Handcuffs a no-no?

[hogdogs]

So in areas where you have the right to use any level of force to stop a violent felony could you use hand cuffs on the felon... LEGALLY?
Given the opportunity to have a set of full quality pro cuffs and the safe position to cuff it would give the person with gun etc. the ability to concentrate better on callin 911 etc.

If the BG complies with orders to avoid being shot, I would have them splayed out on their face no matter hot pavement fire ants or any other uncomfortable spot this takes place. If they could be cuffed up I might consider moving them to a safer spot.
Just curious at this wee hour waiting the final "death throes" of the coffee maker... Well there we go...
Brent

[Dingoboyx]

a whole lot of drama......

False imprisonment for one....
If the BG gets the better of you, you might be the one wearing them

& the worst thing, getting them off your missus... she might get cranky
oh, and the bad guy might not be impressed with all the pink feathers and fluff on them either

BTW Brent.... how come you are thinking of handcuffs as you are getting ready for bed? [evil snicker]

[hogdogs]

Up from bed VERY EARLY!!!
I was given a set of Smith and Wesson cuffs in a belt holster by a feller that I hosted on a hog hunt. I was curious as to the legality of their use on a felon by a citizen. I wouldn't attempt to cuff them from any position other than tem on their face and only if the missus took control the gun or even Junior (19). It would suck if they chose to cease compliance due to fire ant stings etc. and get them self shot for it. It was a random thought I had and felt the T&T regulars may have opinion (who woulda thunk TFL'ers would have opinions to voice) to put forth... I am not itching to go out cuffin' all the crack dealers either!
Brent

[BlindMansBluff]

1. possibility of charges such as false imprisonment and kid napping come to mind.
2. um why wouldn't some one at gun point comply with any orders you give, even to stay still
3. I am wondering where these thoughts come from it leaves me highly curious

[hogdogs]

Blind man, They routinely fail to comply with law enforcement officers by running from them from the get go or bolting away once grabbed even.
I figure it is safer legally to not use them even if it makes me safer.
Brent

[ZeSpectre]

A few thoughts.

Handcuffing someone who is putting up even the slightest resistance is very difficult.

Handcuffing -properly- so that they are not too tight and not too loose is very difficult under stress.

Improperly applied cuffs can cause all kinds of additional injuries and leave you WIDE OPEN for some heavy duty lawsuits (aside from charges related to illegal detention)

If one should decide to ignore the above listed thoughts, keep in mind that many (most) of the handcuffs out there are not "up to spec" for real world use so you want to research heavily before even considering using cuffs you might have.

Finally, if you are going to carry cuffs. Learn how the pro's hide a spare cuff key and have one with you, in your car, etc. Also learn how to uncuff yourself with your spare key.

That's about all my fuzzy brain will come up with right now.

[hogdogs]

Ze, While I am no pro... I have cuffed many hogs in the woods and yes it is difficult to undertake at times. We used to use (still will at times) cuffs as a quick hobble method on dog caught hogs until we started using hog hobble ringed straps...
I am also aware of sub-grade knock off cuffs. Had a set strip open one side when we put a hog in the pen and we had to get in there with the dogs to get the other side open which resulted in a dog getting cut.
These I was given are full pro grade S&W brand.
Brent

[THEZACHARIAS]

If theres someone else in the house, it would probably be easier (and safer) to have them call the cops so you can hold the guy there and not even have to touch him. Being in arms reach to put handcuffs on someone also puts them within arms reach of turning the tables on you.

[OldMarksman]

I think there's a distinction between using force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony and detaining a suspect. The latter would seem to fall into the realm of citizen's arrest.

Attorneys with whom I have spoken recommend against making citizen's arrests.

[hogdogs]

In florida a citizen can use any force needed to stop and detain a person engaged in a violent felony. Also if I were ever to draw on a person robbing me etc. the compliance I need to see is hands up and face flop while I call the cops. This goes for any level of force I use, hands, knife, gun, hammer... anything. I doubt I would ever feel a need or comfort from carrying cuffs. Shame junior showed an interest in them when we took the guy huntin' and he gifted them to junior, since they will just be a trinket in the house...
Nice neather "half holster" too.
Maybe I will buy me a fake badge and play "undercover copper" with momma... On second thought her "resisting arrest" might lead to me getting a black eye, broke nose and fat lip... She would fight more than yer average 6'4" 250 pound thug!
Brent

[rampage841512]

Detaining someone at gun point is going to fall prey to claims of false imprisonment and/or kidnapping as well as using handcuffs would. If you are holding a BG against their will that's the risk you take. I think if I could detain someone safely I would, but it's going to depend on the circumstances/crime attempted etc.

