A man took control of a Wisconsin Rapids Fire Department ambulance while two paramedics were providing care to a patient, then drove the vehicle with the patient and paramedics aboard for about 18 miles (29–29.3 km) along State Highway 73 before officers stopped it in a field west of Pittsville, Wisconsin.

Medical crews had been providing care at a parking location in the 1400 block of 22nd Avenue South in Wisconsin Rapids when the man entered the ambulance driver’s seat as one paramedic exited and another tried to stop him. The ambulance left the scene with the patient still inside the patient compartment.

Wisconsin Rapids officers, assisted by Wood County and Pittsville units, pursued the vehicle for roughly 18–18.2 miles (29–29.3 km). Officers deployed tire-deflation devices during the pursuit; initial attempts failed, and the ambulance was ultimately stopped after Pittsville officers successfully deployed stop sticks that caused the vehicle to become stuck in a muddy field near 8890 State Highway 73/80. The pursuit lasted about 40 minutes, according to one account.

The driver, identified variously as Benajamin Feltz, Benjamin L. Feltz, and Ben Feltz, repeatedly refused commands to exit the vehicle before a coordinated team of officers and deputies approached and took him into custody without further incident. A drone was deployed to monitor the situation because of concern for the patient’s safety.

The patient was reported unharmed and was transported to Aspirus Wisconsin Rapids Hospital for evaluation; authorities said the transport was not considered an emergency. The suspect was also transported to the hospital for evaluation in one account and was booked into the Wood County Jail. Requested or filed charges described in different accounts include disorderly conduct; lewd and lascivious behavior; operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent; obstructing emergency personnel; recklessly endangering safety; threats to law enforcement; and operating while intoxicated — third offense. The Wisconsin Rapids Fire Department said it is inspecting the ambulance for mud and other damage.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (pittsville) (wisconsin) (ambulance) (paramedics) (patient) (drone) (entitlement) (lawlessness) (outrage) (vigilantism)

Actionable information: The article is a news report of a criminal incident and does not give readers clear, usable steps they can follow soon. It recounts what happened — an individual seized control of an ambulance with a patient and paramedics inside, a multiagency pursuit, and the suspect’s arrest — but it does not instruct readers what to do if they witness a similar event, nor does it present checklists, contact numbers, or decision points a reader could act on immediately. There are no practical tools, forms, or procedures provided that an ordinary person could adopt right away. If you were looking for guidance on how to respond during or after a hijacking of an emergency vehicle, that guidance is not present.

Educational depth: The article sticks to the sequence of events and charges without explaining underlying causes, systems, or law-enforcement protocols in any depth. It mentions tactics used by police (pursuit, tire deflation devices, drone) but does not explain how those tactics are chosen, what legal thresholds apply to vehicle pursuits, how patients’ welfare is prioritized, or how ambulance crews are trained to manage threats inside their vehicles. Numbers are limited to the pursuit distance and the “third offense” reference to operating while intoxicated, but the piece does not analyze why those numbers matter or how they were verified. Overall, it remains at the level of surface facts and does not teach readers how such incidents are managed or prevented.

Personal relevance: For most readers the article will be of limited direct relevance. It describes a dangerous but relatively rare event that affects a small group: the ambulance crew, the patient, and local law enforcement. Unless a reader is regularly involved in emergency medical services, law enforcement, or lives in the immediate area, there is little here that changes their daily decisions about safety, finances, or health. The report does touch on public safety broadly, but it gives no general advice that a typical person could use to reduce personal risk.

Public service function: The piece has some public-interest value as local reporting of a criminal event, but it does not provide safety guidance, warnings, or emergency information that helps the public act responsibly. It does not advise bystanders what to do if they see an ambulance being taken or how to report suspicious behavior involving emergency vehicles. Instead it mainly recounts the resolution and the charges, so its service function is limited to informing readers that the incident occurred and that the suspect was arrested.

Practical advice: There is essentially no practical advice in the article. No step-by-step recommendations for patients, paramedics, or witnesses are offered. The few operational details about law enforcement tactics are descriptive rather than instructive and would not enable a reader to adopt safer practices or respond more effectively in a similar situation.

Long-term impact: The article does not help readers plan ahead or improve habits. It documents a one-off event and does not generalize to broader prevention measures, policy implications, or training recommendations for emergency services. A reader who wants to reduce the chance of similar events happening in the future would find nothing here to guide long-term planning.

