Very nice cuffs. Though if they used ASP rigid handcuffs there would be less chance of injury because the contact points are smooth and rounded and there's a flat spot in the bow which contacts the wrist so that rather than a hotspot in the circular shape contacting the wrist, it is a wider flat area which spreads the contact pressure rather than concentrating it. Plus the double lock can be not only operated by the spike on the end of the key, but they can be fully unlocked and re-double locked quickly via the key for getting the right level of tightness if they've been put on too tight.They cost more money (They are an American product, I have videos if you want to see them) than British TCH rigid handcuffs but they provide all the same features but then they add some features and safety. If I was in some sort of security guard role, trained in the use of handcuffs, I would absolutely want a pair of ASP rigid Ultra cuff (or chain linked), exactly for the safety reasons I stated.
"Responsibility for the use of force rests with the police officer exercising that force. Officers must be able to show that the use of force was lawful, proportionate and necessary in the circumstances. Using handcuffs, for example, may not always be a necessary or proportionate response. Please note, use of force may also engage articles 2 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights(opens an external website in the same tab) (ECHR), where the force is deemed unlawful and/or unnecessary." College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice.
What is noted doesn't happen about anybody being observed. A constable can use restraints and justify the use on paper, but in reality tell a lie to why they were used, such as the person isn't known, which is considered a false use, or given a historic example such as what happened in Croydon. Essentially a use of force may be illegal, with video evidence, that is if there is any to prove so. Use can be easily justified by simply stating why, but the reason may be false, almost used in ambushing to arrest somebody when there was no need to use them. Hence puting somebody in danger. What the college of police states is theory, which isn't always followed.
A detainee who is restrained should be under constant observation (level 3) or in close proximity (level 4) so that officers can monitor all vital signs and make appropriate intervention if a medical emergency arises. A basic principle is that a detainee should not be wearing handcuffs during a medical examination or during the evidential drink/drug drive procedure - unless it can be justified based upon the assessment of threat and risk.
