A man took control of a Wisconsin Rapids ambulance that already had a patient inside, leading to a multiagency pursuit that ended with the suspect in custody and the patient evaluated at a hospital.

Paramedics had loaded a patient into the ambulance and were attending to them when a bystander or passerby entered the driver’s seat and drove the vehicle away, forcing the two paramedics to exit the ambulance for their safety. Emergency lights remained activated as the ambulance left Wisconsin Rapids and traveled through dirt roads at a landfill and onto Highway 73. Officers said the vehicle reached speeds in excess of 70 miles per hour.

Law enforcement pursued the ambulance for about 18 miles over roughly 40 minutes. Officers from multiple agencies deployed tire-deflation devices and stop sticks; initial attempts failed to stop the vehicle. About 20 minutes into the incident, a tire deflated, and the ambulance left the roadway near Pittsville, traveled through a ditch and became stuck in a muddy field. A drone was used to assess the scene because of concern for the patient’s safety. Officers approached the stopped vehicle with ballistic shields and long guns; the driver emerged unclothed and unarmed, was placed face down, handcuffed and taken into custody, and was transported to the Wood County Jail.

The patient was evaluated and taken to a hospital for treatment; reports indicate the patient was uninjured. The ambulance sustained minor damage and was later towed; the fire department cleaned mud from the vehicle to assess any damage. Police identified the arrested man as 37-year-old Benjamin (Benajamin/Benjamin) Feltz of Nekoosa; reports include both spellings of his first name. He remained in custody on tentative or recommended charges that include operating while intoxicated (third offense) and a range of other counts being requested through the district attorney’s office, including disorderly conduct, lewd and lascivious behavior, operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, obstructing emergency personnel, recklessly endangering safety, and threats to law enforcement. Booking records cited in one account list more than 10 prior offenses for the suspect, including battery, aggravated assault, and previous driving-while-intoxicated convictions.

Local officials described the incident as placing officers, other motorists, the patient and the suspect at risk. Police did not provide an explanation for the driver’s lack of clothing. An industry group was noted in one report as recording more than 40 stolen ambulances or EMS vehicles between January 2024 and June 2025.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (pittsville) (landfill) (ambulance) (paramedics) (ditch) (drone) (patient) (arrested) (strip) (shocking) (outrageous) (scandal) (outrage) (entitlement)

Overall judgment: The article is primarily a news narrative about an unusual crime and police response. It offers almost no practical, actionable help to a typical reader, goes only as deep as the sequence of events, has limited personal relevance for most people, and misses multiple opportunities to teach safety principles or explain procedures. Below I break that down point by point and then offer practical, general guidance the article omitted.

Actionable information The article contains no clear steps, choices, instructions, or tools that a reader could use soon. It describes what happened—an unauthorized person took an ambulance with a patient inside, led police on a pursuit, and was arrested—but it does not tell readers what to do in similar situations, how to assess risks, or how to respond if they are involved or nearby. There are no contact details, checklists, or recommended actions for victims, witnesses, or emergency workers. When a news story reports an event without providing guidance, the result is informational but not actionable.

Educational depth The piece reports surface facts (who, what, where, when) but does not explain causes, systems, or procedures. It does not explore why the incident occurred (no motive, no behavioral or medical context), how ambulances are supposed to be secured, how law enforcement decides to use drones and ballistic shields, or what protocols exist for patient safety during vehicle thefts. There are no statistics, comparative context, or expert explanation that would help a reader understand how rare this is or what systemic risks exist. In short, it remains superficial.

Personal relevance For most readers this is a one-off incident with limited personal impact. It may be relevant to residents of the immediate area or emergency workers curious about occupational risks, but the article does not connect the event to broader safety concerns or steps individuals can take to protect themselves. It therefore fails to translate the story into meaningful takeaways for readers’ safety, finances, health, or responsibilities.

Public service function The article does not provide warnings, safety guidance, or emergency information. It recounts a dangerous event but offers no public-service elements such as “what to do if you’re a bystander at an emergency scene,” “how EMS vehicles are secured,” or “how to report suspicious behavior.” Because it simply recounts the incident, it serves little public-protective function beyond informing readers that the event occurred.