Emotional and psychological impact: The report may provoke alarm or curiosity by describing an ambulance takeover and a pursuit, but it offers no calming context, coping strategies, or constructive perspective. For readers with anxiety about public safety, the story could create fear without providing ways to assess or mitigate risk.

Clickbait or sensationalism: The article is factual and does not use exaggerated claims or hyperbole. It is dramatic by nature because it describes a dangerous incident, but it does not appear to overpromise or rely on flashy language to draw attention. The factual tone limits sensationalism.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide: The article missed several chances to be more useful. It could have explained safety protocols for ambulance crews and patients, legal aspects of police pursuit and use of stop sticks, how bystanders should report or avoid involvement, or what steps victims or witnesses should take after an incident. It also could have offered context about how agencies coordinate in such events and what protections exist for patients transported under duress. Instead it leaves readers with a narrative but no path to learn more or prepare.

What the article failed to provide, and practical, realistic guidance you can use now

If you witness an ambulance or other emergency vehicle being taken or driven recklessly, maintain a safe distance and avoid direct intervention. Call emergency services immediately, give your exact location, a brief description of the vehicle and direction of travel, and tell dispatch if there are visible occupants inside. Do not try to block or pursue the vehicle yourself; doing so risks collision and complicates law enforcement response.

If you are a patient or a passenger in an emergency vehicle and you feel you are in danger, try to communicate calmly and clearly with the crew. If possible, lock doors and use any available means to alert bystanders (call 911, ask someone nearby to report the situation). If you cannot safely exit, conserve your energy and comply with clear requests from trained responders once law enforcement arrives; sudden resistance inside a moving vehicle increases risk to everyone.

If you are an bystander near an emergency scene where paramedics are working and you notice someone acting suspiciously around a vehicle, keep a safe distance to avoid escalating the situation, observe identifying details (appearance, clothing, vehicle plate if visible), and report them to the responding agency. Your accurate observations can help responders without putting you at risk.

For relatives or community members concerned about emergency services safety, ask your local EMS or fire department what training and policies they have for managing assaults on crews and for securing vehicles with patients aboard. Many departments can explain their procedures for decontamination, vehicle repair after off-road incidents, and how they coordinate with police during pursuits. Understanding local protocols can reduce uncertainty and help you know what to expect if an incident occurs.

General ways to assess risk and prepare: when traveling or using public services, be aware of exits and nearby help, carry a charged phone for emergencies, and keep basic personal information accessible so you can report it if needed. In any sudden dangerous situation prioritize personal safety: avoid confrontation, get to a secure position, and call professionals.

These suggestions are general safety principles and are applicable broadly. They do not require specific local data and are intended to help you assess risk, respond safely in the moment, and seek further information from appropriate local agencies.

"triggering a multiagency vehicle pursuit that ended when officers stopped the ambulance in a field west of Pittsville, Wisconsin." This phrase frames law enforcement action as necessary and decisive. It helps the police by making the pursuit sound justified and successful. It hides any doubt about whether the chase was the best choice or if alternatives were tried. The wording nudges readers to accept the officers’ response without question.

"The individual who drove off was identified as Benajamin Feltz." Using "the individual" instead of "man" or "suspect" is neutral but awkward; it downplays responsibility by sounding clinical. It helps distance the actor from the wrongdoing by using impersonal language. The phrasing can reduce emotional weight and accountability in the sentence. It subtly softens the image of someone who drove off.

"Medical crews had been providing care to a patient at a parking location in Wisconsin Rapids when Feltz entered the driver’s seat as one paramedic exited to assess the situation and another tried to stop him from leaving." This sentence packs many actions into one line, which compresses context and timing. It helps the narrative by making the seizure of the ambulance seem sudden and chaotic without clarifying motives. It hides whether there was any provocation or other context by presenting events in a single flow. The compressed order implies causality without evidence.

"Officers attempted to disable the vehicle with tire deflation devices, and Pittsville police ultimately used stop sticks to stop the ambulance after it entered a field." "Attempted" and "ultimately used" present law enforcement actions as measured and escalating. The wording helps portray officers as trying less forceful options first. It hides details about effectiveness or risks of those methods and suggests a careful approach that may or may not reflect reality.

