If a suspect actively resists arrest and puts his hands up, what would justify the use of an impact weapon?

The use of an impact weapon in response to a suspect's actions is governed by the principle of proportionality and the nature of the threat posed. In this scenario, the situation indicates that the suspect is actively resisting arrest but has also put his hands up, which often signifies surrender or a decreased threat. Therefore, the justification for employing an impact weapon would not align with the level of threat presented at that moment.

If the suspect is showing signs of compliance by raising his hands, the response should typically involve techniques appropriate to the level of resistance, rather than escalating to the use of an impact weapon. The justification for using such force hinges on the need to protect oneself or others from immediate harm. Since the suspect is not physically threatening officers or creating a situation where their safety is at risk despite resisting arrest, using an impact weapon would not be appropriate and would be seen as excessive force.

By recognizing that the option to use an impact weapon does not correspond to the threat presented, it becomes clear that the emphasis must always be on managing the situation with the least amount of force necessary, ensuring compliance while minimizing the risk of escalation.