Anyone at the re last night?

link

i knew those RE bouncers were dodgy.

thoughtt there would be more posts on here about it..

Updated story.

Yeah I would have expected more posts here too.

Did anyone know him/see it?

who goes to the RE on a saturday night anyway?

People who want to die. RE is for f*****s.

Yes that means you.

last edited by маvєяık at 17:01:11 21/May/06

I did my RSA certificate last week, and judging from what I was told, these manslaughter/murder charges are not unusual...it's just we don't normally hear about it.

Apparently there are a couple of bartenders over in WA atm who are up on charges of manslaughter because they served alcohol to a woman when she was (apparently) clearly intoxicated, and as a consequence of this (apparently again) the woman was sitting on a balcony sometime later that night and fell off...obviously dying. According to the lawyers, the bartenders weren't serving alcohol responsibly as they had a duty to ensure she arrived home safely after she became drunk and so yeap, now they're up on charges!

I don't know the rest of the story (still in Court I imagine) but I guess the point here is that ppl will ALWAYS look for someone to blame.

This is absolutely f***ing ridiculous that the bouncers were charged with murder, and if the "witnesses" were intoxicated or are unsure of what they saw it's f***ing bulls*** to prosecute the security for doing their job

Your a moron.
These ppl are crowd control persons only. Not muscle men who can do what they want. If they kill someone for what ever reason deliberate or not, they should be prosecuted like any other person. You can't make an excuse for someone being killed, just because they were fighting/intoxicated.

i probably shouldn't say anything.

last edited by маvєяık at 17:03:00 21/May/06

I don't know the rest of the story (still in Court I imagine) but I guess the point here is that ppl will ALWAYS look for someone to blame.

someone dies after being put in a "head-restraint"

don't have to look far to find someone to blame

True nF, but the question is whether or not it was considered "reasonable" force by bystanding witnesses to the incident (i.e. if witnesses would have felt the need to use that amount of control in that situation).

Perhaps that amount of force was justified? I don't know. Either way I'm sure that they weren't _trying_ to kill the guy in the brawl. Sad case to hear all the same.

last edited by Agent 99 at 16:29:27 21/May/06

obviously the police and witnesses don't think the amount of force was reasonable otherwise there wouldn't be any murder charges would there.

Use wrist locks not head locks.

obviously the police and witnesses don't think the amount of force was reasonable otherwise there wouldn't be any murder charges would there.

I don't know, I guess that has to be established (hence why they are just charges at the moment).

i agree with boofe

Rob could you post your story about the bouncers that night you and brookes nearly got into a fight out back?

As much as I dislike the instant blame mentality of society... EVERY bouncer I have met has been a complete d******* and capable of this sort of behaviour.

Ok, looks like it is time for the idiot's guide to the homicide provisions of the Criminal Code.

If you unlawfully kill another person you are guilty of manslaughter unless it was authorised, justified or excused by law.

Relevantly, if you actually intended to either cause death or grievous bodily harm, manslaughter becomes murder. Obviously this means you do not need to intend to kill somebody to be guilty of manslaughter.

If you murder somebody in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation before there is time for the passion to cool, that is still manslaughter.

The only realistic defence is generally self defence. To get away with using force that causes death or grievous bodily harm, the person must have reasonably apprehended that they were in danger of death or grievous bodily harm themselves, and there was no other way to defend themself from that. Obviously this is difficult to show.

You will generally see the police charge with murder first and then if it turns out there is no evidence to show the necessary intent, downgrade to manslaughter. A jury is able to decide that the intent was not there during the trial and find a person guilty of manslaughter even if they are charged with murder.

As much as I dislike the instant blame mentality of society... EVERY bouncer I have met has been a complete d******* and capable of this sort of behaviour.

very generalised.

very generalised.

Shutup, doesnt all cancer kill?

^no, it doesnt.

EVERY bouncer I have met has been a complete d******* and capable of this sort of behaviour.

meet more bouncers. while you're at it, meet more politicians, teachers, police, and ambo's. you might just be surprised.

I agree Mav, that's why I stated "I have met", because it's true. I'm not saying all bouncers are dangerous and make stupid decisions, just the ones I've encountered. I'm not entirely sure of the the training these guys go through, but the amount of times I've seen bouncers become tuff nuts and throw punches, instead of using submission techniques is just crazy.

I hope they throw the book at them, I've been manhandled at that pub many times

so have you actually MET those guys or have you just "seen them" and maybe only seen them once? have you spoken to them etc..?

