1/26/2014 2:53pm, #1
Lawyer's observations on bar fight litigation
About half his cases came about when they were extracting a drunk, and the dummy would attempt to run back into the bar. It makes no sense but that's what happened.
The second most likely cause appeared to be that a guy got shot down when hitting on a woman, or alternatively a relationship broke up, and the guy started a fight as a substitute for his sexual issues.
The lawyer also mentions that in general guys were always willing to hit women, and some drunken women were more then happy to start fights against men who were substantially larger then them.
His experience was from the 1990s, so there were less cameras then there were now, but the fights he saw would last 60 seconds or less. Typically one person would gain the advantage and pummel the other, none of the back and forth John Wayne western movie fighting. (Yes Payton Quinn and Mac McYoung long ago made this observation in print.)
Witnesses and especially plaintiffs would inevitably lie, tell inconsistant statements, and impeach themselves when compared to statements they had given at the time of the brawl.
None of this is shocking, but I don't think things have changed much since 1990s, LA which is when and where he handled these cases.
1/26/2014 2:55pm, #2
If anyone who is a bouncer is reading this I would be curious if repeatingly telling the patron that he is cut off, before walking him out, has any effect in preventing the patron from fleeing back into the bar.
1/26/2014 4:20pm, #3
Repeatedly telling a drunk anything, on the other hand, is about as useful as it was trying to tell him the same thing the first time.
EDIT: Okay, now that I've skimmed the article (I'll read it in detail when time permits) it seems to refer to individuals trying to flee security's grasp while still on the premises. Again, repeating some statement to someone who disregarded the same statement the first time is likely to be a waste of time.
Prior to ejection from the premises, the way to prevent a patron fleeing from the bouncer into the dark interior of the bar is for the first security staffer dealing with him to have already noted his description, in as much detail as possible, before engaging.
Next, if at all possible, get backup there as soon as possible--not only for an easier ejection, but so that more reliable eyes get to see what the patron looks like if, for some reason, he manages to escape into some darker corner of the venue.
Present-day venues must keep their cameras current and in operating order, for all the reasons stated above as well as for legal reasons you know well about. As well, access-control is best addressed by proper staffing levels, so that doors and other high-traffic areas are capably covered.
Finally, a patron will try to defy security if he thinks he can get away with it. Ensuring that you have the most capable (and, for psychological reasons, the most capable-looking) security staff, will lessen the odds of such attempts occurring. Ensuring, via proper radio protocols, that such an individual is surrounded by security--as soon as this can be done--further cements in what passes for his mind the futility of trying to get away with anything.
No guarantees exist, of course, but the idea is to try and lessen the frequency of stupidity-in-action at the workplace.
Last edited by Vieux Normand; 1/26/2014 4:49pm at .
1/26/2014 10:30pm, #4"We often joke -- and we really wish it were a joke -- that you will only encounter two basic problems with your 'self-defense' training.
1) That it doesn't work
2) That it does work"
1/27/2014 12:29am, #5
1/27/2014 7:55am, #6
1/27/2014 8:00am, #7
Ignoring security staff and doing whatever you want to do is the quickest way to get arrested and charged. Ive had more than a few people be removed and turned off and if they tried to come back in, were "politely" restrained while being told why, and the cops would be called.
SOP here is to inform said patron why they are being escorted from the premises. If they choose to ignore said information, then they reap what they drunkenly sow.
1/27/2014 8:00am, #8
As far as them doing a runner inside the bar. The bulk of the ejections I do is for drunk.
I can generally take five minutes to set things up in my favor before even approaching the guy,
In fact unless the guy is threatening someone I am in no rush.
1/27/2014 8:09am, #9
1/27/2014 3:26pm, #10
This does NOT mean sucking up to them, as this may simply give them reason to think they can buy you. It does mean dealing with trouble fairly and keeping the venue safe. As long as you are seen to be impartial--and in the long term the easiest way to do this is to be impartial--and mean business when matters threaten to go south, you will establish a relationship with regulars.
Strangely enough, this leads to a situation where these regulars actually become sometimes-useful fellow-travellers: if some imbecile causes any sort of trouble in your venue and then tries to evade club-cam by disappearing onto the dark-and-crowded dance floor, the regulars will point him out to you--and even tell other patrons to stay clear of him while you zero in.
The whole "never-rat-on-anyone" attitude persists so long as you are not seen as being on the same side as those who just want a safe night out. As soon as they see you as the guy watching over them, you've made allies. All it takes is a commitment do doing your job right--something some "want-to-kick-anyone's-ass" noob-bouncers never understand.
Last edited by Vieux Normand; 1/27/2014 3:36pm at .