Poll: Poll: Do you think the force is reasonable and justified?

Do you think the force used is reasonable and justifiable?

  • Yes

    Votes: 214 64.7%

  • No

    Votes: 94 28.4%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 23 6.9%
  • Total voters
    331
I would love to know the back story here as to what was going on.... It just seems like utter carnage... anyway, drunk people going for a fight with someone twice the size of them, will never end well. lol.
 
First - kind of understand
Second - bit on the fence but will give the bouncer benefit of the doubt with everything kicking off around him etc
Third - Gone too far but can obviously see how it would be a tricky thing to weigh up in the heat of the moment
 
Burnsy2023 said:
It's worth noting that reasonable force doesn't mean minimum force. Whilst the force used should be proportionate, allowances are made for various factors.
Click to expand...

What's your take on it Burnsy? I'm of the opinion that someone is attacking the bouncer rather than the other way round and that he is defending himself.
 
Have seen much worse cases or bouncers using excessive force. I don't think he's gone too far, if people are starting on you like that you're in fight mode, and he clearly isn't taking too many chance as multiple people approach him, and justifiably.
 
adolf hamster said:
seems sort of ok, floors the guy then leaves him alone until he gets back up for another go.

for me the line were reasonable force ends is when you hit a man while he's down, if he's up and coming for you again then that's his problem, he knew the bouncer could punch, he knew the bouncer would leave him alone if he stayed down, but he tried anyway.

the only exception if if there's uneven numbers and you need them to stay down, which doesn't apply in this case.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with this.
Plus don't fight with bouncers, you ain't gonna win!
 
First punch, justifiable. Then a sliding scale to the last punch not being justifiable. If anything these people are punch drunk as well as being drunk. A more reasonable thing to do would be to back off momentarily from the lurching zombie since (a) most of the fighting had then ceased, (b) the bouncer seemed to punch first before assessing the threat. If he then appeared hostile, then perhaps a final punch would have been justified.

Or in other words, a shove or simply stepping backwards for a moment would have been more reasonable then hitting someone extremely hard that looks borderline concussed.
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
I've found it rather interesting the difference in opinions over whether the force is reasonable or it's a bouncer "going on a power trip". Pretty much all of my police colleagues and friends seem to think this is reasonable force and that they would be happy justifying it in court if necessary. Most of the people who aren't connected with the police seem to think this is way over the top and the bouncer should be prosecuted.

Police officers have use of force legislation drilled into them from day one, so it's generally a part of the law they have a very good understanding of
Click to expand...

So the police would use closed fist punches to the face?
 
bloodiedathame said:
What's your take on it Burnsy? I'm of the opinion that someone is attacking the bouncer rather than the other way round and that he is defending himself.
Click to expand...

My take is that situations like this often hinge on how they are justified and how that is recorded. It's not how I would deal with it, but I'm pretty confident it would be found to be lawful. Outside of a prosecution it would be harder to justify as police officer due to the requirement of using the minimum force necessary but bouncers don't have the College of Policing Code of Ethics to abide by. With that said, whilst it is harder, I think even then you could probably justify it.

My reasoning would be that the first punch is reasonably easy to justify. He is being dragged off this male and could simply justify it as self defence under common law. He has a single punch and doesn't use any further force until the male gets up.

First punch to second male could also be justified as a pre-emptive strike either as self defence or under s3 criminal law act to prevent offences. The makes body language was threatening and it would be reasonable to apprehend immediate unlawful violence, especially as he was part of the melee at start of the video.

Second and third punches to the first male are a bit harder to justify, but within the the context of the situation and the fact the male is again getting up and confronting the bouncer would suggest that his intention is to be further violent. What helps the bouncer is that they are single strikes that are not continued until the other party reapproaches the bouncer. Some of the questions that would be asked of him would be whether he had a honestly held belief that he apprehended immediate unlawful violence. The fact that we know has been violent and continues to reapproach, I think that's reasonable. What other motivation would he have? Regardless of whether that's the male's actual intention, the bouncer would be reasonable in holding that belief.

The level of force he used in the subsequent punches seem a bit out of proportion but that's covered under s76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. That basically states that the in the middle of a fight when you go tunnel visioned and miss so much information that a video or a bystander shows, you can't be expected to make perfectly proportionate responses and the actions should be judged on how you perceived them at the time. There's also clear case law that preemptive strikes are reasonable force if the person expects immediate unlawful violence. Many people will disagree but when the male gets up after the first punch, I think it's reasonable for him to be intending on a bit of perceived retribution.

If the bouncer explains his actions in these terms, I highly doubt you could ever get a charge.
 
Stretch said:
So the police would use closed fist punches to the face?
Click to expand...

That's a different question. Whether or nor the force is justifiable and lawful is not the same as Police using the same tactics. With that said, whilst using closed fist punches aren't preferred in the police, it's all part of toolbox of empty hand tactics that could be used.
 
It would be reasonable force if the bouncers life was in danger, everything after the first punch was over the top and the last punch could've resulted in a fatal injury very easily. Anyone who has any experience of fighting knows this. The bouncer was in no danger after the first punch, the lad didn't have his hands up and wasn't a serious threat even if he did.
 
