Last Thursday evening the Davis police received a 911 call from an individual identifying himself as Joseph. He calmly told police that there were two dead people – a 27-year-old female and a 23-year-old male. While he described this in the third person, the police later learned that he was describing himself just before he would take his own life.
Immediately, both dispatch and the police sergeant in command believed that this was a credible call. And when the individual’s phone pinged to the house, they feared that this was a situation where the individual wanted to take his own life by provoking the police to shoot and kill him – suicide by cop.
The events of last Thursday have drawn a lot of community conversation and reinvigorated debate over the use of two MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles). Questions have arisen and the Vanguard went to the police station this week, on Friday, to meet with Chief Landy Black and Assistant Chief Darren Pytel to get some answers.
Assistant Chief Darren Pytel explained that the philosophy of the Davis Police Department has, in recent years, moved away from the use of dynamic entries. He told the Vanguard that the courts are continuously pushed for police departments to delay entry, negotiate.
Assistant Chief Pytel said that not only is this what the courts are telling police departments, but what he believes is the right decision. He believes that time is on the side of the police and the longer they can wait, the more likely they can deescalate the situation.
Chief Landy Black told the Vanguard, “We are constantly aware there was an opportunity to preserve life.” He added, “There is no higher mission than preserve every life.”
Therefore, as Darren Pytel stated, they operate in a “slow kind of deliberate way.”
A dynamic entry would end the potential standoff very quickly but, at the same time, greatly increase the chance of a confrontation and therefore the opportunity that the subject could provoke a confrontation that would force the police to kill him. That is what they wanted to avoid.
Two of the questions that have come up were why the police needed two MRAPs, as well as why it took so long for them to call for the MRAP in the first place.
Following the 911 call, the police and dispatch tried numerous means to establish contact with Joseph Hein. But all attempts had been unsuccessful. They were able to ping the phone and identify it as being inside the home. A spotter noted that the female’s dogs were inside, and her car being parked outside led them to believe that she was inside as well.
Darren Pytel said that, even before he was on scene, he was in contact with the SWAT team in West Sacramento and made the determination that SWAT was warranted for this incident.
One of the police officers began searching and found Mr. Hein’s Facebook page. It had a picture of a military grade rifle. There was a comment about how he enjoyed shooting.
Most ominously was almost an obituary post where he had a black entry which listed his birthdate and a 2015 date for his death.
Mr. Pytel told the Vanguard that, while the Facebook photo was the chief piece of evidence, they had other intelligence including the fact that Mr. Hein had a recent purchase of a handgun and other information that Mr. Pytel wouldn’t divulge that made him believe that Mr. Hein may well have a high-powered weapon.
The weapon on Facebook alarmed him, as he stated, “That will go through anything we got.” It was at this point – about an hour into the situation ‒ that they decided to call in the MRAP.
Darren Pytel argued this was based on “the totality of the circumstances.” Part of that was the scene itself. He said there was limited cover for the police. There was also an apartment complex across the street that made for multiple access points and proved very troublesome to plug. Every time they thought they had cleared the area, another student showed up.
They tried to evacuate outside of the “kill zone” or the area where the rifle could reach with deadly force.
The MRAP would house a small team of people that would be able to do a dynamic entry on short notice should the need arise. They wanted to be able to deploy the robots – one large and one small. The large one would breach the doors while the small one had the maneuverability to make the entry, go inside and be able to assess the situation and perhaps communicate.
Darren Pytel stated, “People can shoot all day at the robot and the response doesn’t have to be to shoot back.” Even if the robot incurs damage, it’s just a piece of equipment. That means that “the person who tries to shoot at a robot can’t provoke the police to shoot in return.”
The house was a two-story home which added to the difficulty in a number of ways. One is that they could not have a team breach with shields, as the shields can protect frontally but not upward.
Throughout the incident they would announce what they were doing over the PA. In part this was to alert the neighbors, and in part they were hoping the person inside would talk to them.
The use of the second MRAP was not a quick decision. They had originally planned for the Peacekeeper to be used. However, when they realized that the weapon rated above what the Peacekeeper would resist, they called out a second MRAP in order to protect the operator of the small robot.
The problem that they have with the robot is that they need line of site in order for the remote to work. So one MRAP housed the small team that would react in case of the need for a dynamic entry. The other would house the operator of the robot.