"A drone was deployed to monitor the situation because of concern for the patient’s safety." This phrase emphasizes concern for the patient, which signals care and legitimacy for police tactics. It helps justify surveillance measures by linking them to safety. It hides any mention of privacy concerns or oversight about drone use. The wording steers the reader to see the drone as clearly appropriate.

"The patient who had been inside the ambulance was unharmed and transported to a hospital; the transport was not considered an emergency." This line reassures readers about the patient’s condition, stressing no harm. It helps calm potential alarm and supports the idea that the patient was safe despite the incident. It hides any nuance about the patient’s experience or trauma beyond physical harm. The clear, absolute phrasing leaves little room for other impacts.

"Feltz was booked into the Wood County Jail and faces requested charges including disorderly conduct, lewd and lascivious behavior, operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, obstructing emergency personnel, recklessly endangering safety, threats to law enforcement, and operating while intoxicated — third offense." Listing many charges in one sentence accentuates severity and breadth of alleged wrongdoing. It helps paint the subject as a serial or dangerous offender. It hides that these are "requested charges" and not convictions, which could bias readers toward assuming guilt. The long list increases negative impression.

"The Wisconsin Rapids Fire Department is inspecting the ambulance for mud and other damage." This detail focuses on property damage and the agency’s response. It helps show practical consequences and that the department is taking action. It hides any mention of why those details matter compared to the patient’s welfare or whether inspection findings could affect care. The choice to include this specific outcome emphasizes material impact over human aspects.

The text conveys fear and alarm through phrases that describe a dangerous and urgent situation, such as "took control of an ambulance," "pursuit," "drove away with the patient and paramedics still aboard," and "repeatedly refused commands to exit the vehicle." These words and actions create a sense of immediate danger to the patient, the paramedics, and the public. The fear is strong because the incident involves a moving vehicle carrying vulnerable people and a suspect who resists police direction; it directs the reader to feel concern for safety and to view the episode as serious and threatening. The reporting of a multiagency response, use of a drone, and deployment of stop sticks amplifies the alarm by showing significant resources and high-risk tactics were required, reinforcing the idea that the situation was dangerous and required urgent control.

The text also carries elements of relief and reassurance in the information that the "patient who had been inside the ambulance was unharmed and transported to a hospital; the transport was not considered an emergency," and that officers "approached and took Feltz into custody without further incident." These phrases introduce a moderate sense of relief because they resolve the immediate threat and show successful intervention. The relief serves to calm the reader after the alarm and to underline effective law enforcement and medical response, shaping the reader’s reaction toward confidence that the system protected those involved.

Anger and condemnation are implied by the detailed list of charges sought—"disorderly conduct, lewd and lascivious behavior, operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, obstructing emergency personnel, recklessly endangering safety, threats to law enforcement, and operating while intoxicated — third offense." Listing numerous serious charges produces a strong negative emotional stance toward the individual who drove off, guiding the reader to judge the behavior as wrongful and potentially habitual. This choice of language nudges readers toward disapproval and supports the idea that legal consequences are warranted.

Concern and caution are suggested through mentions of procedural and investigative details, such as the "Wisconsin Rapids Fire Department is inspecting the ambulance for mud and other damage" and the use of a drone to monitor the situation "because of concern for the patient’s safety." These expressions carry a measured, professional tone that is moderately concerned; they signal follow-up care, accountability, and attention to safety. This shapes the reader’s reaction by portraying authorities as thorough and conscientious, which builds trust in their handling of the incident.

The writing uses emotionally charged verbs and specific procedural details to persuade and to shape reader reactions. Words like "took control," "drove away," "pursued," "stopped sticks," and "refused commands" emphasize action and resistance, making the account vivid and tense rather than neutral. The sequence of events—medical care interrupted, sudden seizure of the vehicle, a long pursuit, tactical interventions, and eventual arrest—functions like a narrative arc that heightens emotional engagement by moving from crisis to resolution. Repetition of enforcement details (multiple agencies involved, list of charges, tactical tools used) magnifies the seriousness and culpability of the driver. Mentioning the patient was "unharmed" after the tense description creates contrast that increases the reader’s relief. The use of concrete specifics (locations, distance of pursuit, agencies, tools) lends authority and realism, which persuades readers to accept the account as credible and to feel concern followed by reassurance and judgment. Overall, emotional language and structured sequencing steer attention toward viewing the incident as dangerous, handled effectively, and deserving of legal consequence.