Replies

Secondly, Handcuffs do not stop backward motion, their purpose is to restrain physical attack by an agressor by restraining the ability to use both hands in a coordinated manner.

Why don't you speak plainly and lay your cards on the table. You can not reasonably be claiming that this kid, with his hands cuffed behind his back, was a threat to the officers. Maybe if an officer got right behind him, he could reach out and grab them, but they could easily grab him by the upper arm and hold him away.

What you are really claiming, I submit, is that if the kid grabbed the officer, the officer was justified in slamming him down and punching him as payback-- instant discipline. Is that your position?

"Why don't you speak plainly and lay your cards on the table. You can not reasonably be claiming that this kid, with his hands cuffed behind his back, was a threat to the officers. Maybe if an officer got right behind him, he could reach out and grab them, but they could easily grab him by the upper arm and hold him away. What you are really claiming, I submit, is that if the kid grabbed the officer, the officer was justified in slamming him down and punching him as payback-- instant discipline. Is that your position" Yes maam, thats what im claiming. I have been in situations where handcuffed subjects have begun to resist so violently by kicking, spitting and attempting to bite that they needed further restraint to be securely transported. Is that subject not a threat when they act in that manner??Secondly, in police work there is a theory called force continum (escalation of force level) as a Police Officer or private citizen for that matter, the law states you have a right to use appropriate force to defend yourself or another against force being used against you. For example, if someone points a firearm at you, you have a right to use deadly force, if you feel your life is in danger. But you also have a right to strike someone attempting to strike you. If this subject grabbed the MOS testes, then he CERTAINLY has the right, to strike the subject to force him to let go. So basically his actions, if the story the MOS is telling is accurate and truthful, were not only legal they were appropriate. However if the subject did not grab the MOS testes, the punch was inappropriate.