Darren Pytel argued that, fully equipped with gear, only eight people could fit in the back of the MRAP. Moreover, with a second-story building, they could not simply use the backside of the MRAP as protection.
As it turned out, Joseph Hein did not have the high-powered weapon the police feared. He had a 9 mm gun.
The police are still investigating the incident. Hein had no criminal record. The motive is officially still undecided, however there are some theories. One that seems prominent is that he had romantic interests in the victim but she did not reciprocate.
Darren Pytel would not elaborate, but there is evidence that Mr. Hein suffered from troubling mental issues.
Mostly, Darren Pytel pushed the Davis Police principle of surround and call out, as opposed to dynamic entries. He argued that the courts are asking police to slow things down. When things go to lawsuits, experts are called in and they cite best practices.
He stressed that this is a policy he very much agrees with, even though many departments continue to use dynamic entries ‒ with problematic results at times. He said there has been a change in thinking, away from rushing in to quickly shut down a situation. He said, “I think that’s a good thing.”
He argued that such policy requires armor. He said if you don’t have armor, you rely on the shield. That is minimal protection for dynamic entries. Armor allows to turn what could be a two and a half minute process of clearing a home, where it takes about two hours for a dynamic entry. For a surround and call out, it triples the time.
He argued that you can’t have your team that will react “getting small for five hours.”
The situation also dictates the use of equipment. In this case, there was almost no cover for the police. They were on a street where an MRAP would have access. For an apartment with narrow space, an MRAP could not be used.
Darren Pytel stressed that it does not have to be an MRAP. He said, “We understand the issue on MRAP.” He added, “We also know what it’s like to be using other types of vehicles… there are real advantages to having a more civilian modeled vehicle, including the size.” The size and speed of an MRAP are a problem for urban use. Assistant Chief Pytel expressed concern about apartments and tight quarters in Davis.
As we now know, both individuals were most likely never alive when the police were there. While the coroner has yet to officially establish time of death, the police never heard shots fired and the reports were that they were fired prior to arrival.
The coroner’s report found that death was instantaneous.
However, the police did not know this at the time and had to operate on the assumption that Mr. Hein was alive and armored with a weapon that could pierce their body armor.
From the police’s standpoint, that is why they needed the armor. It will be for the council to determine whether it should be something other than an MRAP.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good and fair article. Pytel did a good job outlining their actions and why they needed the MRAP’s.
Background and Supplement. The concept of Contain, Evacuate, and Negotiate is described as the “last few years.”
Time is relative.
It has been a routine standard of approach for least 35 years in my personal experience and training, and embraced by most every California law enforcement agency. The “militarization of local law enforcement” is a topic worthy of debate and discussion. But the upside is that any military equipment also comes with superb military training protocol in urban guerrilla tactics.
If there are “many” police departments that still do dynamic entries in a similar circumstance, a compilation of those that do–or recently have–would be most enlightening. I disagree with this claim, unless police tactics in foreign countries are being included. Russia does this, with grave consequences.
Response to Barricaded Suspect calls have always been heavily critiqued. I’m not talking about the public or the courts. Rather, it is internal. Police formally review all aspects of their actions after the fact. The “informal” discussions in the locker room and coffee shops are even more evident, and sometime more productive in modifying and creating any existing or absent policy.
There was one element missing in the useful summation of the police response to the murder/suicide event. No mention was made of a sniper team. Commonly, a sniper team is deployed as part of any SWAP call-out. In this particular instance, the comment about shielded officers being in peril from an assailant’s second-story vantage point has a major weak point, or something in this story is missing.
Sniper teams would be positioned from a similar “high ground” tactical position covering the shielded officer’ approach. The team would be “green lighted” in advance. Anybody sticking a gun out an upstairs window towards the approaching officers would have less than a second to live.
The “Davis Police principal of surround and call out” should be the Davis Police principle. As far as the need for military vehicles I am not sure if the MRAP addressed police needs in that particular incident. Also, sniper teams observation by Mr. Coleman suggest the police would have been prepared for a shooter in that situation.
As the article stated:
According to Pytel the two MRAP’s were needed and both served a purpose. It makes sense to me.
what did you expected him to say? “we were just using the two to rub it in”? so he has a rationale. but the article doesn’t take a skeptical view, try to refute it, or interview other people trained on tactics. ask yourself: does davis need two mraps? what would have happened with just one?
