Bouncers liability

Interestingppl

Just seen a bouncer refuse entry to a patron. The man in question stood outside pestering the bouncers but was not violent in any manner. After awhile he stood beside a bouncer who then pushed him. The patron clearly distressed walked towards the bouncer shouting "why push me" but did not raise his hands and clearly posed no threat (note this man was probably 9 stone). The bouncer quickly wrapped his arm around the mans neck and brought him down on the pavement keeping him there using his knee and hands. The man gave no resistance whatsoever. Is this act beyond the bouncers scope of power? And should he be reported to the PSA?

glomar

probably but doubtfull anything would be done without CCTV or people willing to come forward as witnesses

Interestingppl

glomar wrote: »

probably but doubtfull anything would be done without CCTV or people willing to come forward as witnesses

The one thing I left out was that I have a recording of it.

Sounds like he was behaving in an intimidating manner and the bouncer feared for his own safety wink wink

Interestingppl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sounds like he was behaving in an intimidating manner and the bouncer feared for his own safety wink wink

As per haha! The man wishes to use my recording as leeway in getting unbarred by using the threat of reporting it to the PSA!

gctest50

Interestingppl wrote: »

Just seen a bouncer refuse entry to a patron. The man in question stood outside pestering the bouncers but was not violent in any manner. After awhile he stood beside a bouncer who then pushed him. The patron clearly distressed walked towards the bouncer shouting "why push me" but did not raise his hands and clearly posed no threat (note this man was probably 9 stone)......

He doesn't need to be 18 stone to use a knife


Seemed mad keen to be near the bouncer :

Interestingppl wrote: »

After awhile he stood beside a bouncer

The patron walked towards the bouncer shouting

Interestingppl

gctest50 wrote: »

He doesn't need to be 18 stone to use a knife

Hands closed then opened by his side? No hidden movements or hands hidden from view. The young man didn't deserve it in my opinion. But I was just wondering if the bouncer could be placed in the wrong. I believe grabbing someone by the neck is a big no no for door men? Plus he instigated the physical nature of the confrontation with the push?

DontThankMe

He shouldn't really be hanging around after he was refused entry. He may not have being looking for an altercation but if you hang around and atoganise a bouncer you're guaranteed to run into some bother.

prinzeugen

Its assault. Only the Garda have the power to use force.

Interestingppl

DontThankMe wrote: »

He shouldn't really be hanging around after he was refused entry. He may not have being looking for an altercation but if you hang around and atoganise a bouncer you're guaranteed to run into some bother.

Yes I understand the logical reasoning of this scenario.. however there was a clear injustice of reasonable force on the poor man. I believe I will put forward a complaint to the PSA.

the_syco

Interestingppl wrote: »

As per haha! The man wishes to use my recording as leeway in getting unbarred by using the threat of reporting it to the PSA!

Were you close enough to hear what the guy was saying to the bouncer?

Was the bouncer verbally threatened?

Also, have you considered that the guy was banned due to a previous altercation?

Find it suspicious that you had all of this on camera from the very start. Were you expecting something to happen?

whippet

The bouncer has probably seen his fair share of sucker punches and didn't want to risk being at the wrong end of one ... 9 stone in weight means nothing when a punch connects properly.

Was you mate injured?

What would someone who has been barred persist in trying to get in? Obviously your mate has history in the premises and the bouncer didn't want a repeat.

My advise ... tell your mate to grow up a bit and behave himself and he won't find himself in that position again.

BTW ... after acting like that he won't have a hope of being 'unbarred' .. the bouncers have to think about the safety of the other responsible patrons

harr

So your mate is barred and you both came up with a little plan to try get him back in , so you came up with the idea to piss off the door man till he reacts? All the while you stand back and record it .
If he was barred it was for a reason and no bouncer is going to let anyone get very close while they are shouting and screaming at them..
Tell your mate to grow up and find a different pub/nightclub.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

godtabh

Interestingppl wrote: »

Just seen a bouncer refuse entry to a patron. The man in question stood outside pestering the bouncers but was not violent in any manner. After awhile he stood beside a bouncer who then pushed him. The patron clearly distressed walked towards the bouncer shouting "why push me" but did not raise his hands and clearly posed no threat (note this man was probably 9 stone). The bouncer quickly wrapped his arm around the mans neck and brought him down on the pavement keeping him there using his knee and hands. The man gave no resistance whatsoever. Is this act beyond the bouncers scope of power? And should he be reported to the PSA?