[absolute0]

No way is this a good idea for a civilian (like me) to even consider.

No way.

[skydiver3346]

Interesting question there. First of all, I have a nice set of S&W handcuffs that I keep in my drawer. But the bottom line is, you have to get very close to the bad guy to use them, (that could be dangerous).

I am not worried about false imprisonment (by using handcuffs) of a person who has broken in my home and/or threatened me and my family. To hell with their rights once they have done that. It just would depend on the particular situation, if I would ever use handcuffs or not. Maybe the best thing is to just keep your weapon trained on suspect until the police arrive? That is if you haven't already shot them already for breaking in your home.....

[A_McDougal]

A courtroom hurdle is proving that you weren't looking for an excuse to use your defensive carry weapon. That hurdle rises if you are carrying handcuffs (or a police scanner, lockpick set, bottle of chloroform, etc).

In your home, sure. But even then you could more easily justify having zip ties - which have legitimate around-the-home uses.

[Wagonman]

Maybe I will buy me a fake badge and play "undercover copper" with momma... On second thought her "resisting arrest" might lead to me getting a black eye, broke nose and fat lip... She would fight more than yer average 6'4" 250 pound thug!

Alright, I am sending you a bill for a new laptop-----I just sprayed coffee all over it.

Not a good idea with the cuffs. There might be a law against civilians having such items. Look into it.

+1 on ZeSpectre's points

[ArcticNemo]

When working as a security guard, I was to provide my own cuffs. I only used them once off duty, on a meth freak who stabbed me after I rebuffed his panhandling attempt on the way home from work ($2 paring knife). My fault letting him get too close. I'm glad I had a less lethal option, and even more glad that I had training in takedown and cuff use.
If you wish to carry cuffs on a regular basis, check local statutes, and get trained in their use. Learn how to apply, adjust, and double-lock them. Carry a spare key in your wallet, or somewhere you will always have it with you.
Takedown training is key, be aware that you will be putting yourself at greater risk by approaching or combatting a subject.

[Dingoboyx]

Prolly better off, if you want the BG to stay where he is, you better pistol whip him (If you have a Glock, he should be unconcious after about the 9th hit) otherwise, a 1911 a couple of hits should do it.... a decent size revolver, one hit should suffice

Wow Brent, easy for you, just get SWMBO to sit on him while you call the cops

If you have him cornered, you could always have the chainsaw at a slow idle, with the occasional chain spinning rev.... and do your best 'psycho' look at him, then hand him the phone and HE can call the cops

[frmboybuck]

In the fire service we call the wackers....

[KingEdward]

assuming BG isn't dead or unconscience... employing handcuffs for any reason
means physical contact with BG which should also mean a frisking and having an extra body or two available to help control resistance.

On almost any episode of COPS when a BG resists being cuffed, it always takes two trained people to get it done. And many shows, more than two.

And they all are trained and have sidearms.

I'll say no thanks to using cuffs. Too much Mr. Murphy coming into play.

[rantingredneck]

My own personal opinion..........

If we get to the point where the BG has ceased hostilities and is still mobile (meaning he ain't dead or too wounded to move), and he decides to put his shoe leather to good work heading in the other direction away from me and mine......so be it.

It's not my job to arrest and detain, just to protect me and mine. If he complies and faceplants himself in my foyer and waits for the boys in blue (actually grey here in the county) then all the better, but we ain't wrestling over it. If he runs, I'll give a good description and direction of travel, but I'm not giving chase or cuffing him.

[OldMarksman]

I am not worried about false imprisonment (by using handcuffs) of a person who has broken in my home and/or threatened me and my family. To hell with their rights once they have done that.

Of course, it matters not a whit what the homeowner thinks about the rights of an intruder...... that will be entirely up to the courts. And yes, the intruder has rights to due process under the law.

Maybe the best thing is to just keep your weapon trained on suspect until the police arrive?

And what would you do should the perp choose to depart? If you think the answer is "shoot", you had better consult an attorney.