I’m going to rely on the professional who was there and had to make decisions to do his best to keep his officers safe while at the same time trying to get into the house and deal with an unknown situation. I seriously doubt that he thought that this was a perfect chance to call in two MRAP’s in order to make a statement or anything like “we were just using the two to rub it in”. We should all be fair here and everyone shouldn’t let their idealogical hatred of anything military cloud their judgement.
The CC is not going to touch this. There will be no criticism from any of the CC members on the use of the MRAPs in this case. The CC will not act to prohibit the DPD form calling in the MRAPs when the DPD feels it is necessary. People can whine all they want and speculate on the motives of the police for calling in the MRAPs and nothing will change. Any CC member that criticizes the use of the MRAPs will just look silly. Stop crying over the use of the MRAPs. They will be back in Davis again before the year is up. Get over it. There is nothing you or a vocal minority can do about this.
The most likely scenario would be to purchase an alternative armored vehicle.
Something that everyone including the police believe would work better. If this had happened in an apartment complex or a school, they wouldn’t have likely been able to have used an MRAP at all.
Oh, so was the activists’ and your concern all along was that the MRAP wasn’t the right vehicle and wanted the DPD to acquire one more suitable? I apologize, I must have missed that.
No, but I think that’s a place where compromise could happen.
Taking Pytel’s comments at face value – he tacitly acknowledges that the need for two MRAPs were in fact driven by the limitations of the MRAP in the first place in terms of lack of space and maneuverability.
Guess they would only need one MRAP if they had the bigger model.
Excellent article.
There’s an axiom in survival training… “prepare for the worst, expect the best”. Believe that is what happened. The presence of the MRAP’s resulted in no injuries, no damage to property. Y’all can continue to argue how many MRAP’s can dance on the head of a pin(head).
I agree, after all, no one complains when the Fire Dept rolls any of their trucks “even if they weren’t needed”.
If this results in the CC delving into Fire Department matters they way the dictate to the PD, we should have more fun and entertaining articles.
“If this results in the CC delving into Fire Department matters… ” Not that we have many structural fires, but I could imagine that the CC could tell the FD to cut water use by 30%, to set an example, while we’re facing a 25% mandatory reduction.
That’s not exactly true, in fact there has been a prolonged discussion over when the fire department needed to roll out all equipment on all calls. That lead to the decoupling of the rescue apparatus from the fire engine at the central station.
miwok
This is no t accurate. On several occasions in the past I have noted what I and the fireman in charge agreed was an expensive and egregious deployment of both equipment and personnel. It started with a friend , unfamiliar with my fireplace using the gas to start a fire which got briefly out of control with flames lapping at the mantle. He became alarmed and placed a 911 call. Within a minute or two I had discovered the problem, turned down the gas and with the fire contained, called back to cancel. I was told it was too late,that the alarm was already activated. What arrived at my house were two fire trucks including the hook and ladder, an ambulance and two squad cars to cordon off my street . At one point we estimated about 15 rescue workers for a fireplace fire which I had already extinguished as they were aware.
I am very grateful that we have the capacity for such a response. And I am also aware as was the lead firefighter that this response was overkill and unnecessary. It is true that in many emergency situations, more is not necessarily better. The downsides maybe individuals acting imprudently ( as did the fireman who used a fire extinguisher on the glass doors of my fireplace causing them to shatter thereby ruining a section of my hardwood floor), get in the way, or possibly result in a delayed response to another emergency.
One of the first principles of a medical emergency such as a code is that only essential personnel respond and any duplicate responders are promptly sent back to their own stations. From my limited experience with both our cities firefighters and police, this ” lean response” is not adhered to despite beging demonstrated not just more cost effective, but more effective period.
I like your response, Ma’am. Small fire = grateful, roll everything
Small number of deaths and possible weapons/live shooter = unnecessary
With all these comments, I begin to see where the priorities lie.
Houses = important
People = meh
hmmm
This time hpierce.
Yes this time the MRAP’s weren’t really needed as it turns out. But who could’ve known that ahead of time? Maybe next time it will result in an active shooter situation where officer’s lives are possibly saved. Better safe than sorry.
As hpierce so aptly put it, “prepare for the worst, expect the best”.
No I meant this time, the use of the MRAP didn’t cause problems (other than political ones).
BP
I would like to paraphrase. Yes, all of those Ebola isolation units and preparations were not necessary this time ( despite all the millions of dollars spent ) but what about next time.
I simply believe that we should be using an evidence and fact based approach rather than a fear based, what if scenario in deciding how to allocate resources.
And “next time”, David, without an MRAP?
On another post you said an MRAP couldn’t be used at a school? Why? What if we have a “Columbine”? A “Sandy Hook”? Neither of those communities are substantially different from ours.
It’s an issue of maneuverability into tight spaces.
How come none of the MRAP whiners are complaining about the Peacekeeper(another military vehicle). I do not recall ever reading about any criticism about the use of this military vehicle to the same extent that we have heard about the MRAP. To me this just demonstrates the blinders on the critics of the MRAP. It seems the real issue is that the MRAP was designed for use in Iraq and the critics of that war are the same people who are whining about the recent use of the MRAP and the acquisition of the MRAP by DPD
I find it hilarious that the Davis MRAP was shipped down 113 to Woodland only to return to Davis for use by the Davis Police Department. What a slap in the face to all of those who demanded it’s removal from Davis. And there is nothing the CC will do about this. I wonder if the guy in the no tank t-shirt will pull it out again and complain to the CC. If he does they will do nothing. Politically it is a loser for the CC.
Then think of the liability if the CC prohibits the use of the MRAPs in Davis and someone is hurt or killed as a result. I can just imagine a civil attorney asking Black or Pytel why they didn’t deploy the MRAP. Would they have deployed it had it been available. Could it have saved the live or prevented the injury?
The MRP will continued to be used in Davis.
IMO, the CC’s bailout is going to be purchasing a Bearcat. They’re going to say that the MRAP wasn’t suitable for our city’s needs and that the Bearcat is a better fit. Truth is the MRAP did the job and it was FREE and now we’re most likely going to pour @ $300,000 into something we had for FREE when we’re short on funds. This is going to open up a whole new can of worms for the council. Watch, they’re going to do their darndest trying to show us how inadequate the MRAP was, it will be interesting to watch the ones who voted against the MRAP now backstep.
Frankly’s free house analogy summed it up best:
I would like the city to do a comparison of the two vehicles to include maintenance costs. What is the size difference for example. How does that impact the use of the vehicle. For example from the online info I found the Bearcat is actually wider than the MRAP. How about height and length. Speed. What else could they do with the cost difference.
Where are they going to find a truly civilian vehicle that does not have any military applications which disqualifies the Bearcat in the mind of some (David).
Since I used to work in Fleet Services and other places doing budget projections, my experience is: not any difference. Once you have bought them they do not cost any more or less, and the small ones cost as much and get the same mileage as the big ones.
They should demand they make it a hybrid and really run the cost of ownership up, but boy – watch the headlines then. Electric SWAT!
I would like the city to do a comparison of the two vehicles to include maintenance costs. What is the size difference for example. How does that impact the use of the vehicle. For example from the online info I found the Bearcat is actually wider than the MRAP. How about height and length. Speed. What else could they do with the cost difference. Where are they going to find a truly civilian vehicle that does not have any military applications which disqualifies the Bearcat in the mind of some (David).
BP
Despite the lack of sincerity, apology accepted. That is exactly what I have been saying. My recommendation is that as a community we grow up and admit that we should be willing to pay for what we value. If Assistant Police Chief Pytel, whose opinion I value greatly feels that an armored vehicle other than the MRAP is a better fit for our community as he has publicly stated, and if he has evidence that this is the best use of X amount of dollars for the safety of our citizens and police, then that is what we should be willing to spend.
So in turn do you agree that Chief Pytel made the right move calling in the two MRAP’s last week since you state that you greatly value his opinion?
I don’t speak for Tia, but there are a number of people whose opinions I value who I disagree with on issues. A good example is Rochelle and Brett on this one.
BP
In retrospect, no, since it does not seem that the presence or absence of the MRAPs would have made any difference to the out come. This is no different than saying that I do not believe that it was the right call to spend millions on Ebola preparations that in retrospect proved unnecessary. Perhaps many more lives could have been saved had those millions been spent where they were actually needed…..namely in the affected countries. But that is in retrospect, and as many have pointed out hindsight tends to be 20/20.