That's exactly how it happened!

HONKEY TONK

Interestingppl wrote: »

As per haha! The man wishes to use my recording as leeway in getting unbarred by using the threat of reporting it to the PSA!

So your buddy wants to blackmail the pub into letting him back in.

What part of NO did your mate not understand?

Peregrinus

The guy was being a dick, pestering the bouncers. Ignoring him did not change matters; he was then pushed away. He still came back and greater force was used. But this wasn't a bouncer lashing out; this was a graduated escalation.

You don't have to wait until someone hits you before you use force to resolve a situation. Possibly this situation could have been resolved better but, frankly, it was at all times within the power of the offended patron to resolve the situation by simply going away. If charged with assault the bouncer will point out that the patron could not be got to behave peaceably by speaking to him, by ignoring him, or by the application of token force, and seemed determined to persist until more significant force was used. There's still be a question as to whether the more significant force was justified; that's going to depend on things we can't advise you about, like what exactly the patron was saying, why he was hanging around, what his demeanour was, how other patrons were affected, etc, etc. But there's no telling of this story in which your friend looks good, and the notion that if he complains or threatens to complain about the bouncer that will help to resolve his ban seems optimistic. Your friend is a guy who, given every opportunity to walk away, persisting in pestering people until a breach of the peace occurred. Even if someone else is responsible for the breach of the peace, why would anyone want your friend in his pub or club?

Pat Mustard

harr wrote: »

So your mate is barred and you both came up with a little plan to try get him back in , so you came up with the idea to piss off the door man till he reacts? All the while you stand back and record it .
If he was barred it was for a reason and no bouncer is going to let anyone get very close while they are shouting and screaming at them..
Tell your mate to grow up and find a different pub/nightclub.

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

So your buddy wants to blackmail the pub into letting him back in.

What part of NO did your mate not understand?

Mod note:

Depending on all of the circumstances, there could well be something off about a guy who comes up to stand beside a bouncer after having been barred, for whatever reason. This is unclear because we haven't seen the video footage. Maybe the guy wanted to protest his innocence, maybe he was simply being a pest, maybe he wanted to get a good angle to ambush the bouncer. Apart from the fact that we were told that he was distressed, we don't have the information and we don't know.

The bouncer may have been right to bar the guy or he may have been wrong. Again, we have no information in this regard.

The point is that this is the legal discussion forum. So, while the issue that you mention may be extremely relevant, we are here for legal discussion.

We are not here to cast aspersions on the OP or to adopt a wanton high-horse attitude for the sake of it. That's not conducive to rational discussion, so we might avoid that type of posting here. Legal points or useful observations are the type of discussion that we would like to see, please.

harr

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod note:

Depending on all of the circumstances, there could well be something off about a guy who comes up to stand beside a bouncer after having been barred, for whatever reason. This is unclear because we haven't seen the video footage. Maybe the guy wanted to protest his innocence, maybe he was simply being a pest, maybe he wanted to get a good angle to ambush the bouncer. Apart from the fact that we were told that he was distressed, we don't have the information and we don't know.

The bouncer may have been right to bar the guy or he may have been wrong. Again, we have no information in this regard.

The point is that this is the legal discussion forum. So, while the issue that you mention may be extremely relevant, we are here for legal discussion.

We are not here to cast aspersions on the OP or to adopt a wanton high-horse attitude for the sake of it. That's not conducive to rational discussion, so we might avoid that type of posting here. Legal points or useful observations are the type of discussion that we would like to see, please.

Fair enough, point taken

HONKEY TONK

Interestingppl wrote: »

As per haha! The man wishes to use my recording as leeway in getting unbarred by using the threat of reporting it to the PSA!

OK I will rephrase my question:

Do you plan to supply the recording to the man for the purposes of Blackmailing the pub?

or

Do you plan to supply the recording for the purposes of reporting it to the PSA?

Pat Mustard

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

OK I will rephrase my question:

Do you plan to supply the recording to the man for the purposes of Blackmailing the pub?

I don't know why you persist along these lines.

The facts are unclear so it is not clear who is in the right and who is in the wrong. It is not entirely clear whether there was an assault or whether the bouncer's actions were justified.