Most of the bouncers I know are good guys that don't generally bother f***ing people up. Having said that the latest set of bouncers at the RE have kicked people out for good reason but been pretty agro about it.

I'm quick to judge. If I see a bouncer, punch somebody, where they could have clearly used a submission technique... yes, they are a d*******.

If a police officer does this, they get put under investigation. Why do we put so much responsibility on roughies with absolutely no proper training?

so you're saying you've never actually met any bouncers then, only seen them "in action" so to speak

If I see a bouncer, punch somebody, where they could have clearly used a submission technique

Like the bouncers tried to use in this situation... oh wait.

and u cant help but think that a lot of bouncers are still guys who are good at fighting, coz they like it and are keen to jump in, rather than control the crowd without people getting hurt

honestly, who ups and dies after getting bounced from a pub?

how serious was the fight? never seen any fights at the RE

Murder is a bit rough


I wonder what the circumstances were..

Nothing new, bouncers get slapped with murder / manslaughter charges, the public normally just doesn't hear about it. They'll get off, to my knowledge not one bouncer has ever been convicted.

You will generally see the police charge with murder first and then if it turns out there is no evidence to show the necessary intent, downgrade to manslaughter. A jury is able to decide that the intent was not there during the trial and find a person guilty of manslaughter even if they are charged with murder.

ah.

Well this is pretty rough too. Is there a legal (lawyers are bastards) reason as to why the police "generally charge" murder? If I accidentally killed someone I'd very much take manslaughter over murder! What's a reputation worth?

Ok, looks like it is time for the idiot's guide to the homicide provisions of the Criminal Code.

Holy f***ing s***, it's Lyco!! Sup cracker!

Anyway, the whole thing is still under investigation for a reason, for all we know the guy might have had a heart condition or OD'd or something completely unrelated to the headlock.

From what we have heard though, I admit that it certainly does sound like an accidental choking from an over-zealous bouncer.

guy might have had a heart condition

And that is why you arent fronting the investigation. How could a person with a weak heart, smash up at a pub, then have a pub brawl?

You will generally see the police charge with murder first and then if it turns out there is no evidence to show the necessary intent, downgrade to manslaughter. A jury is able to decide that the intent was not there during the trial and find a person guilty of manslaughter even if they are charged with murder.



ah.

Well this is pretty rough too. Is there a legal (lawyers are bastards) reason as to why the police "generally charge" murder? If I accidentally killed someone I'd very much take manslaughter over murder! What's a reputation worth?

Sorry, that was a fairly large generalisation, I should know better than to be so imprecise! They arrest and then charge people on the basis of a "reasonable suspicion" if my recollection of Criminal Law is correct. You'd need a police officer to shed more light on the issue, reading the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act will only get you so far!

You can accidentally kill someone and still be successfully charged with murder. You need only intend to cause someone grievous bodily harm, not to kill them necessarily. There are other provisions that I haven't mentioned that will get you convicted of murder as well.

What has happened so far is that there have been 3 people arrested and then charged with murder.

Clearly the police will have collected a large amount of evidence already and their investigations will no doubt be continuing. The Courier Mail and others are no doubt unaware of everything that the police know.

How certain the police are that the crucial element of intent is present at the moment is anybody's guess. Being charged with murder does not necessarily means that you will be indicted, tried and convicted of murder of course. The evidence will have to be put through the committal process before they even get to a trial and proving all of this "beyond a reasonable doubt".

What's a reputation worth? Thanks to the presumption of innocence in our criminal justice system, being charged with an offence should, in theory at least, have no effect on a person's reputation unless they are actually convicted!

Oh, and most lawyers are not bastards.

The bouncers i have come across, over the past two years at work, have all ben different. We use QHS gaurds (queensland hotels association) and most of the time we get the same gaurds. The guards i have gotten to know arn't arrogant or voilent. The stereotype comes because, every now and then, you get a bad apple of a gaurd, who uses excessive force and goes "looking for fights" so to speak.

We have had a couple of bad gaurds over the past two years at work, and in most case, they have lost there job. Most of the time i think bouncers are extremely fair. Having worked in a pub, knowing what its like to deal with drunken idiots. Most of the time i cut someone off, due to intox, they winge/complain/swear at me even though I am just doing what my RSA has taught me to do.

When it comes down to it, accidents happen. Most (emphasis on "most") bouncers do the right thing.

It's just unfortunate that sometime things like this happen.

I think its fairly stupid to say that all bouncers are a******s, because their not.

last edited by Tiny at 20:07:31 21/May/06

And that is why you arent fronting the investigation. How could a person with a weak heart, smash up at a pub, then have a pub brawl?

Okay, I'm not sure why you felt the need to take a troll at me over that but it's called speculation champ, there's obviously a whole lot that the media and by extension us, don't know about the situation.

In defence of that particular thought however - substance abuse and extreme stress could certainly push such an affliction over the edge if the person was susceptible. Anyway, It was merely an example of one of many possibilities that didn't inlude the bouncer's involvement. Much like the many completely unrelated reasons that I'm not "fronting the investigation".

I have trained with bouncers for sometime. They are not nomral people who do a very hard job. There are good ones and bad ones, the bad ones I have experience have all been on roids. Bottom line they make you very angry and they seem to loose self control. Amd a large pissed off man and a drunk is not a good combo. I know of at least one who I am waiting to hear to charged with murder one day. He used to love fighting drunks with a passion.

Calling someone a c***, c******* or god forbide resisting does not warrant you been killed. They are grown men who should be able to take it. They are not the police and should be charged. Like I said they have a hard job and I doubt very much that many people on this board would be able to do it.

Use wrist locks not head locks

So long as your wrist is stronger than theirs

That said, I feel sorry for everyone directly involved. Certainly and by all means have the police investigate it so long as it doesn't degrade into a witch hunt. Accidents are all to easy to happen an when grown men decide to "sort" someone out, there is a very real chance it may go south. The real world doesn't work like some kidde helicopter fight an the sooner people realise that the better

And that is why you arent fronting the investigation. How could a person with a weak heart, smash up at a pub, then have a pub brawl?

Okay, I'm not sure why you felt the need to take a troll at me over that but it's called speculation champ, there's obviously a whole lot that the media and by extension us, don't know about the situation.

Who would have thought the man with a user ID of 70 would be so easily & successfully trolled!

a charge of murder is very serious (duh) because it requires the prosecutor to conlcude from the evidence that mens rea (or guilty mind) is present. i.e. they must be convinced that the accused intended to cause harm to the victim.

an intent to cause harm, even in a roundabot way (e.g. setting fire to the victim's house not knowing that the victim was inside) can still result in a murder finding. similarly intending only to do bodily harm to the victim and instead killing could still result result in a successful murder charge.

it is the intent to cause harm which is key. even though this is just speculation, i am guessing that the evidence to date shows that the bouncers used disproprotionate force to the situation. i.e. 2 sobre bouncers v. 1 drunk patron tends to lend itself to that sort of set of facts.

the sad thing is it only takes one thing to wrong when the bouncers think they have it under control...

As it happens I've just done a crowd controllers course, and will be one within the next few weeks. Here's what I know.

The pub/club has a duty of care to all patrons within the club and the immediate vacinity of the club. If a brawl erupts, we are bound by law to do our utmost to minimize the damage done to the patrons and to a much lesser extent, the property. We cannot stand back and watch.

We are taught the main wrist-locks and pressure points for pain compliance. We are taught these because done right, we can get results without permanently injuring anyone.

Someone said 'use wristlocks not headlocks'. Try getting a wristlock on someone in the middle of a brawl by yourself. It's very difficult and would be ideally a two man job, one to restrain, one to slap on the wristlock and march the punter out. But in brawls bouncers are usually out-numbered and such luxuries as two of us on one punter rarely occur.

Remeber our primary concern is minimizing damage done, we can't prance about trying to put different locks on in the heat of a full scale fight, I could see restraining by any reasonable means becoming a viable option in out-of-control circumstances.

We are given the power to eject anyone we feel like ejecting. Once we decide someone's going they become trespassers, and can use reasonable and appropriate force to eject them. The key words there being reasonable and appropriate. That's what they'll decide in the courts.

I wasn't there, I don't know the circumstances, but unless it was like the star-city casino thing back in 96 (check the current affair vid of it, it's sickening) then quite frankly I'm behind the bouncers.

We are trained to be good PR people. We aren't meatheads like the UK bouncers, who are literally criminals and f***ing hard bastards.