Saw this a day or so ago - reasonable IMO as mentioned he gives them plenty of chance to back off and gives others room to try and stop them and doesn't attack when they are down. It would be interesting though to see a longer video and/or other perspectives to have a bigger picture of what was going on.

Roar87 said:
It would be reasonable force if the bouncers life was in danger, everything after the first punch was over the top and the last punch could've resulted in a fatal injury very easily. Anyone who has any experience of fighting knows this. The bouncer was in no danger after the first punch, the lad didn't have his hands up and wasn't a serious threat even if he did.
Click to expand...

Problem is it could quickly and unpredictably escalate to life threatening - one of the lads could have thought it a good idea to do something dumb like use a concealled knife or use their keys hidden in their hands after they got pushed back - seen that happen a few times around here (fortunately in the cases I've seen other people in the crowd noticed and managed to stop them).
 
I don't think the guys were in a reasonable state to worry the bouncer. A push or shove would have been enough.
 
Seems fine to me. Bouncer was much more restrained than some I've seen before. Didn't beat the guy up any more than necessary to neutralise, without risking himself.
 
totally justified.

Utter ********* (since when is snow flake a banned word?) manboy and his bf getting stuck into the bouncer attempted punches to the face of bouncer in early part. After the grapple bouncer hits him a few times and hits the other manchild once...probably knocked his ear buttons out. Showed amazing restraint.

What hellhole is this anyway?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
My take is that situations like this often hinge on how they are justified and how that is recorded. It's not how I would deal with it, but I'm pretty confident it would be found to be lawful. Outside of a prosecution it would be harder to justify as police officer due to the requirement of using the minimum force necessary but bouncers don't have the College of Policing Code of Ethics to abide by. With that said, whilst it is harder, I think even then you could probably justify it.

My reasoning would be that the first punch is reasonably easy to justify. He is being dragged off this male and could simply justify it as self defence under common law. He has a single punch and doesn't use any further force until the male gets up.

First punch to second male could also be justified as a pre-emptive strike either as self defence or under s3 criminal law act to prevent offences. The makes body language was threatening and it would be reasonable to apprehend immediate unlawful violence, especially as he was part of the melee at start of the video.

Second and third punches to the first male are a bit harder to justify, but within the the context of the situation and the fact the male is again getting up and confronting the bouncer would suggest that his intention is to be further violent. What helps the bouncer is that they are single strikes that are not continued until the other party reapproaches the bouncer. Some of the questions that would be asked of him would be whether he had a honestly held belief that he apprehended immediate unlawful violence. The fact that we know has been violent and continues to reapproach, I think that's reasonable. What other motivation would he have? Regardless of whether that's the male's actual intention, the bouncer would be reasonable in holding that belief.

The level of force he used in the subsequent punches seem a bit out of proportion but that's covered under s76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. That basically states that the in the middle of a fight when you go tunnel visioned and miss so much information that a video or a bystander shows, you can't be expected to make perfectly proportionate responses and the actions should be judged on how you perceived them at the time. There's also clear case law that preemptive strikes are reasonable force if the person expects immediate unlawful violence. Many people will disagree but when the male gets up after the first punch, I think it's reasonable for him to be intending on a bit of perceived retribution.

If the bouncer explains his actions in these terms, I highly doubt you could ever get a charge.
Click to expand...
Even if the ‘victim’ was intending to be violent (in his stupor), it seems infeasible from the footage that he could be in position to cause any harm to the bouncer or anyone else. He was visibly injured and ‘physically impaired’ well before the final knockdown. With the fighting having ceased and the immediate situation being more or less diffused, the only way you could justify the level of force of the final punch, IMO, would be on the basis that the bouncer had a bona fide believe the ‘victim’ was going to attack him with a weapon, which on the basis of the footage would be a potentially dubious claim.
 
@Burnsy2023

We don't know the whole backdrop to this but by the way the lad responds after the first couple of punches I would suspect his adrenaline keeping him going is A Class drug fuelled. We also don't know if he or his mates had been involved in further violence previously that evening or if they had threatened others with a physical knife or verbally to stab the bouncer or bystanders.

The bouncer may have believed other bystanders were at risk too, which they potentially were.

In a situation where it is kicking off around the bouncer he is dealing with a large crowd, lots of issues and several of the lad's mates including women getting involved, who are as I am sure you are aware capable of considerable levels of violence.

A lone police officer surrounded by a violent crowd would, if attacked have pepper spray, a baton or possibly a taser available. In the states, they would consider shooting. Police dealing with a violent individual would expect to have at least another officer present if not a lot more and that's without the aggressor presenting weapons.

The bouncer looks to have no such luxury and would rather use as much force as needed to disable the individual than risk being stabbed or jumped by several people (inc women) again plus this person

And for members on here saying too much force. Street fights aren't beautifully choreographed like in films or governed like in a ring. A bad hit with bad fall even from a small guy can be life ending. Add in the potential for knifes, glass bottles etc and it's easy to turn into a mess. Adrenaline with or without drugs and alcohol can make people very dangerous. Add in the drugs and probably challenging social constructs as a further backdrop and the bouncer has to make a snap decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom