Soldato
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.
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.
I'd agree with this.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.
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
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.
So the police would use closed fist punches to the face?
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.
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.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.
What hellhole is this anyway?