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

Burnsy2023

Burnsy2023

Burnsy2023

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,747
Location
Southampton, UK
One of the discussions that I've had over the last couple of days is around this video:


Firstly, I'm sorry about the potato quality and portrait orientation, I cannot condone such negligent filming.

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, but I find it curious to see such a dichotomy in how people interpret the actions. So i'm curious to see what OCUK think.

Dons: would someone be so kind as to add a poll with the following question?
Do you think the force used is reasonable and justifiable?
Yes
No
Unsure
 
saw this on other site, the thing is the bouncer tried to de-escalate the situation and he kept going back for more, his mate had a pop and then he went for another go... justified imo.
 
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.

I was on a jury a few years ago where there was something not too different. I felt that person was not guilty at the time, based on the threat I considered the accused would have felt. However in this video I feel the bouncer went too far with that final punch and would, based just on what I see here, consider him guilty of assault because the force used was unreasonable.
 
Completely justified. One hit at a time, sufficient enough to end the advance of the antagonist and that was it. Another hit came as the antagonist thought he would have another go and then his mate too. If they weren't all involved in a mass brawl there would have been no need for the bouncer to do anything.
 
Reasonable force imo.

If the bloke hadn’t grabbed hold of him in the first place, he wouldn’t have got a whack, and if he hadn’t kept going back, he wouldn’t have got more digs.

Bloke got off reasonably lightly. Back in the 70’s and 80’s, if he had tried this in places like the hippodrome up London, bouncers like Lennie McLean would have shattered his jaw and got away with it scot free.
 
From what I can tell, the second and third punch from the bouncer were not a response to a physical attack. If so, he crossed the line, assault.
 
No, not reasonably force IMO. Unnecessary violence, what even was the second, third and fourth punch for?

But then again, meatheads and morons fighting, I'm not sure I really care.
 
I have no problem with the first two punches. The third is a bit border line and could be judged as reasonable or unreasonable with no other evidence than that video, depending on a persons proclivity.

But, it's not like he was kicking him while he was down or anything clearly over the top.
 
Seeing as the guy had already attacked the bouncer and thrown a series of punches it's within reasonable argument that the bouncer expected to be attacked again and therefore acted in self defence. Single punches to counter three distinct threats. TBH I think he showed great restraint.
 
From the camera view it looks like unreasonable force. First punch is fine but the guy is clearly staggering when he gets back up so there seems no reason to keep hitting him.

However, as the bouncer in the situation he is surrounded by people kicking off so it would be difficult to keep tabs of who is or isn’t in ‘fighting shape’ and who is a real threat.
 
In my opinion bouncers are there to prevent this kicking off in the first place. If people didn't fear this being the outcome there would just be endless trouble. Same with with the police, they should be permitted to give people a good kicking on the same basis. Sure the police should be seen as fair and approachable. But I can't help but feel a lot of situations would be avoidable if they were feared by those who think they can get away with petty things like this. A presence should be enough and that's no longer the case in many situations it seems.
 
I don't see a particular problem here to be honest.
Why would the bouncer leave himself at risk of being attacked ?

the guy has already tried it on with him and kept walking towards him after getting up.

I think due to some bad eggs bouncers get a bad rep, but for the most part they are just regular guys trying to do a job, it is not acceptable that they should be physically assaulted during their work, yet many "idiots" seem to think that the bouncers are there to have a fight with.
 
Looked reasonable to me... although we can't see much of what the guy was looking like to saying to the bouncer / how aggressive he was being etc... but the idiot had already been floored twice and for some reason went back for a third try.

Bouncer doesn't know if that kid has a knife or something... could get nasty quickly.

The bouncer was very controlled, took one hit and then backed off... I would have considered it excessive if the bouncer kept punching him or something.
 
The first punch, justified. Everything after that point I would say is definitely not justified. Cant say what was been said buy the lad who was hit but the 2nd punch followed by heading back to the assailant for another go.. The frackar happened on the street outside of the establishment, isn't this the jurisdiction of the police not a bouncer.

But what would Chuck Norris do ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom