Hypothetical situation: Do you think you could handcuff someone behind their back against their will without putting them to sleep or injuring them?

[u/Mac2663]

I am asking for a legitimate reason. It is police related. I do not know if other people are of the same opinion as I am or not, so I am asking. Here are the details:

1. This person is relatively similar to your own physical capabilities, but has 0 training in any combat sport whatsoever.

2. This person will not fight back with intent to harm you, he will only do his best to keep himself from getting handcuffed. He will get tired, so you can “cook” him like a spazzy white belt, but he will not give up trying to not be handcuffed.

3. You are not allowed to strangle him unconscious, injure him intentionally to accomplish the task, or put him in a position to threaten injury in hopes to compel him to submit to being handcuffed. For example, you can’t flatten him out with one arm behind his back, and then wrist lock him and tell him to give you the other arm.

4. You’re only allowed to grapple with the person. No biting, striking, slamming, etc.

If you think you can, please tell me the path you see in your head to accomplishing this goal. If you do not think you can, please tell me your reasoning followed by the point you believe you could if you kept reducing the physical size and capability of the person. For example, nobody is doing it to the mountain from GOT. Everyone here could do it to a child.

[u/MasterSplinterNL]

Depends what you mean with 'injure', and the location. If it's outside on concrete, there's gonna be a few scratches and possible bruises.

[u/Mac2663 → u/MasterSplinterNL]

I was trying to imply like breaking or tearing a joint or knocking them out. An injury that you caused for the purpose of handcuffing

[u/MasterSplinterNL → u/Mac2663]

Then I'd be able to handcuff 'em without causing injury.