David the greatest (can't find his post) asked why women cops handcuff thighter than men...he got some rude ..

Question

answers), but I think he might be right...I was with a bf a while back and he got arrested and cuffed by a female cop while a male cop stood by and watched...I saw the whole thing....she was brutal...she twisted and I do mean womanhandle him and forcably twist his wrist behind his back and used some type of odd handcuff without chains...she applied them as tight as she could and he could not even turn his wrists...actually he had marks on them for days and some slight pain....what did she have to prove...there was no possible way he even had a chance to move or escape..and a male officer just stood there and watched the whole thing...I think they both thought is was funny...

Answer 1

girl cops want to prove that men arent the only ones who are strict and tough.

Answer 2

Women cannot compete equally with men when it comes to sheer physical strength. Accordingly, women peace officers need to get their point across quickly, even if that means stating "you are under arrest" and then grabbing someone's hand and putting it behind their back.

Any Peace Officer, regardless of gender, has the right to assess the situation and use force if they believe there could be a risk of flight or risk of violence or even for the safety of the one under arrest.

The hinged cuffs, as opposed to the chain cuffs, are quicker to use. There is also less chance of the hinged cuffs breaking and it is impossible for the arrested individual to slip them under and bring their hands to the front, thereby posing a threat to the Officer.

Peace officers are trained to say 'please put your hands behind your back' if they feel there is sufficient cause to restrain. Failure to do so is resisting arrest. Arguing that you should not be arrested (if your b/f did that) isn't the intelligent thing to do. If an Officer says you're under arrest, you're under arrest ~ the decision has been made. Once someone resists arrest, in whatever manner, the arresting Officer (and their partner) are authorized by law to use whatever degree of force they feel appropriate to the situation.

I seriously doubt the Officers found amusement in making an arrest. There is always the chance of injury when making an arrest. If her partner, the male Officer, stood by and observed, then he was allowing her to do what needed to be done and was not insulting her by stepping in and assuming she could not handle her job. Obviously, she has a good partner!

Stating there was no opportunity to escape simply because a male Officer was nearby is ridiculous. People escape from male Officers frequently. The point is to make sure someone *doesn't* escape. Escapes almost allways tend to come to a bad end for someone and the duty of the Peace Officer is to ensure the safety of themselves, the public and the detainee.

The main point is: don't do something that is going to get you arrested.

It sounds as though both you and your b/f are upset that it was a *woman* that arrested him. The fault and cause of arrest lies completely at the feet of your b/f. Had he not done something to cause himself to get arrested, he would never have had been handcuffed to begin with; therefore, the marks and the 'slight pain' are his own fault.