A reasonable proportion of security staff are people that like to fight. It is these sort of people who are attracted to this type of job.
I have personally seen several occasions where bouncers have gotten out of control, and the situation turns ugly. Over the years at least two people I know personally have been bashed/manhandled by bouncers. That is not to say they didn't provoke it, but no one deserves to die for being too drunk or getting themselves into a fight at a pub.
A classic case in point is the Pineapple Hotel at the Mundine/Green fight. One of the bouncers wanted to carry it on, and ended up hitting a guy that was being ejected. He overstepped the mark and ended up getting the flogging of his life.
Security can't take the law into their own hands. But it is the venues fault for not hiring the right people. A club/pub/event needs security people who can think reason and talk before getting physical. They need people who understand that crowd control is not bashing/physically dominating those patrons who don't play by the rules, it is diffusing the situation and doing so safely.
Yeah their job is hard, so what? There are a lot of hard jobs, so if you can't hack it, f*** off out of security.

I've been going to the RE pretty steadily for yeaaaaars now and generally the security guys have been really good. For a time there were a bunch of guys that we got on really well with and would talk with them heaps.

I've seen very few incidents at the RE where someone gets dragged out; like I can count them on one hand. Mostly the bouncers get troublemakers out the door quickly and easily. I have seen a few guys get really agro, and then the bouncers generally just f***ing pounce on them quickly and really drag them out, arm around the neck thing.

The latest/current batch of bouncers at the RE seem a bit less cool than some of the predecessors, so I can easily see them dragging people out by the neck a little more roughly than probably would be warranted - but unless they were going really really nuts on the guy it seems more likely that he had some pre-existing condition, surely?!

Anyway, scary stuff. Don't annoy bouncers is always a good motto; they're too unpredictable. If you get pwned from a pub just cut your losses and leave, I reckon.

I hope someone goes to jail for a long time. It shouldnt be accepted that three people removing one person from a pub can reasonably result in a death.

but no one deserves to die for being too drunk or getting themselves into a fight at a pub.

Drunk or not, the person who fights has to accept that anytime they go into a fight there is a very small chance of death, statistics show that s*** happens.
Unfortunatly there are an awful lot of fights throughout the city over weekends and if s*** can happen eventually it will.
Remember, the person who drinks heavily and refuse to leave has made a choice.

That being said, I still support the proper investigations and charges that are appropriate. A death is no light matter to be glossed over, no matter the circumstances.

If you get pwned from a pub just cut your losses and leave, I reckon.

Maybe boba should take a leaf out of your book ;)

Just to add to Lyco's point about the fact that if you intend to do GBH to someone, and they die, that you can be convicted of murder: (All from memory, he can correct my law, crim was a couple of years ago for me)

The test for Grievous Bodily Harm is actually a fairly low threshold. Essentially any injury that would maim or kill someone if it left untreated is GBH. When you think about it, even a broken wrist (from that hypothetical wrist-lock) is GBH, because if it wasn't treated it would maim the person. It doesn't matter that its very easily treated.

So if they decide in this case that the bouncer "intended" to do something like render the guy unconcious, or even hurt him just a little bit in a way that would have seen him die in the middle ages, its murder.

Off topic sorta: IIRC, the definition of maiming actually relates to your ability to fight. If an injury has reduced your ability to fight, you have been "maimed".

Watch in amazement as Strex puts 7 guys into a headlock

http://maxe.ausgamers.com/photos/QGL_RE14.jpg

Maybe boba should take a leaf out of your book ;)

I haven't been to the re for ages, and when/if I have been, I've gone after 1 or 2 drinks. The place is a f***ing hole

Boba has been thrown out snuck back in and got thrown out again (and that was after 1 or 2 * 10 drinks) .. imo lucky not to be dead.

ps. The RE is a hole

Watch in amazement as Strex puts 7 guys into a headlock

not hard when they're all 15

We are taught the main wrist-locks and pressure points for pain compliance.

So you spent a couple of hours out of your two week security course to learn wrist locks... yeah good luck with that.

ps. The RE is a hole

While we're at it! So is the ALEX!

yea back when i got kicked out that time of the qgl meet they were generally pretty good... (i think)

the dude looked pretty massive, i doubt a "wrist lock" would've removed him from the pub.

Autopsy?

the dude looked pretty massive, i doubt a "wrist lock" would've removed him from the pub.

130kg

i thought that was the whole point of wrist locks and pressure points

to incapacite people safely, regardless of size

you need to be able to manouevre(sp?) yourself appropriately to be able to actually get him into the position for a wrist lock, and if he's a big boy swinging his arms around i imagine the bouncers would have a hard time restraining him even in the headlock position.

regardless of size

They arent magic, a guy that size will give you problems if he wants to, and if he is doped up and not feeling pain, then a choke hold is about the only thing that will work... even then ive heard of a guy who was bouncing, hit someone a couple of times, he wouldnt go down, choked him out, 5 seconds later he was back up and ready for more (obviously on something), the bouncer decided it was probably time to find a new line of work, too many guys on too many drugs.

this is messed up.

p.s wordthe alex is gay

even tho i still go there all the time anyway:<

i feel the same about the RE existence.
i don't like it but im always there.

