When would a CHL have legal right to handcuff

[Skaven]

When would a CHL holder have legal right to handcuff someone? I know that there is a clause about citizens arrest.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW.
(a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant,
arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence
or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as
an offense against the public peace.

But if you carry cuffs, what considerations have you taken knowing that the system is rigged in favor of the BG?

[OldCannon]

Yeah, um: Never.

Seriously, you lay that kind of restraint on a person and you can expect a world of legal hurt - the kind that will end in jail time AND civil suits.

Believe it or not: Arrest does NOT equal physical restraint.

[Skaven]

I figured as much, I just hear people carrying handcuffs on the forum and was wondering what was up.

[b322da]

When would a CHL holder have legal right to handcuff someone? I know that there is a clause about citizens arrest.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW.
(a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant,
arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence
or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as
an offense against the public peace.

But if you carry cuffs, what considerations have you taken knowing that the system is rigged in favor of the BG?

It is? Since when?

Is a CHL holder different from anyone else? Must handcuffs be used to make a citizen's arrest? Does an arrest necessarily include physical touching of any kind?

The answer to your question may be, "when you are satisfied that you are not making a false arrest, assault, kidnapping, or such, and you are satisfied that LEO's, DA's, judges and juries looking over your shoulder will agree with you."

In other words, If you believe that "the system is rigged in favor of the BG," the answer might be, "seldom if ever."

If your expressed attitude about a rigged system is correct, many knowledgeable experts would suggest that the short answer to your question is, "Never."

Elmo

[speedsix]

...what is up is that there are circumstances where citizens can lawfully arrest...and confine for delivery to a peace officer...and handcuffing or tying the perp up may keep deadly force from being necessary...and save others from being hurt...BUT:
...the person using them had better know the law and be well within it...
...he'd better be trained in proper cuffing procedures...many a cop has been beaten to a mess by a set of handcuffs on one wrist...
...most CHLs don't fit the above...and it's better that they don't use...or carry them...

[canvasbck]

I figured as much, I just hear people carrying handcuffs on the forum and was wondering what was up.

I believe you are referring to a recent post by gigag.........he's a LEO. I would be willing to bet that any posts you see on here concerning carrying cuffs would be ones made by LEOs.

[Skaven]

Good to know. I figured I wasn't going to bother with them, but I wanted to find out the real story before I made a decision one way or the other.

[Skaven]

As far as being rigged for the BG. I am referring to the fact that if I were to make one mistake in the process of handcuffing a person, the civil penalties could be devastating for me. ( have not found a statue that would make me immune from civil liability like the statue that is included in the use of deadly force.)

[flintknapper]

...what is up is that there are circumstances where citizens can lawfully arrest...and confine for delivery to a peace officer...and handcuffing or tying the perp up may keep deadly force from being necessary...and save others from being hurt...BUT:
...the person using them had better know the law and be well within it...
...he'd better be trained in proper cuffing procedures...many a cop has been beaten to a mess by a set of handcuffs on one wrist...
...most CHLs don't fit the above...and it's better that they don't use...or carry them...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


There's your answer folks.

[Charles L. Cotton]

A non-LEO carrying cuffs is treading on dangerous ground, in my opinion. I don't mean that it is illegal, but in the battle of perception v. reality, perception often prevails. It's not illegal to have Ty-Wraps and duct tape in your car or on your person, but if you are falsely accused of following someone, they will be described as a "rape kit." At least Ty-Wraps and duct tape have a legitimate use apart from restraining someone; not so with handcuffs. The vast majority of people, LEO's and non-LEO's, are going to view carrying cuffs as "strange," if not downright indicative of criminal intent. Again, perception often controls over reality.

As for using cuffs to avoid having to use deadly force, I would note that cuffing someone is the most dangerous part of an arrest for a single person. If you have to fight them to get the cuffs on, you are increasing both the chance that you are going to get hurt or killed and the chance that you will have to use deadly force in self-defense. If you had no legal right to restrain/cuff the person, then it isn't self-defense, it's murder; they were engaging in lawful self-defense, not you. If the person appears to be complying with your commands, they could be feigning compliance, or they could change their minds, and when you holster your weapon to cuff them, the fight is on. I don't wear a badge anymore, so if I have to pull a gun on someone, I certainly don't want to get that close to what scares me.

No matter how well-intended, non-LEO's carrying cuffs is risky business.

Chas.

[WildBill]

As far as being rigged for the BG. I am referring to the fact that if I were to make one mistake in the process of handcuffing a person, the civil penalties could be devastating for me. ( have not found a statue that would make me immune from civil liability like the statue that is included in the use of deadly force.)

I don't think that the system is rigged for the BG. In fact, I think it is quite the opposite. In this particular scenario, it is not the system that you should be concerned. The real issue is when a citizen tries to go beyond self-defense and starting to perform the function of an LEO.

[Beiruty]

One can find it ridiculous that TX law justify the use deadly force, including shooting a person who is commiting a felony in self defense and defense of others, and some here are afraid from legal ramification from arresting and restraing said person commiting a felony. Something here does not compute. If you are justified to use deadly force, restraining and detaining is less of concern as long as it justifed. From the noted section of law above, arrest by any person of person commiting a felony is justified. When a LEO arrest someone what they do? They physically restrain him and hauling him to the jail for prcessing. A Citizen can restain a person committinng a felomy and call 911 to take over and do the reset.

[sugar land dave]

I have a CHL to protect myself and my household. I have no authorization to fight crime, chase sirens, or handcuff others. It's not my job, and I have to believe there would be more than a few instances where a LEO would NOT appreciate me muddling around in his domain.

[WildBill]

One can find it ridiculous that TX law justify the use deadly force, including shooting a person who is commiting a felony in self defense and defense of others, and some here are afraid from legal ramification from arresting and restraing said person commiting a felony. Something here does not compute. If you are justified to use deadly force, restraining and detaining is less of concern as long as it justifed. From the noted section of law above, arrest by any person of person commiting a felony is justified. When a LEO arrest someone what they do? They physically restrain him and hauling him to the jail for prcessing. A Citizen can restain a person committinng a felomy and call 911 to take over and do the reset.

I don't think that the main objection is the legal right, but rather if it is in your best interest to try to handcuff a person by yourself. Carrying around a firearm with extra ammo is hard enough to do without having another piece of hardware that you will probably never use. In addition to posssible physical injury there is the added risk of contracting HIV or hepatitis from a BG who is bleeding. In most scenarios that I can imagine, I would feel safer restraining the BG by pointing my gun from a distance.

[b322da]

One can find it ridiculous that TX law justify the use deadly force, including shooting a person who is commiting a felony in self defense and defense of others, and some here are afraid from legal ramification from arresting and restraing said person commiting a felony. Something here does not compute. If you are justified to use deadly force, restraining and detaining is less of concern as long as it justifed. From the noted section of law above, arrest by any person of person commiting a felony is justified. When a LEO arrest someone what they do? They physically restrain him and hauling him to the jail for prcessing. A Citizen can restain a person committinng a felomy and call 911 to take over and do the reset.

I believe we "old timers" should always keep in mind what I view as our responsibility to educate others, particularly those newbies somewhat awed by the whole thing, to use their unique privileges with discretion coupled with good judgment, or they may foolishly cause them to be circumscribed or disappear altogether.

I would go so far as to even suggest that something 180 degrees out from advice coming from our mentor, Chas. Cotton, should be automatically distrusted and be presumed to be incorrect until proven otherwise.

Elmo