Handcuff them.
... unless their injuries involve dismemberment.
Handcuff. You don't know how injured they really are. They could easily just fake the seriousness of the injury and attack the unsuspecting officers. It may be more painful if you are injured, but a lot less painful than getting tasered or beat down.
Handcuff them. It's police procedure for arresting suspects. Doesn't matter how injured they are.
People would be screaming bloody murder if a cop died from not restraining them further. Indignity to a criminal? Meh. If the person didn't actually do anything wrong, or a grievence of acceptable nature... then I could see it as something along those lines. But if someone warrants getting shot at, they obviously chose to relinquish their dignity (Assuming the cops aren't abusing their power, that is.).
They don't know the people aren't still armed or dangerous, and it's the criminal's fault for being a threat to officers and civilians. Maybe it's unnecessary if they're clearly dead.
Handcuff them. It pretty much makes sure no more injuries occur.
As long as there's an exception in cases where paralysis from moving somebody incorrectly is a possibility, like with spine or neck injuries, it seems okay. In cases where someone clearly isn't moving, and where there's a possibility of spine or neck injuries, it can't be that difficult to simply keep an eye on them until somebody who KNOWS how to move people without damaging them shows up.
Actually police are allowed to use judgment on handcuffing. There is no proper protocol for handcuffing (at least here in GA). It is recommended they cuff all suspects for the officer's protection.
P.S. I have 1 year left for a criminal justice degree. Any other police queries?
Over here there's no police discretion.
I have... 2 - 3 years for mine!
handcuff them, just so inocent people like us can laugh at them
Handcuff unless there is a mdeical condition that outweighs the potential harm that operson could inflict.
That would only work of arrest warrants where they have time to do a background search on a background. When it comes to crimes out on the street it wouldnt work.
Yeah, it would. If he's got a broken wrist and doesnt seem a harm, dont cuff him. If hes got a broken leg and just stabbed someone to death, his *** is gettin cuffed.
Essentially, leave it up to the officers. They would have to have some reason to think that medically it would be obviously bad for them not to cuff someone.
Ever seen a guy handcuffed with lacerated wrists? I didn't eat chicken for months.
Temporary paralysis using a sleeping gas spray canister would be a harmless solution instead of handcuffs.
If he has brittle bone disease, running from the police would already be a bad idea and it would be his own fault.
Pretty sure committing crimes are bad ideas.
Yeah, it's your fault for being in that situation. It's really for everyone's safety they get cuffed, and if the person has a problem with it they shouldn't've, you know, broken the law.
Exactly, so just handcuff them anyway ;-)
Yeah. Duh.
Like I said, unless there is an obvious (i.e. reasonable) reason to think that cuffing them would cause harm outweighing the harm that person poses to the general public/the arresting officer, then they should get cuffed as warranted.
Im not saying that suspects are criminals. Just that criminals are dumb.
The worst most recent case of officers confusing innocent people with suspect was the killing of a Brazillian man on the udnerground tube who was mistaken as a terror suspect following the bombings in London.
People with hemophilia, aids, and diabetes can get braclets that say what they're health is like incase of an accident. My cousin has hemophilia and had to deal with the cops on a regular basis (not sure why, but I bet it was preventable,). When the cops saw his braclet they didn't give a ****, even though they could kill him internally when they slamed him against a squad car. It's **** like that cops get away with that **** people off.
Just because you have a health problem doesn't mean you're supposed to get special treatment. I mean, let's say it was until they apprehended your cousin that they found out THAT he had hemophilia, and not before. I mean, it's not like an officers job to protect the well being of the person committing the crime, but the safety of the ones around him and himself.
Cops knew he had hemophilia prior to slamming him; they just didn't like him for having a big mouth. Doesn't excessive force tie into caring about the criminal?
Just because police officers are employed by the state to enforce the law doesn't mean they get to do so without following rules or, you know, being decent human beings. They're not some magical arbiter of divine authority who need absolute freedom or anything like that. They shouldn't be above the law just because they enforce it. If they're unreasonably brutal or excessive in their application of force they should be charged with assault.
I know I'd prefer to live in a society where cops have to err on the side of caution and restraint and following decent internal guidelines even if it occasionally means they can't be as "effective" as they'd be if we gave them total power. Much better than living in a society where people get shot for no reason, and every encounter with some goon in uniform means you're risking getting hurt or worse regardless of whether you've done anything wrong
I must say, I'm a little disturbed by the recent trend towards people knee-jerk justifying more or less everything Law Enforcement does. Have we suddenly forgotten there's actually a lot of douchebags on self-righteous power-trips wearing those uniforms? Where did this new attitude come from? Christ, crime has been trending broadly downwards across the developed world for twenty years, yet anyone'd think the opposite was true judging by people's changing attitudes.
I think I blame TV.
Or, you know, it's just handcuffing a guy who obviously did something bad enough to get arrested and something dangerous enough to get hurt. So it's not like they're randomly beating the **** out of people just because.
Except, you know, for the part where sh[url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/they-threw-me-down-they-hurt-me-they-searched-my-bra/2007/12/07/1196813021247.html]it like this happens[/url].
Well I honestly don't believe that happens to too many old ladies. I see your point, that's ridiculous, but when compared to all the people that are rightfully arrested, it's a small minority and likely only happened because the officers were *******s who shouldn't even be part of the force.