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

[Angilion]

I chose "unsure" because I'm not sure about the last punch. Before that, I'd definitely class it as reasonable force. The last punch, I'm not sure about. I wouldn't judge the bouncer guilty of any crime, but I'd be undecided.

I'd judge the filmer guilty of incompetence, though. How does anyone do such a bad job of filming something when they have a decent video camera? They don't even hold it the right way up! A chimpanzee could probably figure out the right way around to hold it.

 

[Angilion]

I don't think the guys were in a reasonable state to worry the bouncer. A push or shove would have been enough.

One on one, yes. But it wasn't one on one. Who else was going to attack the bouncer? Did any of the people who were coming at him have a knife? Was he going to get stabbed from behind if he tried to grapple with someone attacking him repeatedly? Also, what about the rest of the crowd? Was someone else going to get attacked while the bouncer was grappling with a yob?

I think it's not clear-cut, but I'd side with the bouncer because he wasn't attacking anyone who was down. If you've had a go at someone and they've knocked you down and left you alone, you've got a choice to leave or have another go...and they've already knocked you down once so having another go is unlikely to be a good choice.

 

[Amnesia]

the last punch why was it needed ?
the guy clearly wasnt a threat at that point

 

[Rroff]

I chose "unsure" because I'm not sure about the last punch. Before that, I'd definitely class it as reasonable force. The last punch, I'm not sure about. I wouldn't judge the bouncer guilty of any crime, but I'd be undecided.

I chose unsure because I think a longer video and/or other perspectives might tell more of a story about events that might not be as straight forward as the video makes them appear.

 

[Angilion]

I came into say exactly the same thing, what happened to restraining techniques? York pioneered the Door person badge system years ago when I was going out in town. Never once saw a doorman swinging like that, saw lots restraining drunken idiots but never full bloodied punches.

You need overwhelming superiority in force to safely restrain someone. One on one is dubious at best for restraint, unless one person is a small child or very frail. You certainly don't do it when you're on your own in a crowd of people who are violent or who could quickly become violent.

I know someone who works in an evironment in which it is sometimes necessary to restrain an adult by force. It takes a minimum of 4 people to do so and preferably 6. Anything less is unsafe, both for the person being restrained and the people doing the restraining.

I've seen plenty of examples of bouncers "restraining" drunken idiots by touch and speech while the drunken idiot is not in the process of attacking anyone, but that's a completely different situation.

 

[kindai]

the last punch why was it needed ?
the guy clearly wasnt a threat at that point

Its well documented in the heat of the moment rational thinking is highly impaired. Hes just punched a guy down whos came at him 2 or 3 times swinging before. The bouncer simply wouldnt of been able to make any accurate assessment as to the guys condition, if he has mates who might back him up, if weapons may be in play, if people may be trying to get behind him. A lot of potential if's that could lead to the bouncer ending up seriously injured or dead.

In the situation he made the right call, eliminate the immediate threat (the guy coming at him for a 3rd or 4th time) and back away to assess.

Ultimately the drunk idiot needs to accept personal responsibility. Nobody forced him to drink/takedrugs/whatever and nobody forced him to pick a fight with the bouncer.

No sympathy for him at all, regardless of what damage has been done to his face.

 

[Sankari]

I don't know what started the fight and do believe it's reasonable for bouncers to use reasonable force to protect themselves and others. For example I would prefer a strong bouncer to protect the club that either of my children may go to in the future.

However... after that initial punch which put the guy on the floor I don't believe that guy could reasonably be considered an immediate threat. The bouncer should have just pushed him away. The first punch was justified. It may be argued that the second punch was justified too. But that third big punch which knocked him out was way beyond reasonable force. He was clearly in no state after those punches to cause significant damage to the bouncer and the bouncer should have just pushed him away unless the guy threw another punch.

^^ This.

I am frankly horrified that British police believe it's acceptable to keep bouncing a guy's head off the concrete even after he's clearly incapable of posing a threat.

 

[Ceryndrion]

I always love threads like this, where most people refer to door staff as 'thick necked bouncers who love cracking skulls', assume that they are all just itching for a fight and so on. Most of the time that hate comes from the very same special little darlings that drink too much at the weekends and find themselves squaring up to the in the suit.

