem that they could/probably should have waited to confront the man outside of the hospital, and "Monday morning Quarterbacking" a.k.a. an investigation/review of procedures involved (which the Milwaukee PD seem to be conducting) seems very appropriate.

I think the problem here is point of view. To the average person, who has never been in law enforcement, they look at this scenario and wonder; why every available unit didn't respond?, why there wasn't a comprehensive operations plan already in place?, and why they couldn't have just waited until the guy was outside the hospital?

The reality is that the call comes in to dispatch with probably very general information; the guy has a gun, what he looks like, and if he is actively threatening anyone. You also have to keep in mind that in a metropolitan area there are probably quite a few person armed calls dispatched daily. The call is then dispatched to an officer, maybe two or three if the call looks like it may be especially dangerous, then it is up to them to respond and find out exactly what is happening.

When the officer(s) arrive they make contact with the complainant and the suspect and try to resolve the problem. It could be that the call was BS and we wasn't armed at all, it could be that guys was armed but was allowed to do so, it could be that he is armed and gives up, and it could be that he is armed and decides to fight/escape. You also have a bunch of calls backing up if you take an extended amount of time for multiple officers to deal with a situation. So waiting around to see what happens typically isn't viable. There also really isn't any way to find out what the suspect's intentions are until you make contact with him. Once you make contact with the guy you have at least a one in four chance that the call will be resolved without incident.

In this particular incident it looks like the guy tries to escape. This is when the officer(s) need to make the split second decision. Do you chase the guy and try to neutralize the threat or let him go and hope nothing bad happens? The trick is that you have to base the decision on what is happening at the time and there is no policy that I'm aware of that can cover every possible contingency.

So you decide to pursue the suspect. The problem then is that you are now at his mercy as to what level of resistance that he offers.

So you decide to let him go. Now the problem is that if ANYTHING happens to ANYONE as a result of this guy being let go, you have to justify why you did not act.

Also don't forget that this incident, from first contact to end, was probably over in the space of less than five minutes. So even if they called for backup the instant the suspect fled, help likely wouldn't get there until after it was over.

The bottom line is that it is always very easy to offer alternatives after the fact. Its made even easier when facts are revealed afterward that the officer(s) may not have known about at the time. I'm not trying to say that the police should not be scrutinized, but with a title like this thread I don't think constructive criticism was the intent.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Yeah I understand all that - doesn't change the fact that Metro has the highest % of stereotypical macho, hyper-aggressive officers of any place I've lived in.

FWIW, La Crosse, where I finished my undergrad, was notorious for nailing anybody and everybody for traffic violations and house parties. But they weren't jackasses about it.

Are there sabermetrics to support that?

I certainly wouldn't want to live in a city "protected" by weak, passive, indecisive officers.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Shepp

I think the problem here is point of view. To the average person, who has never been in law enforcement, they look at this scenario and wonder; why every available unit didn't respond?, why there wasn't a comprehensive operations plan already in place?, and why they couldn't have just waited until the guy was outside the hospital?

The reality is that the call comes in to dispatch with probably very general information; the guy has a gun, what he looks like, and if he is actively threatening anyone. You also have to keep in mind that in a metropolitan area there are probably quite a few person armed calls dispatched daily. The call is then dispatched to an officer, maybe two or three if the call looks like it may be especially dangerous, then it is up to them to respond and find out exactly what is happening.

I'm not some neophyte with no idea about police responses, but "The call initially was classified as priority three, which means it did not require an urgent response. It was later upgraded to priority one, which involves a life-threatening incident" at some time during the 30+ minute span between the initial call and the incident. When and why would seem to be valid questions. And I don't know exactly how many life-threatening incidents Milwaukee PD deals with per hour, but I would think that that designation would be enough to call in backup or get officers to the scene quicker. On the other hand, if it was still a Priority 3 with no indication the suspect was actually doing anything other than seeing his baby, then I do think one of the other courses suggested (send in plainclothes first to assess the situation, wait until he's outside the building to confront him) do seem smarter. Even the Milwaukee PD seems (now) to think it's a good idea to develop a protocol for an armed, but not actively threatening suspect in a hospital - I don't see why I can't ask the same question.

[Shepp]

The article I read today stated that the original complainant was "friend of the mother" and was not at the hospital when they made the call. This complainant told 911 that the suspect had a history of mistreating the mother, was known to be involved with drugs, was known to carry a gun, and was going to the hospital to see the mother. This was all very non-specific stuff and made no mention of the suspect being wanted for a felony. It didn't even say with certainty when this suspect would even arrive at the hospital. Based on that I'm not that I'm not surprised at all that this was made a low priority call. I guess wondering when it was ungraded is not unreasonable but I'm willing to bet that it was after things went bad. It can be incredibly difficult to judge level response over the phone. That is why response is usually left up the officer assigned the call when they respond to the scene. Of course this means that the situation can escalate and possibly be over before any backup can arrive. That is why law enforcement is very dangerous.

Of course the agency is going to suggest that they create some sort of policy for this type of incident in the future. This is the knee jerk reaction of most police administrators to the attention that these incident's draw. I am truly curious what sort of policy could have prevented this incident from turning out any differently. From my experience your average local government is not willing to invest in the type of staffing that would make any more substantial of response feasible.

P.S. BishopMVP, I quoted you in my original post but my comments were really supposed to be for the thread in general and not specifically at you. Sorry if I gave that impression.