It's not about the pub - it's about the fatties.

I actually can do a lot of submission techniques, but only when i'm playing as busta rhymes in Def Jam FFNY.

Explosively good submission techniques.

Autopsy?

surely. it would be nice to know the facts about, for example, his BAC, if he had anything else in his system, any medical conditions he may have had. i'm sure these are available to the people making descisions about the future of these bouncers, but i imagine people all over the place are having exactly this discussion we have here. the public gets half the facts (on a good day), make assumptions and judgements about the venue, the security guards at the venue and security guards in general.
as someone who wants to be a bartender for the rest of his life and someone who wants to own his own venue someday, i wonder how, if at all, this will effect the pub going public's attitude to bouncers in general and the re in particular. i have met and dealt with numerous security guards and all the ones i've met have taken their job very seriously, even though around half were only using it to put them through uni. they'll talk and joke with staff, but their eyes are always moving and they're always alert. they know it's all about spotting trouble before it can make trouble. sometimes they can't.
i've also dealt with enough aggro drunks who just can't be told anything.
unfortunately in cases like this, even if it turns out the guy had pcp coming out his eyeballs the public will only remember the headline from this morning - loosely quoted - Senseless: man at re celebrating new job dies, murder charges ensue.
edited for clarity

last edited by z0r at 01:31:37 23/May/06

the dude looked pretty massive, i doubt a "wrist lock" would've removed him from the pub.

...

Autopsy?

A wrist lock is reasonable force, an autopsy is a little heavy handed I would think.

an autopsy is a little heavy handed I would think.

you mean you'd prefer to conduct a murder investigation without all the facts about the physical condition of the dead guy who was on the other side in this conflict? that sounds like a great idea.

I've met the bloke who was killed, he was one of the gentler souls you'd meet. Definately a pacifist. All of his freinds and associates think it's nothing short of murder considering the guys temperament.

According to one of his freinds he was trying to break up a fight, not actively participate in one. From my experience bouncers thank people who've got some control back over the situation before the bouncers have arrived on the scene, not kill them.

last edited by Freewheelin at 04:50:45 23/May/06

an autopsy is a little heavy handed I would think.

I believe that by law an autopsy is carried out regardless of how the person died. i.e. Car acciedent, natural causes, killed etc. There has to be a cause of death on the death certificate...

er fellas, im pretty sure he was joke making

you mean you'd prefer to conduct a murder investigation without all the facts about the physical condition of the dead guy who was on the other side in this conflict? that sounds like a great idea.

I believe that by law an autopsy is carried out regardless of how the person died. i.e. Car acciedent, natural causes, killed etc. There has to be a cause of death on the death certificate...

Ummmm, you might want to read what you were reponding to again. I think you'll find he was saying an autopsy is a little bit over the top when it comes to submission techniques... you know.... a joke.

Edit: Oh and no an autopsy doesn't have to be conducted by law in all cases. If a doctor signs the death certificate saying this person died of of certain problem (i.e. they had been sick for a long time and the disease took it's course) then an autopsy is not needed. However if there is a sudden death or foul play or negligence is suspected like in this case then there must be an autopsy.

last edited by Chakas at 08:23:58 23/May/06

Oh and no an autopsy doesn't have to be conducted by law in all cases. If a doctor signs the death certificate saying this person died of of certain problem

I was refering to car accidents, murders etc. duh! As i said. There needs to be a reason for death on the death certificate.

I believe that by law an autopsy is carried out regardless of how the person died.

Of course you were only refering to certain circumstances.....

natural causes

Where does that fit in to murder, car accidents etc? ;)

Having just recently finishing up working for the RE, I have had the opportunity to meet at 2 of the bouncers involved. I am completely shocked at what has happened and was devestated for the pub and its staff - I know some of the girls who were behind the bar that night are having a hard time dealing with what went on. I can't really say too much more on the issue, other than when I first heard about it a few names of who the bouncers might have been went through my head. Just read the paper this morning - my suspicions were pretty much confirmed. For the most part they are a good bunch of guys. However there are a few bad apples in that group.

I hope the RE bounces back from this. The pub is over 125 years old, and has a long and proud tradition. This is an extremely serious incident, but I hope it doesn't have too much of a detrimental effect on the business.