While not granted any special status by law, most law enforcement rely upon door supervisors to act as frontline responsible adults in ensuring the safety of those both within and without the premises. Local law enforcement do not have the resources to adequately patrol every pub/club in a city centre, so they trust that the door supervisor can exercise the correct judgement in most situations.

Were mistakes made, yes, of course there were, no plan escapes the first engagement. But the video does not show the whole story. At what point were the police notified of the impending trouble? How quickly did it escalate?

Twenty years ago, yes, you probably would have found bouncers to be the stereotypical thugs, because there was no regulation. These days there is, there are mandatory training courses, physical intervention assessments, licensing. I know very few card holding security staff, who would risk their jobs, just to have a bit of fun cracking a skull

"oh yeah mate, on saturday night I smashed this kids skull in, and now I've lost my DS license, so I am no longer allowed to work my day job, so I guess I'm on the dole now.."

Its just not going to happen.

In the end, I think that the response was reasonable, possibly a little excessive, but what do you want from a door supervisor? For them to stand there impassive and take it? What makes the drunken idiots so special?

Ask yourself this, if I were to walk up to you while you are at work, get in your face, start screaming abuse at you and pushing you around, what are you going to do? Because I can guarantee you won't sit there and take it for very long.

 

[Angilion]

^^ This.

I am frankly horrified that British police believe it's acceptable to keep bouncing a guy's head off the concrete even after he's clearly incapable of posing a threat.

You're clearly watching a different video because in the one this thread is about nobody is "bouncing a guy's head off the concrete" once, let alone keeping on doing it. Also, nobody is "clearly incapable of posing a threat" until near the end, when the main attacker is down and staying down. Even a drugged up thug who's unskilled at violence can stab you or throw acid in your face and a few such people can beat you to death. Outside of the fantasy world of stories, numbers matter a great deal.

Having watched the video several times now, I'm changing my vote from "unsure" to "justified". The attacker had several opportunities to stop being an attacker and repeatedly decided to carry on being an attacker, just as they decided to start being an attacker in the first place. The defender used a single blow to stop each attack, not continuing when the attacker was down.

 

[Rifte]

Perhaps bars/pubs should comply with the law and not serve hammered people? Perhaps they should have enough well trained staff? Perhaps in the OP’s video the guy could have backed away after punching the first bloke the first time? (I’d expect a well trained person to deal with the situation in should a rational way, tbh... he didn’t need to stand there in the middle and hold the ground... he didn’t need to stand there and smack someone who was punch drunk... etc). Etc.

No offence but I hate this line of defense.

It takes all accountability and responsibility away from the drinker.

"Sorry your honour, I got uncontrollably drunk and started a rumble. Don't blame my lack of responsibility and negligence though, start to point a finger at the establishment that served me the drink. Its clearly all their fault."

I hate this 'nanny state' mentality.

Idiot guy drank more than he should and bit of more than he could chew and got punched.

In respect of the bouncer I believe that it was reasonable. It wasn't as though he knocked him to the ground and jumped on him and starting pounding. Every time the initial aggressor got close to him he got knocked on his backside after one punch. This is the key bit.....ONE PUNCH.

These were the actions of a bouncer trying to control a situation that had clearly got out of hand. As the guy kept on approaching him, he probably thought he was going to start up again.

the last punch why was it needed ?
the guy clearly wasn't a threat at that point

I think the last punch comes under criticism more than the others because the guy is knocked out cold and doesn't get up after it.

 

[Sankari]

You're clearly watching a different video because in the one this thread is about nobody is "bouncing a guy's head off the concrete" once

He knocked two guys down, and their heads hit the pavement. When they got up, he did it again and again. I watched their heads bounce off the concrete. Not sure how you missed that.

Also, nobody is "clearly incapable of posing a threat" until near the end, when the main attacker is down and staying down.

The guys stand up and wobble vaguely towards the bouncer, who puts them down again with a single hit even though they can barely walk, and make no attempt to attack him. If this was a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the fight.

Even a drugged up thug who's unskilled at violence can stab you or throw acid in your face

But these guys were unarmed, did not throw acid, and did not even attack the bouncer after they were put down the first time.

I full support bouncers being able to do their job, and there are few things I enjoy more than watching some drunk weekend warrior copping the smackdown he so richly deserves, but this bouncer continued to king hit these guys after they ceased to present a credible threat. He is lucky neither of them ended up dead or comatose from head trauma.

