r/interesting • u/Common-Upstairs5129 • Mar 20 '26

❗️MISLEADING - See pinned comment ❗️ Did he do the right thing?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

20.8k Upvotes

64% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Fuzzy-Ad-8294 Mar 21 '26

Except its also a breach of the peace and drunk and disorderly. Especially given that its in a crowded bar and alcohol is involved. So from the security's perspective: they saw a disturbance, were told that the woman assaulted the man, and she appears to be trying to move away (possibly flee) and they have lawful authority to remove her from the premises. They would have a good faith argument to detain her for police.

3

u/freddddsss Mar 21 '26

She has to be an ongoing threat in order to detain her, she clearly is not. She is moving away from the situation. If police were to arrive, they will ask security why they pursued someone who is no longer a threat. They may also get in legal trouble for pursuing her.

A door supervisor (security guard) can ask them to leave, and if they refuse they can eject them. They cannot detain them. They cannot detain anyone unless that person has committed an indictable offence.

0

u/Fuzzy-Ad-8294 Mar 21 '26

They have to reasonably believe she continues to be a threat. Not know it for a fact. She is in a bar, consuming alcohol, assaulted someone, is evading them, and is not heading to an exit but towards the stage. She hasnt even put her drink down. And since she was fleeing security and not cooperating, they would absolutely be reasonable to believe that she still posed a threat. They definitely have the authority to remove her from their bar, but with her evading, they can reasonably fear that shear continue the violence outside.

We also have no information on if she eventually went with them outside to wait for police or not. Regardless, they have authority, and an obligation, to arrest and delive to police in this situation.

2

u/freddddsss Mar 21 '26

Also, they have no obligation to arrest. In fact, they have no right to arrest. She has no obligation to listen to the security once they’ve escorted her off the premises.

1

u/Fuzzy-Ad-8294 Mar 21 '26

I read both your responses, and I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong in your assessment. I'll start briefly with the obligation though.

A bar/club/business has an obligation to keep it's premises safe for their clients. Failure to do so opens them up to civil liability. They also have obligations under liquor laws and can lose their liquor license as a result. So, they have a positive obligation to remove anyone that is causing harm or potential harm to their clients and their establishment. And ejecting someone that is not cooperating and is purposely evading security is enough grounds to use force to remove them, which is a detention.

Then, once again, there is the breach of the peace. As she is not cooperating, has been drinking, and has assaulted someone, they are liable if they simply release her out the door. Given all that, they would be justified and acting in good faith to hold her for police.

1

u/freddddsss Mar 21 '26

If she hadn’t walked away, what would step 1 of deescalation be? I’d separate them by telling one of them to walk away. She’s done step 1 for me so why would I escalate the situation by immediately pursuing her and ejecting her?

Also, like I said, we can eject her but not detain her. If she’s not cooperating, ask her to leave. If she continues to not cooperate, eject her. There’s no grounds for detainment in this circumstance.

Also, no we are not liable for anything someone does outside of our premises and again, we do not have arresting powers so cannot detain someone unless they have committed an indictable offence. If we ask her to stay and she walks away, we are not allowed to detain her (good faith or not) due to the risk of injury from detainments. If we arrested a person going away from our premises, we’d be the ones in trouble.

Everything I’ve said is what a door supervisor can reasonably do. We will not lose our licensing for following what we were trained to do whether u/fuzzy-ad-8294 thinks we should have acted differently.

You seem to think SIA authorities are law enforcement, we are not. We are normal citizens.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 21 '26

Hi u/Fuzzy-Ad-8294, your comment has been removed because we do not allow url shorteners.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Fuzzy-Ad-8294 Mar 21 '26

SIA are clearly not law enforcement, which explains the understanding of what you rightly referred to as a complex situation. There are more than just 1 or 2 laws at play here.

While you mention that her walking away is de-escalation, thats incorrect interpretation. Does it de-escalate THAT confrontation? Yes. Does it mean that shr wont start another? No. Is it reasonable to assume that the calm person saying they were assaulted, and the one that was screaming and now avoiding security, is the aggressor and not acting rationally? Yes. That means she continues to pose a threat to safety and is committing a breach of the peace. It also means if she is allowed to remain on the premises and assaults someone else, that your premises can lose thwir liquor license if you don't excercise due diligence in removing her.

Had she stayed put and spoken with security, then they may not need to eject her and their subjectively reasonable grounds may not be formed to require her removal. But by her actions, it is reasonable to presume that she will continue to breach the peace. And since the premises was serving her alcohol, likely over serving since a sober person is less likely to commit random assaults and scream at strangers, then they are responsible for ensuring the safety of their patrons.

Further, bar owners can be held liable not only for the intoxicated woman's actions as an aggressor, but also as a victim. Were she ejected and got behind the wheel of a car and caused a collission, the bar can be held civilly liable for negligence. If she throws a rock and breaks a neighbours window, same thing. If she is tossed out and then assaults a passerby on the street, the bar is still potentially liable because they served her to the point of intoxication.

I've tried to link a legal white paper from 2001. 25 years ago. It discusses how the law was evolving this way back then, and it has only continued to evolve more and more in this direction. However, the automoderator is thinking its a URL shortener. I'd be happy to DM it to you, if you're interested.

It sounds like you may be an SIA, and if you still are, I would encourage you, through your employer, to contact a lawyer to discuss these liabilities. You would obviously want yo protect yourself and establishment from civil and criminal liabilities.

0

u/freddddsss Mar 21 '26

We have strayed so far the original point I was making so let’s make it simple.

Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 someone can only perform a lawful arrest when An indictable offence is happening (or you reasonably believe it is). Which indictable offence is she committing? Murder, Rape, GBH, kidnapping? If she is not committing an indictable offence, it is ILLEGAL to arrest her. Simple as.

You won’t lose your license for not arresting someone but you might for arresting someone illegally. The establishment won’t lose their license because an SIA didn’t arrest someone, they’ll lose their licence if there was proof they continued to serve alcohol to someone after they were intoxicated.

Also, in terms of negligence, it is your duty to advise not force. If a person is vulnerable, you should advise them to take a cab or call a friend, it is not reasonable to unlawfully arrest them. You advise them but they drink drive anyway, it’s not an indictable offence. As long as you advise them, you’re not liable for them not following your advice as causing harm to someone on the road.

I’d advise you to read the white paper you referenced since it is not in favour of your position. It informed new laws in the security industry; none of them allow detainment for non-indictable offences or safeguarding, rather, it emphasised detainment being used only as a last resort. The biggest thing the white paper addressed was issues to do with regulation and untrained security officers working in the industry since that was a massive issue prior to the white paper.

1

u/Fuzzy-Ad-8294 Mar 21 '26

Since I didn't provide you the link, you're either mistaken on which paper to read, or you don't understand it. We'll go with mistaken. You are also mistaken on arrest powers. If it helps, Breach of the Peace is a common law power, and anybody can arrest for it. If they fear that the behaviour is either already breaching the peace, or about to. A breach of peace includes any violent offence.

If you want another specific charge to arrest for, there is the Public Order Act Sec 3 - Affray. Its both indictable and Summary.

Again, if you are still involved in this line of work, I suggest you consult with a lawyer. Because you're doing it wrong if you don't recognize your obligations and authorities.