You can tell based on the pattern of damage. Handcuffs placed very tightly will bite into the skin and cause skin damage to the immediate site, typically beyond the epidermal layer, and because they are cutting off circulation, will cause ischemic injury to areas distal to the handcuff placement and deep to the integumentary borders (because nerves especially are a little more prone to damage due to hypoxia, dying in as little as 3-5 minutes if the area is completely hypoxic). The damage would essentially be similar in appearance to the ligature marks made during a strangulation; you’d see a band of very damaged tissue. If the only thing that had occurred to damage this individual’s skin was handcuffs being too tight, you’d see the line that is pictured in the second and third images, more damage from it, and it would be the only injury.
If you look at picture 1 and 3, you can see that the damage is very wide compared to the handcuff width, and not localized in a single band. The damage is also all superficial, at it looks like it barely went through to the dermis, much less the hypodermis. These seem like scrapes from the individual pulling and twisting against the cuffs.
Thank you, I knew the photos didn’t look right, just didn’t know how to say it. So satisfying to see a reasonable theory being offered instead of kneejerk reactions. Of course, a emotional reaction is normal when you see photos of an injury in this context, but there is much more to the story.
I feel like that’s a false dichotomy because it implies there’s a valid reason for the government to physically hurt you. Sovcits have a few screws loose. On a bad day I might have a few screws loose. Do I deserve to be injured because I’m acting erratically? Where’s the line where it’s okay for the government to injure you on side and not okay on the other? I feel like that line is probably much closer to “actively shooting people” than “reacting poorly because they’ve lost connection with the reality of government.”
I don’t know what they’re saying, but those cuffs were too tight.
They were arrested for resisting arrest and driving without a registration, and their car or truck or gas powered mad max tricycle was towed.
Agreed, those cuffs were way too tight. Those disconnected from reality don’t improve via violence.
How can you guys tell the difference between damage caused by tight cuffs vs. somebody spazzing out?
You can tell based on the pattern of damage. Handcuffs placed very tightly will bite into the skin and cause skin damage to the immediate site, typically beyond the epidermal layer, and because they are cutting off circulation, will cause ischemic injury to areas distal to the handcuff placement and deep to the integumentary borders (because nerves especially are a little more prone to damage due to hypoxia, dying in as little as 3-5 minutes if the area is completely hypoxic). The damage would essentially be similar in appearance to the ligature marks made during a strangulation; you’d see a band of very damaged tissue. If the only thing that had occurred to damage this individual’s skin was handcuffs being too tight, you’d see the line that is pictured in the second and third images, more damage from it, and it would be the only injury.
If you look at picture 1 and 3, you can see that the damage is very wide compared to the handcuff width, and not localized in a single band. The damage is also all superficial, at it looks like it barely went through to the dermis, much less the hypodermis. These seem like scrapes from the individual pulling and twisting against the cuffs.
Thank you, I knew the photos didn’t look right, just didn’t know how to say it. So satisfying to see a reasonable theory being offered instead of kneejerk reactions. Of course, a emotional reaction is normal when you see photos of an injury in this context, but there is much more to the story.
It’s not hard to believe that the police would intentionally harm someone who didn’t perfectly follow their instructions. I admit, this is a prejudiced take against the police.
I feel like that’s a false dichotomy because it implies there’s a valid reason for the government to physically hurt you. Sovcits have a few screws loose. On a bad day I might have a few screws loose. Do I deserve to be injured because I’m acting erratically? Where’s the line where it’s okay for the government to injure you on side and not okay on the other? I feel like that line is probably much closer to “actively shooting people” than “reacting poorly because they’ve lost connection with the reality of government.”
Someone missing a registration shouldn’t be cuffed in the first place.
they had to drag his ass out of the car, you know he wasn’t listening to a thing they said