A man has died in police custody after an officer attempted to put him in a carotid restraint at the end of a seven-minute high-speed chase started because they suspected him of being a car thief.
David Glen Ward, 52, was driving his Honda Civic in Sonoma County, California last Wednesday, after having reported it stolen three day before.
But he didn't tell cops he had retrieved the vehicle before they ended up beating him with personal body weapons, using a Taser gun on him and trying to restrict the blood flow to his brain with a non-fatal maneuver.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
11 comments:
“trying to restrict the blood flow to his brain” is synonymous with murder. Fool shouldn’t run. Fool should never report anything to police. You can handle everything without them except they’ve made that illegal.
Who tries to outrun anybody with a Honda Civic? And then die trying? Oh never mind, it's Cali.
Non fatal maneuver? Sounds fatal to me.
They killed him with a "choke hold." I'm sorry, but that can certainly be a fatal maneuver if they don't let go, or the person has an underlying heart condition. The potential for death makes a choke hold a very dangerous "maneuver" to use on a suspect. Choking a suspect out cold is a bit of "overkill" by the cops.
Suicide by cop... his actions clearly show that. I think he was planning on being shot.
As stupid as he was I'm surprised he lived this long.
Northwest Woodsman: Folks, there is more to this story than presented in this article. My guess is that he was a convicted felon, probably had drugs or a gun in the vehicle , had active warrants for his arrest and he knew he’d be going to jail. Then he obviously resisted and a fight ensued whereby techniques used to subdue him resulted in him losing his life. I have used the lateral vascular neck restraint multiple times to subdue a violent suspect and no one ever died. However, that being said, in the heat of the moment, it could be taken too far and death could occur, particularly if there are underlying physical or medical issues. Still have should not have lost his life even though he contributed to it. If race is involved, this could get very complicated.
December 6, 2019 at 10:21 AM;
How in the hell do you "think" all that from out in Oregon? You sure have an imaginative mind. No substance, but imaginative. You must be a Democrat (contrary to your proclamations) because you just make stuff up. If you did that while you were doing police work, you were a bad cop.
Northwest Woodsman: Sorry to offend you 11:11, however, the lateral vascular neck restraint was taught in police academies and was sanctioned by policy. My comment is speculative based on my experience and it was just used as a hypothetical. Neither of us know any of the facts related to this incident. Officers could have been overly aggressive or just enough to restrain a combative suspect. The real question is why did he run in the first place? I can see why officers were pumped up as they had already used a PIT maneuver in their attempts to stop him. That is a somewhat drastic action normally used for stopping potentially violent, dangerous suspects. His actions would have caused great concern for officer and citizen safety. Not saying he deserved it, but he largely contributed to his demise.
Yeah, but dead men don't talk, right? I repeat, you were a bad cop, sanctioned policy, or not. I criticized how you made up a complete hypothesis without any facts. Sounds like you were the one that is offended, whether your deadly tactics were sanctioned, or not. Cops have a way of "justifying" everything they do, even when their excessive force gets someone killed. Cops like you will always defend cops, both the good ones, and the dirty ones. It's why so many of the public do not trust cops. They will lie on the stand. And do it all the time. As a member of the court, I see it almost daily. The court system knows it, and turns a blind eye to it. It's a joke to the court, because its an everyday occurrence. Sorry to bust your bubble.
Something's not right that guy used that car in a robbery or something an then he could say it wasn't even in his possession when the robbery occurred.
Post a Comment