I was there on Sunday night, and it was packed. Whether that was out of morbid curiosity, or normal Sunday night business, who knows, but I think the latter.
All the door staff and security were EXTREMELY friendly to everyone - the guy on the main door was even wearing a tie! But in all seriousness, I honestly don't think it will have a detrimental effect on business for the pub - everyone has had their own experience with bouncers and knows what they can be like...

Problems arise from people who use the 'headlock' approach and do not really know the correct manner in subduing a person. A 'lateral vascular neck restraint' is the correct method of disabling or controlling a person. Basically you block off both carotid artery's on either side of the neck, for s brief moment, and they black out, you move them to a safe or controlled point and that's that...but a lot of inexperienced people slap on a headlock/necklock incorrectly, flatten the airway which can collapse and bingo you in a very damgerous situation indeed.

The correct method is quite hard to get into wth a big, struggling person but once you have it you can knock them out very quickly and keep making them comply and black out as many times as necessary without permanent injury.

Also as a few have correctly pointed out charging someone with an offence ..general rule of thumb is that 'you can come down but you can't go up' with criminal charges. Bascially they charge with the higher offence in preference with the full knowledge (and sometimes expectation) that the lesser charge will be the one convicted upon.

I can't remember the outcome but does anyone remeber that situation a few years ago with a cab fare evasion some people (not sure id it was bounces) sat on top of a guy whilst they waited for Police to arrive. From memory it was somewhere in Red Hill, when the police arrived the 'offender' was dead, basically crushed by the people sitting on him.. anyone remember what was the outcome of that incident?

last edited by Psycho! at 10:56:16 23/May/06

there has been so much publicity on TV over the last few days about the incident, i'd be interested to see if the numbers are there for State of Origin.

Can you say what you heard happened on the night?

I know only what has been reported - the staff obviously aren't allowed to discuss any details. I understand that there was a fight, more than one person has been ejected, and the fella that died was put into a headlock of some sort. I don't know if he was punched or not, but he has ended up on the ground. There are a few cameras right where that incident occured, so all of it should have been captured, and will no doubt prove their guilt or innocence.

The staff are doing it pretty rough at the moment. I'd dare say that if you are heading there for a drink any time soon, they probably don't want to discuss it.

I think that depending on the case the family members of the deceased can either request or reject having an autopsy done. Of course a situation that might denote manslaughter has ample cause for an autopsy to be done, regardless of relatives wishes on the matter. I personally would want to know exactly what had happened.

We had a family friend who tripped over and bumped their head one day, a minor incident but tragically dead that night none the less. Apparently (years ago, was much younger when it happened and a bit sketchy on the details) he had some sort of brain clot and when lightly bumped in the wrong way it ruptured = death.

Just goes to show that there might be alot more going on here that the obvious.

Then again the simplest of explanations can often be the most accurate.

*Waits for more information*

i had a friend who was there on the night and according to what she said one of the bouncers may not of held the guy correctly by accident, but the guy was trying to fight them all.

Ok.... so I just found out that 2 of my best friends were involved in the fight itself. I'm not going to say much because I wasn't there but basically my mates weren't getting kicked out because they were attacked and the guy that attacked them and his mate (his mate being the guy that died) "put up a hell of a fight when the bouncers grabbed them". Having said that, I'm not sure what if anything the initial involvement of the guy that died was.

According to one of his freinds he was trying to break up a fight, not actively participate in one. From my experience bouncers thank people who've got some control back over the situation before the bouncers have arrived on the scene, not kill them.

Speaking from my history in this business, when a bouncer comes across a fight, he doesn't pick sides or spend time finding out who started it and just remove one person, everyone involved in the struggle gets removed.

agreed

well i dont know what took place before hand, i was at the RE then, didnt see any fight, was in not a bad position to see it either if it happened inside the pub, didnt hear of any such fight. we walked out the top entrace at like 10:45 and saw two bouncers sitting on top of the guy and he wasnt moving, face down. there was very little a crowd for what from posts here sound like it was some big ass fight. from other people ive heard, including a police officer i gave a statement to, several people commented on that he didnt look good and they should give him first aid and the bouncers told them to f*** off. strange enough all my friends had been telling me how bad the bouncers at the RE are these days (ive been in the UK) and this happened.

The "fight" that sparked the ejection was only 2 punches.... what exactly happened after that is unclear but the people ejected struggled with security afterwards.

The band im in turned down a gig to play last saturday night at the RE, they wanted the band for the whole month of saturdays but we were already booked at gilhooleys down the coast.