Practical advice quality There is no practical advice offered. The article does not advise bystanders, patients, or EMS crews on realistic, simple actions to take in similar circumstances. Because there are no steps to evaluate, nothing in the article can be judged as vague or unrealistic—there is simply nothing.

Long-term impact The story focuses narrowly on a brief event and gives no guidance for planning ahead, improving habits, or avoiding similar problems. It does not suggest policy changes, training for EMS, or community measures. Therefore it offers no lasting benefit beyond a single news report.

Emotional and psychological impact The article’s tone is factual and reports an alarming event, which may provoke fear or shock. Without context, safety guidance, or recommended actions, readers are left with unsettling details but no constructive way to respond. That can increase anxiety without empowering readers.

Clickbait or sensationalism The article contains dramatic elements (high-speed chase, naked suspect, drone, ballistic shields) but does not appear to overpromise beyond reporting those details. It does rely on inherently sensational facts; however, it neither embellishes them with speculative claims nor uses them to provide deeper analysis. The nakedness detail is reported without explanation and seems included for shock value.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide The article missed numerous chances to be useful. It could have explained basic EMS vehicle security, typical police pursuit protocols, recommended behavior for EMS personnel and bystanders during an emergency scene, how patients’ rights and safety are protected, or steps patients and families can take after such incidents (e.g., seeking medical records, filing complaints). It could have linked the incident to broader safety practices, such as locking vehicle doors at scenes or training for handling vehicle thefts involving patients. The piece did not suggest where readers could learn more or how to verify related claims.

Practical, realistic guidance the article failed to provide When you encounter or witness an emergency scene, prioritize personal safety and the safety of the patient. Keep a safe distance from vehicles and moving traffic, avoid stepping between vehicles and fleeing people, and do not attempt to physically stop a vehicle unless you are trained and it is safe to do so. If you see suspicious behavior around an ambulance or emergency vehicle, move to a safe location and call 911 immediately with specific details: the vehicle type, direction of travel, license plate if visible, and whether a patient is involved. If you are a patient or family member involved in an ambulance incident, accept medical care at the nearest appropriate facility even if the transport was disrupted, ask for a copy of medical records and incident reports, and document what happened in writing while details are fresh. For emergency responders and organizations, basic precautions can reduce risks: keep vehicle doors locked when feasible, position vehicles to reduce exposure to traffic, assign one crew member to monitor the scene while others focus on patient care, and train staff on how to respond if a vehicle is taken or a scene becomes unsafe. If you drive or travel through an area where a police pursuit is occurring, pull over safely and follow police directions—do not follow the pursuit or try to record it from unsafe positions. To evaluate news like this critically, look for follow-up reporting that explains motives, outcomes, and official statements; compare multiple credible local outlets; and expect authorities to release more information after investigations conclude. These steps are general, practical, and widely applicable without requiring outside data or specialized training.

"Paramedics had loaded a patient into the ambulance when a bystander entered the driver’s seat and drove away, forcing the medical crew to exit the vehicle for their safety." This phrase names actions and who did them. It uses active voice and points blame at the bystander. It does not shift responsibility away from the driver. It helps readers see who caused danger, not hide it.

"Emergency lights remained active as the ambulance left the city, maneuvered around tire deflation devices, crossed dirt roads at a landfill, and later reached Highway 73 where speeds exceeded 70 miles per hour." Saying "speeds exceeded 70 miles per hour" uses strong concrete detail that makes the chase seem more dangerous. The wording pushes alarm by highlighting speed and obstacles. It strengthens a sense of risk without offering calm or balancing details.

"A tire deflated about 20 minutes into the incident, causing the ambulance to leave the roadway near Pittsville and travel through a ditch." This sentence links the tire deflation directly to leaving the roadway with "causing," which treats the relationship as certain. That phrasing removes doubt and frames the sequence as a direct cause-and-effect without hedging.

"Law enforcement used a drone to assess the scene and approached the stopped vehicle with ballistic shields and long guns." Listing "ballistic shields and long guns" emphasizes heavy force. The word choice highlights weapons and armor, steering readers to see the response as militarized. It frames police actions as highly tactical rather than routine.