In any event, it is not whether the “right call” is made in any one circumstance that informs whether or not I respect someone’s opinion. To me it is the thought pattern and processes that lead me to trust judgement, not a single decision. Having spoken with Darren Pytel on a number of occasions and having seen him in action, I believe that he has the ability to think things through carefully and methodically before leaping to assumptions or making snap or emotional judgements as we have seen others do. It is this that informs my trust in his judgement.
Do we have any idea yet why he committed the murder / suicide?
Does anyone, except [maybe] the family(ies), really need to?
I would think we do – especially understanding if there is mental healthy issues and what might have gone wrong.
To what end? We know there are “deficiencies” in our MH system (both diagnostic and treatment), and these can lead to tragic consequences both for the individual or others. One more “data point”. I opine that except for real researchers, with real credentials, the readers of this blog have no “need to know”. ‘Transparency’?
Please remember there are real, living families trying to deal with this.
I, for one, will do my best not to be a voyeur.
As I reported in this article, the thinking is some sort of romantic interest spurned combined with some sort of mental illness.
Hell, even from the earliest reports, doesn’t take an investigative reporter, an experienced psychiatrist, or a rocket scientist to “think” that.
hpierce
Perhaps because of my profession, I have a different perspective on this from you. I do not believe that it is voyeuristic to seek root causes. We are spending an inordinate amount of time talking about the cost of various pieces of equipment. But what if it were demonstrated that a very high percentage of murders in our community were committed by those with mental illnesses of a certain type, or if investigations showed that there was a preponderance of the use of a particular type of weapon. Then it would make a lot of sense to put more money into prevention programs, or into limiting certain individuals access to these types of weapons than it would to acquiring expensive equipment. The fact that there are grieving families should not be a deterrent to discussion of root causes and best preventative and safety measures.
Perhaps, because of your profession, indeed.
What I refer to is the “forum” for the investigation and discussion. Would you open up to the VG readership a full discussion of all the personal details of the patients under your care, so we can all investigate all of the factors involved in ‘bad outcomes’? In effect, the ‘world-wide web’. Am thinking not.
If I’m wrong, please share with us all the miscarriages, pregnancy terminations, etc., so that we may all ‘discuss root causes and best preventative and safety measures’. Oh, and please name names, to equalize the field to the current tragic example.
Think (hard) about what you wrote in order to ‘counter’ my perspective.
I acknowledged the “data point”, that should be evaluated by others. But I opine, not by me, not by you, not by the VG readership. I will/can not budge from that opinion, and I question your motivations to wish the VG to “dig into” the details. If the authorities share it, fine (I guess). The VG should feel free to report on what is made public. The rest, to me is a perversion of ‘the right to know’.
hpierce
“I will/can not budge from that opinion, and I question your motivations to wish the VG to “dig into” the details.”
I think that this is the heart of your comment. You wish to cast aspersions on motivations, not consider whether another point of view might be valid. As I am sure that you are aware, I am bound legally not to reveal any personal information about my patients. This would not be my choice. I would favor a social structure of complete openness and transparency. My basis for this is my belief is that if an individual does not want an act known, if they would choose to hide it because of guilt, or shame, then they should not be doing that act in the first place. Likewise, we would be much better off if people were not judgmental about circumstances that do not affect them in their lives. It is secrets and deceptions, along with judging and shaming that cause much of the problems that we encounter. How much better a world would we have if we were open and honest in our interactions and if in turn we were willing to openly consider the consequences of our actions, not to punish individuals, but rather to consider ideas about how to better both ourselves and our society in the future.
As for motivation, what possible benefit do you think, other than as an exchange of ideas that I would get from the VG “digging into” the details ?
Tia, with all due respect, listen to yourself, in what you wrote.
“You wish to cast aspersions on motivations, not consider whether another point of view might be valid.” I did no such thing. I questioned your motivations. I guess I could have worded it, “what are your motivations, as an individual or as a member of the VG editorial board… “, but that was too many words. Seems you are casting aspersions about MY motivations in asking, essentially, “where are you coming from?”
You dismissed my point of view (which, I assure you, was ‘considered’), yet you want me to further consider yours? There is no doubt in my mind that you will not further consider mine.There’s a word for that, and it starts with an H.
“Guess they would only need one MRAP if they had the bigger model.”
Situations like this clearly call for full-sized tanks supported by a mobile anti-aircraft battery.