The last time I played at the RE a guy got bottled and I saw at least one other glass go flying through the air during the night, luckily it missed everyone.

From my experiences giging around the place, most of the bouncers are pretty cool, but there are a few that are d*******s. I see the s*** they have to put up with from drunken idiots and people that refuse to leave for whatever reason.

I personally never really liked The RE. I had probably one good night there - a quiet one a number of years ago before it was done up. If what seems to have happened ends up being what's deemed to have happened, I'd be surprised if any of the bouncers do any time. Manslaughter and suspended sentences for all.

s*** its been awhile since you've been on here.
did you wake up angry and therefore decide to post on qgl?

wtf, i find it hard to believe the RE has ever been done up.. lol

I think that would be the deck in the beer garden that you love so much.

Yeah they put that deck in.. before that it was all tables and chairs. With the deck came d******* bouncers

The Alex is really starting to gain some heat. People are coming from the coast now WTF?

I talk to a lot of bouncers about thier prior self defence training etc and most have said they just did the bare minimum course.

Now that to me means that they could be applying half assed arm locks, neck chokes etc and causing more damage than someone experienced in self defense.

It's alarming.

i think that's the first serious post i've seen from you steveo?

That’s about right mate.

But this is a serious subject.

Paying uneducated and incompetent people to protect others from being harmed by dangerous people has double the potential for injury or even death to the innocent and instigators.

I think security needs to be monitored much more closely and the education for the security people needs to be improved.

On top of that, there needs to be some sort of points system with strict bans on individuals who are too violent in the way they work.

Make sense?

On top of that, there needs to be some sort of points system with strict bans on individuals who are too violent in the way they work.

Could we also give nation wide bans to punters with a history of violent behavour?

If every state had an umbrella, governing body, than a state ban would be a great start.

A black list sounds logical and necessary.

Paying uneducated and incompetent people

Once they have completed the "State" set mandatory course, what more do you expect of them? They are taught everything they need to know at these courses. Its not a requirement that you hold a certain level of martial arts/submission training (although it helps).

My opinion though (as someone who works in this industry) is bouncers wouldn't be necessary if the people at the pubs and clubs knew when they had had to much to drink and didn't act like complete dick heads. The bouncers don't start these fights, the punters do, so the responsibility should fall back on them (the punters). Admittedly there are d*******s in the industry who may go to far, but there are d*******s in almost every profession/industry who go to far and give the rest of those who do the right thing a bad name.

tanaka, you don't work in any clubs around the valley by any chance do you?

my experience with bouncers has generally been good.

out of the many places i've had as locals, the bouncers have all been friendly, nice people who put up with a lot of s*** in their work. i've taken time out to chat with these guys, find out what makes them tick and how they do it night in, night out.

that being said ive seen 2-3 occasions of bouncers acting like d*******s, and these guys are the ones i have a bad feeling about from the start. they are not approachable, they are very confrontal and in the cases i saw, pushed the situation to the point that they 'had to act on it'.

i think 2 weeks is a far too short time frame to teach someone how to subdue and control a violent, alcohol induced situation, and opens up a pandoras box. david hookes, this guy and the dude that got kicked in the head a couple of years ago are prime examples of what can happen if a bouncer doesnt have his wits about him.

No Mav, I stopped doing the bouncing when I took over my business, now I tend to stick to patrol work. I've been doing the whole security game for about 15 years and have pretty much done it all...bouncing, body guarding/escorting, and general security work. I've found if you act and treat people with respect, and talk to them, you'll have a lot less hassles. But sometimes words won't work(especially if a fights in full swing), and that's when you need to resort to being physical. In the end it comes down to how you would want to be treated.

Edit-

i think 2 weeks is a far too short time frame to teach someone how to subdue and control a violent, alcohol induced situation, and opens up a pandoras box.

Great point there Tung, but at the moment that's all there is. I found I learnt alot more while on the job discussing things with the experianced bouncers rather than in the class room.

last edited by Tanaka Khan at 14:08:47 24/May/06

thats the problem.

an experienced bouncer shows you the most effective way to hold someone, and suddenly it becomes a game of chinese whispers. who showed them? who showed the people before them?

im sure the general technique is right but 2nd 3rd and 4th hand information is a dangerous thing :(

"thats the problem.

an experienced bouncer shows you the most effective way to hold someone, and suddenly it becomes a game of chinese whispers. who showed them? who showed the people before them?

im sure the general technique is right but 2nd 3rd and 4th hand information is a dangerous thing :("

Very good statement.

Even fake wrestling moves can be dangerous in uneducated hands.