Personally, from the standpoint of risk, I think I want them out. I don't want them to get the upper hand, and I don't want to take the risk of a negligent discharge.

That is if you haven't already shot them already for breaking in your home.....

Uh Oh! Do you actually think you can "shoot them for breaking in your home"?

The state will not impose the death penalty for that, nor can you.

You may use deadly force if necessary to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [yourself] or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" (Florida Statutes, Chapter 776, 776.012, Use of force in defense of person).

You are "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm ... if the person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred" (Florida Statutes, Chapter 776, 776.013, Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm).

That presumption may be rebuttable.

None of that above really means that you are justified in any way using deadly force as a punishment for a break-in. Of course, the anti gun community has argued otherwise, because they disapprove of the statutes that relieve the citizen of the duty to retreat and of the additional burden of proof for justifying self defense, and they would like to see the law repealed.

Here's a pretty good explanation of the relevant Florida statute:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....0&postcount=63

The statute says a PRESUMPTION is created. Generally, in statutory interpretation, that means that the burden of proof is simply shifted. Instead of you having to prove you were in fear of your life/bodily harm, the state would have to prove that you were not. Presumptions are REBUTTABLE. That means an intrepid prosecutor who wants to make a career for himself could go after you if you shot this hypothetical intruder in the back on his way out. Just for reference, the law changed in 2005. There are 5 cases on Westlaw since 2006 about this very issue, and that is at the appeals level. (at least one of the cases is about how the new law should be implemented to "offenders" who acted before the new law went into effect). That does not even count the number of cases that showed up at the trial court level, which frankly I am unwilling to go to the trouble of determining.

In Florida, if you shoot someone who is not a threat leaving your home, you are really taking a giant risk. You are banking on prosecutorial discretion, and you may not get it. And frankly, you may not deserve it.

At the very least, if you shoot someone on the way out of your home. Don't say a damn word to the police without your attorney present. Call an attorney immediately. Do what the attorney says. Don't even say anything to 911, other than, "a man has been shot at XXXX address, please respond immediately."

Here's a link to the laws per se:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...6/titl0776.htm

[BuckHammer]

In before the lawyers! Wait a second... Darn it! Missed it by just a little...

Seriously though, I doubt you would need to worry about it. I can't imagine a home invader sticking around for the police to arrive, or standing still while you cuff him. I don't see any point in trying to keep them from leaving, since getting them out of the house should be the goal. Just call the police and focus on remembering what he looked like.

[csmsss]

I would personally consider any intruder who, once down on the floor, attempted to rise in any manner, a threat to my own and my family's lives and handle the situation accordingly. Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to handcuff or otherwise physically restrain him/her. Anything you do which puts you closer to the bad guy than absolutely necessary is a very bad idea, in my view.

[ilbob]

I had some training from my security guard days on using cuffs.

I decided it was better not to even try.

Its a whole lot harder than it looks on TV if the suspect puts up even a tiny amount of resistance. It is virtually impossible for a single person to cuff a seriously uncooperative suspect.

Save the cuffs for the bedroom.

If you insist on cuffs, buy a good pair. The guy that taught my security guard class had a standing deal in all his classes. You and he both put up $20. You get to handcuff him behind his back. If he can't get out of them within 60 seconds you get the money, otherwise he gets it. Did not apply to S&W or Peerless brand cuffs. He made $20 in just about every class. cheap cuffs are relatively easy to defeat mechanically due to poor construction.

[jg0001]

Once again all the namby pamby's come out of the woodwork saying "don't try to detain, at all, or else"...

Someone breaks into your home, you get the tactical advantage, and ??? Well, exactly WHAT are you supposed to do then? Tell them to leave? Do nothing? Say nothing? What?

I don't see how you're not supposed to make even the most modest attempt at telling them to get on the ground while you await the cops. Sure, if they don't comply, that's another matter. But you still aren't saying exactly what you would do if not try to detain via some kind of threat, implied or otherwise.

What it comes down to is SOMEONE is going to be taking charge of the situation, and it may as well be YOU deciding how things play out and not the bad guy.

[none of the above is particular to using cuffs or not; I'd say that if you expected to wait a long time for police to arrive, handcuffs may be better than shaky hands pointing a gun -- though you probably don't want to have to put them on the BG yourself]