"The driver emerged from the ambulance unclothed and unarmed, was taken into custody after being placed face down and handcuffed, and was transported to the Wood County Jail." Including "unclothed" draws attention in a sensational way. That detail is not explained and may increase shock. It frames the suspect in a humiliating light without context for why that mattered.

"Law enforcement identified the driver as 37-year-old Benjamin Feltz of Nekoosa, who remained in custody on tentative charges that include third-offense driving while intoxicated." Calling the charges "tentative" softens certainty about legal status while still naming the alleged crime. The balance of naming the person and the alleged offense but labeling charges tentative subtly preserves legal caution while keeping the accusation prominent.

"Police provided no explanation for the driver’s lack of clothing." This short sentence highlights an absence: it points out the lack of explanation and suggests incompleteness. It draws attention to police silence, which can lead readers to suspect wrongdoing or concealment without saying so explicitly.

The text conveys several emotions through its description of events, even though it is written in a straightforward news style. Foremost among these is fear and urgency, evident in phrases describing a high-speed pursuit, emergency lights active, maneuvering around tire deflation devices, speeds exceeding 70 miles per hour, and the ambulance leaving the roadway and traveling through a ditch. These action words and safety-focused details create a strong sense of danger; the intensity is high because the account emphasizes rapid movement, risk to the medical crew, and use of police tactics. The purpose of this fear-driven language is to make the reader aware of the threat to people involved and to prompt concern about public safety. It guides the reader to worry about the patient, paramedics, and the community as a whole.

Closely tied to fear is anxiety and tension about the safety of the medical crew and the patient. The description that paramedics had to exit the vehicle “for their safety,” that emergency lights remained active while the vehicle sped off, and that law enforcement approached with ballistic shields and long guns builds a moderate-to-high level of tension. This tension serves to underline the seriousness of the situation and to justify the heavy police response, steering the reader to view the incident as a grave and exceptional breach of normal safety.

The text also evokes alarm and shock through unexpected and unsettling details, especially when noting the driver emerged unclothed and unarmed. This detail adds a jarring, almost surreal element that raises the emotional intensity to a strong level because it is unusual and troubling. The inclusion of this detail without explanation invites the reader to feel unsettled or confused, which can heighten interest and concern about the suspect’s state and motivations.

There is an implicit sense of relief and control conveyed toward the end of the account, when the suspect was taken into custody, placed face down and handcuffed, transported to jail, and the patient was taken to a hospital for evaluation and treatment. These outcomes lower perceived immediate danger and generate a moderate sense of reassurance and closure. This relief helps the reader feel that order was restored and that authorities managed the crisis, which can build trust in the emergency responders and law enforcement described.

A subtler emotional current is indignation or disapproval, suggested by the identification of tentative charges including third-offense driving while intoxicated and by the fact the bystander unlawfully took control of an ambulance with a patient inside. This creates a moderate moral judgment against the driver and frames his actions as reckless and blameworthy. That judgment steers the reader toward condemning the behavior and supporting legal consequences.

The writer uses specific word choices and concrete action details to increase emotional impact rather than neutral summary. Verbs like “took control,” “drove away,” “forced,” “maneuvered,” and “left the roadway” are active and vivid, making the scene immediate and tense. Mentioning “high-speed pursuit,” exact speeds, and the timeline marker “about 20 minutes into the incident” adds drama and a sense of escalation. The contrast between the vulnerable patient inside and the aggressive motion of the ambulance sharpens emotional stakes. The text also balances alarming details (unclothed driver, ballistic shields, long guns) with calming outcomes (arrest, hospital evaluation), which guides the reader through fear to reassurance. Repetition of movement and safety-related terms—lights active, tire deflation devices, crossing dirt roads, ditch—reinforces danger and keeps attention on risk. Omissions, such as the lack of explanation for the driver’s unclothed state, provoke curiosity and unease by leaving a gap that the reader notices. Altogether, these techniques—vivid verbs, specific details, juxtaposition of threat and resolution, and selective omission—work to heighten emotional responses of fear, concern, shock, and eventual relief, shaping the reader’s view of the event as both serious and effectively handled.