So what does that say for more advanced real world submission holds etc?

I think bouncers should have more than 2 weeks raining, and training should even be ongoing?

Great point there steveO, lets hope that with the current and past problems, someone higher up with a few brains might open their eyes and actually do something about it.
But it's just like having a drivers license though, you do your test, get your license then you're free to hit the roads and cause all sorts of havoc.

Basically the wrist (headlock), is just a tensing along your arm thats holding the guys head, if do it right it takes about 3-5 seconds to knock someone out for around 5-10. Sometimes if people are resisting more then they will hold it for a bit longer to keep them out also slightly longer and get something to restrain them.

From what i heard, 3 bouncers.. 1 on legs, 1 on arms 1 on neck... guy on neck held for 6 minutes.. i.e. overkill, even 30 seconds if done correctly can cause brain damage from lack of oxygen.

Since i skipped majority of this post to write this, 2 got bail 1 didn't... i don't think they should all be charged with murder imo, guy holding legs wouldn't of known what was going on since he would of been concentrating on the legs, guy on the arms shoulda seen what was happening... but didn't have control of the situation so i think a murder charge isa bit much, prob get a manslaughter... guy on neck isa jackass who deserves the murder charge... 6min is excessive..

Still they gotta ring in all the evidence, but after hearing that from a reliable source I think the bouncer who did the hold is going to lose this one.

I dunno the rest of the details, but imo guy should get whats coming.

Most experienced bouncers if they use the hold will do it just to get them on the ground and then normally put a palm or knee on the side of their head till the cops come which pretty much makes them a puppy due to it hurting like s***, or if the guy is wearing a long sleeve shirt most will just tie a knot and wait for cops.

last edited by Raider at 17:39:14 26/May/06

Raider, do you suggest that bouncers have to go through more intense training? How can you stop people from doing this??

Fkn gay situation... now I got no where to drink:(

did it close down?

no but sif go there

why not? just dont piss off the bouncers and u wont die? its still a good pub

They have new guards now. Plus its a pretty remote incident for them - I think its as safe as ever to drink there :)

I was there on Sunday night (the night after the incident) and it was perfectly fine, it's still the same old RE.

still wreaks of spew?

yes and hot girls!

Raider, do you suggest that bouncers have to go through more intense training? How can you stop people from doing this??

Just more training mate, I know most of the more experienced bouncers always try to talk the situation down rather then resort to physical actions. Even if they end up having to resort to those actions its still only to quickly put the guy down and then basically it has to do with how the guy wants to act, if he is cool with it and leaves then the more experienced ones will ease off, but if he is going to act like a jackass then they'll just keep the knee to the head till the cops came like i said before...

Stricter rules.. talk before physical... if it is unavoidable then do it, and yes it does work. Greater training period, and don't show moron's how to do a potentially lethal hold gogo psyc evals.

I found I learnt alot more while on the job discussing things with the experianced bouncers rather than in the class room.

...

an experienced bouncer shows you the most effective way to hold someone, and suddenly it becomes a game of chinese whispers. who showed them? who showed the people before them?

I would think that the best information an experianced bouncer could give would be along the lines of how to spot trouble before it errupts and defuse then.
I'm sure that all the various subtlties that are involved in spotting a potential outburst would take alot more then 2 weeks to teach. Couple that with the teaching of actual physical techniques and you could easily have a full time course that is well over 2 weeks in length.

EDIT: Thinking about it, it makes you wonder what is actually tought in the short space of 2 weeks to make a bouncer 'certified'?

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 13:17:58 29/May/06

and training should even be ongoing?

Do you mind paying for it?

don't show moron's how to do a potentially lethal hold

The hold isnt rocket science, any moron could learn how to do it in 10 seconds... hell training them to do it would probably be preferable as then you could teach them the dangers of it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-150/fig3-37.gif
Im assuming its that one or a variation of it, none of them are that hard to do, especially if you have two other guys helping you hold the guy down.

A lot of procedures that surgeons perform on patients that cost thousands and thousands of dollars could be taught easily and performed to most morons... the problem is when something goes wrong. That is why morons shouldn't do it.

My point was you can't stop people learning these moves, they are that ridiculously simple, but if you did teach them then at least you also have the opportunity to teach them of the dangers.

A lot of procedures that surgeons perform on patients that cost thousands and thousands of dollars could be taught easily and performed to most morons... the problem is when something goes wrong. That is why morons shouldn't do it.

That analogy could so very easily be applied to Computers as well...

only they get paid properly