Security Guards?

KarlChea

I'm just wondering how far security guards are allowed by law to remove someone from a premises?

i.e If someone was to be removed, could they physically remove them even without resistance?

Also, if they harass and individual within the premises, after them being taken out - what action can be taken?

KarlChea

Can't edit > Where can I read more about this?

Zambia

KarlChea wrote: »

I'm just wondering how far security guards are allowed by law to remove someone from a premises?

i.e If someone was to be removed, could they physically remove them even without resistance?

Also, if they harass and individual within the premises, after them being taken out - what action can be taken?

Think of it this way, if you were in my house how much force do you think I am allowed to use to remove you.

Have a read
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/print.html#sec18

Aka Ishur

KarlChea wrote: »

I'm just wondering how far security guards are allowed by law to remove someone from a premises?

i.e If someone was to be removed, could they physically remove them even without resistance?

Also, if they harass and individual within the premises, after them being taken out - what action can be taken?

Your post has a few contradictions. for example by not leaving when asked, you are resisting. Even if you are just standing there arguing your point, you are resisting. Any further resistance just compounds this. The security guards actions to remove you should be proportional of course and they can use restraining techniques if they believe their safety or the safety of others is at risk.

Also how can they "harass" an individual within the premises if they have been taken out. You can't be both in and out of the premises.

goz83

As above. Removal of a person from a premises is allowed, as long as it is proportional.

First, you are asked.
If you refuse, you can be asked again.
If you refuse, you can be physically escorted off the premises.
If you resist, you can be restrained and removed.
If you become violent, the Gardai will be called and they will remove you.

MarkAnthony

KarlChea wrote: »

I'm just wondering how far security guards are allowed by law to remove someone from a premises?

To the edge of the property I'd imagine.

... I'll get my coat.

Carawaystick

Zambia wrote: »

Think of it this way, if you were in my house how much force do you think I am allowed to use to remove you.

Have a read
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/print.html#sec18

Assuming your house is your home
"The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law" but homes are usually not guarded by bouncers.

the link you linked states clearly drunk people aren't breaking the law....


I'd imagine a bouncer can legally remove someone from the real estate of their employer and then a bit more so they won't be causing an obstruction or a danger to themselves,
so leaving someone immediately outside a fire escape or on a busy road mightn't be great places to leave someone.

Zambia

Carawaystick wrote: »

Assuming your house is your home
"The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law" but homes are usually not guarded by bouncers.

the link you linked states clearly drunk people aren't breaking the law....


I'd imagine a bouncer can legally remove someone from the real estate of their employer and then a bit more so they won't be causing an obstruction or a danger to themselves,
so leaving someone immediately outside a fire escape or on a busy road mightn't be great places to leave someone.

So are you saying you can't eject a drunk?

Carawaystick

Zambia wrote: »

So are you saying you can't eject a drunk?

read S18(3)(d)

Its so qualified my head hurts trying to understand it

Zambia

Carawaystick wrote: »

read S18(3)(d)

Its so qualified my head hurts trying to understand it

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—
(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or
(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or
(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or
(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.
(2) “use of force” in subsection (1) is defined and extended by section 20 .
(3) For the purposes of this section an act involves a “crime” or is “criminal” although the person committing it, if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that—
(a) he or she was under 7 years of age; or
(b) he or she acted under duress, whether by threats or of circumstances; or
(c) his or her act was involuntary; or
(d) he or she was in a state of intoxication; or
(e) he or she was insane, so as not to be responsible, according to law, for the act.
(4) The references in subsection (1) to protecting a person and property from anything include protecting the person or property from its continuing; and the reference to preventing crime or a breach of the peace shall be similarly construed.
(5) For the purposes of this section the question whether the act against which force is used is of a kind mentioned in any of the paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be.
(6) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who believes circumstances to exist which would justify or excuse the use of force under that subsection has no defence if he or she knows that the force is used against a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of the member's duty or a person so assisting such member, unless he or she believes the force to be immediately necessary to prevent harm to himself or herself or another.
(7) The defence provided by this section does not apply to a person who causes conduct or a state of affairs with a view to using force to resist or terminate it:
But the defence may apply although the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise.
(8) Property shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) (c) and (d) as belonging to any person—
(a) having the custody or control of it;
(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
(c) having a charge on it;
and where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.
Property of a corporation sole shall be treated for the purposes of the aforesaid provisions as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

My reading of it is that even if a person is acquitted of the offence by reason of intoxication the use of force is still justified