The best bouncers use minimal force; they don't keep belting punch drunk blokes in the head just for lulz. After these two idiots got up from the first hit, he could have simply pushed them away with his hand. There was no need to keep attacking them.

Judging by some of the comments in this thread, the police benchmark for 'credible threat' is 'he was still breathing.'

 

[Rifte]

He is lucky neither of them ended up dead or comatose from head trauma.

Pretty much the only point I agree with it, no one would want this on their conscience however justified the response may have been.

However, I still do believe that it was reasonable.

If I got smacked in the head like that guy did the first time, I wouldn't be too eager to approach the guy that did it unless I had some form of retribution on my mind.

The bouncer was probably thinking the same thing.

If he was really a violent bully who wanted to vent some pent up frustration on the guy, he had the opportunity to do this. He could have jumped on him and pounded him into oblivion in the first instance.

Instead he hit him once, backed off and waited to see what was going to happen, unbelievably the guy got up and approached him again.

Repeat, rinse and finish till something concludes.

 

[kaptainmarc]

don't uppercut a bouncer in the face over and over again and you wont get onebombed

 

[adam cool dude]

the last punch why was it needed ?
the guy clearly wasnt a threat at that point

How do you know what he was saying to the bouncer.

 

[Mark M]

Seems reasonable to me. I used to DJ in a few bars in Newcastle and the door staff would almost hourly have issues with kids like this who have been to the gym a few times and snorted a load of charlie up their noses and think they are superman. These days the door staff need to protect themselves from knives so I would say he was well within his right to floor the guy coming towards him for his own safety. He didnt hit him anywhere near as hard as he could have and backed off on all 3 occasions.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

I think a lot of guys underestimate just how difficult a job bouncers have. Given the potential threat he was very restrained. Reality is a bitch and lives can be lost in the blink of an eye.

Short film below by a chap called Geoff Thompson who worked the door in Coventry for years, wrote various books on the subject and teaches self defence that actually works.

Lots of swearies included so be aware.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6eJh_V_ZPs&t

 

[FlakGunna]

Silly boy kept getting back up and trying to have another go, deserves everything he got.

 

[FlakGunna]

In the words of Gorgeous George "Get back down or you will not be coming up next time"

 

[godinman]

I think it's fine, the drunk guy had already assaulted the bouncer and then kept walking up to him, the bouncer has to assume the worst to keep himself safe. Hint, if the bouncer you've just been grappling with knocks you on your ass, leave him alone unless you want some more!

 

[enkoda]

He knocked two guys down, and their heads hit the pavement. When they got up, he did it again and again. I watched their heads bounce off the concrete. Not sure how you missed that.



The guys stand up and wobble vaguely towards the bouncer, who puts them down again with a single hit even though they can barely walk, and make no attempt to attack him. If this was a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the fight.



But these guys were unarmed, did not throw acid, and did not even attack the bouncer after they were put down the first time.

I full support bouncers being able to do their job, and there are few things I enjoy more than watching some drunk weekend warrior copping the smackdown he so richly deserves, but this bouncer continued to king hit these guys after they ceased to present a credible threat. He is lucky neither of them ended up dead or comatose from head trauma.

The best bouncers use minimal force; they don't keep belting punch drunk blokes in the head just for lulz. After these two idiots got up from the first hit, he could have simply pushed them away with his hand. There was no need to keep attacking them.

Judging by some of the comments in this thread, the police benchmark for 'credible threat' is 'he was still breathing.'

Exactly.

It just beggars belief the assumptions being made as to knives/acid, etc. If the bouncer truly believed this lad was a credible threat to his life, the most reasonable course of action would have been to remove himself from the situation by running back to the safety of the club and his colleagues. He didn't. He deliberately hung around so he could get an extra punch or two in. People who go out armed don't generally wait until they've been floored three times by a guy twice their size (and trained in some form of combat) before pulling that weapon. Going by some of the reasoning people are using here, should the bouncer have floored everyone around him, just in case one of them attacked him or was armed? The very fact that the bouncer wasn't attacked with a weapon or by the lad's mates shows there was no credible threat to his safety.

This was still somebody's son laying unconscious in the road after getting "what he deserved".