Handcuffs are no more a weapon than a pointy stick or piece of rope.
They're not legally classified as a weapon anywhere in the US that I'm aware of. I suppose you could clunk someone in the head with them, thereby using them as a weapon.
But to flat out call them a 'weapon' is silly my friend.
> But to flat out call them a ‘weapon’ is silly my friend.
This would be one of the few instances where we disagree, my FRiend...
> Handcuffs are no more a weapon than a pointy stick or piece of rope.
Handcuffing someone is considered a use-of-force. Handcuffs, as a weapon, render your opponent temporarily disabled for as long as the handcuffs are applied (conceptually, a little bit like a Taser does). Used improperly they can cause lacerations, loss of circulation, tendon damage, permanent nerve damage and severe pain.
Of course they are weapons.
> They’re not legally classified as a weapon anywhere in the US that I’m aware of.
I’m not completely familiar with the US situation as it varies from state-to-state. I do know that in some states you are not permitted to use handcuffs without proper training and licensing. In Australia you aren’t permitted to possess them without a licence. (In NZ you can, paradoxically — our laws are often stronger than in Oz).
> I suppose you could clunk someone in the head with them, thereby using them as a weapon.
Or you could fasten them really, REALLY tight onto your perpetrator’s wrists, leave the double-lock off and wait a few minutes while his hands turn first purple and then black...
You can certainly easily injure someone by handcuffing them. Given that context, in what way are they *not* a weapon?