If the bouncer's actions were unjustified and if the bouncer committed an assault, there are a number of legal uses to which the video footage of the incident could be put, to include handing over the evidence to Gardai, handing over the evidence to a solicitor, etc.

MysticMonk

Peregrinus wrote:

You don't have to wait until someone hits you before you use force to resolve a situation. Possibly this situation could have been resolved better but, frankly, it was at all times within the power of the offended patron to resolve the situation by simply going away. If charged with assault the bouncer will point out that the patron could not be got to behave peaceably by speaking to him, by ignoring him, or by the application of token force, and seemed determined to persist until more significant force was used. There's still be a question as to whether the more significant force was justified; that's going to depend on things we can't advise you about, like what exactly the patron was saying, why he was hanging around, what his demeanour was, how other patrons were affected, etc, etc. But there's no telling of this story in which your friend looks good, and the notion that if he complains or threatens to complain about the bouncer that will help to resolve his ban seems optimistic. Your friend is a guy who, given every opportunity to walk away, persisting in pestering people until a breach of the peace occurred. Even if someone else is responsible for the breach of the peace, why would anyone want your friend in his pub or club?

Pat Mustard wrote:

If the bouncer's actions were unjustified and if the bouncer committed an assault, there are a number of legal uses to which the video footage of the incident could be put, to include handing over the evidence to Gardai, handing over the evidence to a solicitor, etc.

Get over it..see whether the cops care and see how much a solicitor will charge you.
Mod; Insulting remark deleted. Pls do not repeat. You are banned from this thread for month from today

HONKEY TONK

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I don't know why you persist along these lines.

The facts are unclear so it is not clear who is in the right and who is in the wrong. It is not entirely clear whether there was an assault or whether the bouncer's actions were justified.

If the bouncer's actions were unjustified and if the bouncer committed an assault, there are a number of legal uses to which the video footage of the incident could be put, to include handing over the evidence to Gardai, handing over the evidence to a solicitor, etc.

You are highlighting the word blackmail.

The OP said the following

The man wishes to use my recording as leeway in getting unbarred

To me, the OP can correct me :- If the guy doesnt get unbarred, He will go to the PTA with the Video.

Am I mistaking what the word Blackmail means?

The Motive of the video does not seem to be getting justice if an assault had occured. Its to get the guy unbarred from the pub/nightclub

SusieBlue

I used to work in a nightclub and people like this are what made me hate my job.

I have no doubt in my mind that your little 9 stone buddy was threatening the bouncer under his breath, probably insulting him using derogatory terms to boot and the bouncer, well used to this idiots actions, retaliated.

If he wasn't allowed in it was for good reason. More so if he was barred. Absolutely pathetic to try to blackmail a business and person doing a job when its their livelihood, in order to get around the barring.

Maybe if he wasn't such a d*ckhead in general he wouldn't find himself barred from a premises.

Pat Mustard

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

You are highlighting the word blackmail.

The OP said the following



To me, the OP can correct me :- If the guy doesnt get unbarred, He will go to the PTA with the Video.

Am I mistaking what the word Blackmail means?

The Motive of the video does not seem to be getting justice if an assault had occured. Its to get the guy unbarred from the pub/nightclub

Blackmail is covered under s.17 of the Public Order Act:

17.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person who, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, makes any unwarranted demand with menaces.

(a) a demand with menaces shall be unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(i) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand, and
(ii) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand;

(b) the nature of the act or omission demanded shall be immaterial and it shall also be immaterial whether or not the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both,

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or to both.

In order for there to be blackmail (an unwarranted demand with menaces), the guy would have to make a gain or the pub/club would have to make a loss.

Even it could otherwise be interpreted as a demand with menaces, if the guy who made the demand could show that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand, then there is no crime under s.17

kielmanator

@white roses: Im in the same boat, except Im still doing doors.

People fail to realise that DOOR STAFF, not bouncers, have as much right to defend themselves from any perceived threat as any other person on the street.

It makes me laugh( not in the sense of something funny) when someone either in our premises or at the door is restrained due to their actions, and the bleeding heart brigade are out in a shot criticising the security team for doing their job.

These same people are the first to mention PSA, owners, manager when they have an issue because they got a box in the place from another patron and we didn't do enough to defend them or pre-determine there would be trouble from the aggressor.

I didn't see the event that occurred in the OP, I don't know any of the parties involved, but I can be 99% certain that that doorman acted in a professional manner at all times and probably offered a few quiet words of caution prior to the person being restrained.

Anybody that criticises door staff, I invite you to do a few nights on a door and see how it goes for you.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

We might move back on topic with the legal discussion, please.

UrbanFox

prinzeugen wrote: »

Its assault. Only the Garda have the power to use force.

For balance, what would be your view on the countervailing issue of self-defence on the part of the bouncer ?

If the bouncer has reasonable grounds to apprehend an immediate (in time) and proximate (in distance) threat and associated physical battery does he not have the right to defend appropriately and proportionally with the use of force ?

I suggest that a person in the bouncer's position is not obliged to wait until he is hit or stabbed to commence the process of self-defence. Pre-emptive actions are allowed if the evidence stands up the reasonableness of the action.

The relative weigh-in weights of the contenders is irrelevant. What is relevant is the threat offered to the bouncer. My nephew is 6ft 3 ins but the little runt who produced an offensive weapon (a syringe tipped with an hypodermic needle) to him was about 5ft 4 ins.

Be careful that the footage does not end up incriminating the supposed victim of the bouncer's alleged assault by clear demonstration of precipitating, provocative and inciting conduct. I would suggest that once entry has been clearly and properly refused events thereafter fall to the complainant to explain.

NUTLEY BOY

Interestingppl wrote: »

Yes I understand the logical reasoning of this scenario.. however there was a clear injustice of reasonable force on the poor man. I believe I will put forward a complaint to the PSA.

You appear to be of the view that an offence has been committed - assault.

Therefore, will you also be reporting this to the Garda ?

prinzeugen

UrbanFox wrote: »

For balance, what would be your view on the countervailing issue of self-defence on the part of the bouncer ?

If the bouncer has reasonable grounds to apprehend an immediate (in time) and proximate (in distance) threat and associated physical battery does he not have the right to defend appropriately and proportionally with the use of force ?

No. And the bouncer should know this. Its abuse of position.

I suggest that a person in the bouncer's position is not obliged to wait until he is hit or stabbed to commence the process of self-defence. Pre-emptive actions are allowed if the evidence stands up the reasonableness of the action.

Having a PSA licence does not give a person special powers. There has been many a bouncer/steward/store security prosecuted for assault on patrons.

There are 101 ways to defuse a situation without resorting to physical force.

Sure if someone came at me with a knife I would probably use force to defend myself knowing that if something happened to the person with the knife, I could be done for it.

If a bouncer gets punched, they dont have the right to punch back. They should be calling the Guards.

ohnonotgmail

prinzeugen wrote: »

No. And the bouncer should know this. Its abuse of position.



Having a PSA licence does not give a person special powers. There has been many a bouncer/steward/store security prosecuted for assault on patrons.

There are 101 ways to defuse a situation without resorting to physical force.

Sure if someone came at me with a knife I would probably use force to defend myself knowing that if something happened to the person with the knife, I could be done for it.

If a bouncer gets punched, they dont have the right to punch back. They should be calling the Guards.

they have the same rights as you or i in that regard. If stopping further assault requires punching back they are entitled to do that.

prinzeugen

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they have the same rights as you or i in that regard. If stopping further assault requires punching back they are entitled to do that.

They can be and have been prosecuted for it though.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3121084/man-almost-killed-by-bouncers-before-his-girlfriend-is-tossed-like-a-ragdoll-into-the-street-on-birthday-night-out/

GM228

prinzeugen wrote: »

If a bouncer gets punched, they dont have the right to punch back. They should be calling the Guards.

prinzeugen wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they have the same rights as you or i in that regard. If stopping further assault requires punching back they are entitled to do that.

They can be and have been prosecuted for it though.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3121084/man-almost-killed-by-bouncers-before-his-girlfriend-is-tossed-like-a-ragdoll-into-the-street-on-birthday-night-out/

That is not the same and isn't self defence, the bouncers attack was unprovoked - he was not prosecuted for an act of self defence. Note he was also charged with grievous bodilyharm which does not apply in Ireland.

Despite claiming he acted in self-defence, and telling lies about the whole incident, the CCTV footage speaks for itself

You are entitled to use reasonable force (having regard to the circumstances) for self defence, you can even defeat a charge of murder if it resulted from self defence again if the force used is reasonable.