Unnecessary roughness

[Kimmik]

So you support vigilantism, got it.

As someone who has been victim to some horrendous shit and whose husband's family has, let me just say I rather let the law take it's course because I am better then the slimes that committed the crimes.

I have seen the law work and the law fail, but I still don't support acting as the law.

I have also seen what can happen when someone decides to be the law.

[Plaidman]

Even if it is the 15th time that you have to bounce the patron, once you begin to cause severe harm you are guilty of a crime. Unless it is ok to violate the law when it is convenient. Then well there is some people I use to work with that I need to go and beat.

Just because someone acts out does not make the law suddenly invalid. Just like when someone steals from the store I worked at, I was not allowed to lay a hand on them as it violated the law to do so.

As someone who has been bounced out of a Bar.. I learned that the reason I was arrested was because I assaulted someone.. dont get me wrong the other party was arrested as well. How ever because I decided to teach the fucker a lesson for being a drunk sot that was to happy with his hands, I became just as guilty as he was.

2 wrongs dont make jack right.

I have no idea where you ever read that I gave two craps about law.

The law has proven time and time again that assholes and criminals win out against law. They get released over a minor mistake in paperwork and out they go to do whatever they fuck they want again.

As much as it sucks, sometimes you do have to fight to stand up for yourself and what belongs to you. Because if you don't, people will walk all over you, and the law will slowly crawl as it /attempts/ to help you, but won't really help you. Cause hey, that man that broke into your house and raped ya? Well turns out he was arrested by a cop that muttered a racist remark, so we had to let him go and have a new cop come. He's long gone now. We promise we'll find him. Maybe. Eventally.

Then if he is caught, it be years before he eventally does get through a trial without a mistake being made in his favor to get him released.

The law is easy to break, and even easier to abuse in your favor.



Two wrongs may not make a right. But if if the law has repeatedly proven to not work, and not only that, but is basically do everything to protect the rights of the person who is abusing that law, squrming just enough on the line to not break it? What then?

You get the assholes who willingly on that line and taunt ya, do whatever the fuck they want because they are /protected/.

Mayhaps your life is been utterly perfect.

Maybe your one of the ubber people that can do whatever they want and the law doesn't care.


Some people out there tried playing by the so called /laws/, but despite people breaking the laws that are meant to protect you, they do not get punished despite whatever you do. So yeah. I fully endorse anyone that decides to beat the living fuck out of someone that repeatedly abuses others when the so called /law/ has yet to punish that person.

[Kimmik]

And I said it before:

If this was truely a case of someone beating the crap out of a drunk for no reason, it was excessive.
.

Even if it is the 15th time that you have to bounce the patron, once you begin to cause severe harm you are guilty of a crime. Unless it is ok to violate the law when it is convenient. Then well there is some people I use to work with that I need to go and beat.

Just because someone acts out does not make the law suddenly invalid. Just like when someone steals from the store I worked at, I was not allowed to lay a hand on them as it violated the law to do so.

As someone who has been bounced out of a Bar.. I learned that the reason I was arrested was because I assaulted someone.. dont get me wrong the other party was arrested as well. How ever because I decided to teach the fucker a lesson for being a drunk sot that was to happy with his hands, I became just as guilty as he was.

2 wrongs dont make jack right.

[Plaidman]

And I said it before:

If this was truely a case of someone beating the crap out of a drunk for no reason, it was excessive.

If it was a case of a bartender loosing his temper from an excessive annoyance who won't leave well enough alone, and keeps harrassing customers and his crew? then it wasn't excessive.
Plain and simple.

[DrFaroohk]

Yeah, but this is all hypothetical. We don't know any of that happened. What we do know is the bartender, in this specific situation, overreacted. Plain and simple. Hell, let's even turn it around. Maybe this bartender was harassing the drunk guy. Maybe he stole the guy's woman, raped his kids, framed him for a murder he didn't commit and that's why the guy was in the bar running his mouth. See? I can play that game too, but all it amounts to is something I just flushed town the toilet about fifteen minutes ago. Let's work with what we know.

[Plaidman]

But it wouldn't be excessive then in anycase.

I've had to do that plenty of times, especally when assholes that aren't suppose to be in our store just keep coming in anyway, and police on the phone say'll they'll come when they can but since the man isn't attacking anyone YET, and only MIGHT steal (Their words. The man is stealing now and currently walking out the door). If police don't do anything, and the people keep coming?
Then yeah. You need to smash a fucking hammer in their fucking face so they get the point not to fucking dare come near your place of work anymore. Just how it is.


To put it another way:

Say someone comes to your house. Verberly abuses you. You get him out.
Next day he comes back. Does the same time, only it's to your wife. Again, you walk him out, and call police. They get a report and that's it.
Next day he comes again. Your telling police. Police tell you unless he is assualting you, they won't be coming anytime soon. Meanwhile this person is now peeing on your bed cause he is just that drunk. This time you throw him out of the house.
Comes back again next day. This time with friends. They trash your house but leave before police come.
Come back again next day drunk, yet again.

Your going to honestly tell me that your just going to calmly talk to him in vain hopes police might come? The fact the last few times you tried to do it all peacefully, he still returns? Or are you finally going to just snap and hurt the fucker, regardless of how drunk he is?

[DrFaroohk]

if this was the tenth time, and the last nine times there he would pee on people, abuse the patrons/owners/employees be it physically or verbery, then no. It wasn't excessive at all.

Or more than likely, people would be saying "What, you let him back in even though the last ten times he started a fight and abused the staff/patrons? It's your own fault for letting it go that far!"

Some people just need to be contrary. It's like elsporko never left.

[Plaidman]

I'd be asking why. But when you write it, you make it like your showing off and basically admiting you have no prior history.

Seeing as you do NOT know the prior history between the two, I cannot say yes or no if it was excessive yet.

Don't get me wrong: I hate bullies.

But I'm a very firm beliver that some people really need to be brutally beaten, and maybe they'll learn not to act like the total thieving, abusing, physcopaths they are.

If this was the first time the drunk was ever in that bar, and the first time the everyone in that bar has ever bare witness to him? Then yes, it was excessive.

if this was the tenth time, and the last nine times there he would pee on people, abuse the patrons/owners/employees be it physically or verbery, then no. It wasn't excessive at all.

[DrFaroohk]

Or are you going to say what you saw? That he threw a punch at a bouncer, the owner came running around the corner, grabbed him, slammed him against the door then again threw him out?
.

That right there is what I mean by too far. And you forgot about the part where he busted the guy through a door and THEN slammed his head into the wall. He went too far, and in lots of places that gets you an assault charge no matter who swung first. Besides, he didn't even swing at the bartender. Bartender had no business being in the fight.

I wonder what tune you'd be singing if I said "Man, this drunk dude came into my bar and punched one of the bouncers, so I ran up to him, chucked him into a door and then brutally slammed his head into the wall causing brain damage." Would you still be drumming up false stories of abuse from the drunk, or would you be saying "DrFaroohk, you went way too far and you deserve to go to jail and lose your bar."

[Plaidman]

Depends on the person on that part. Your reaching yourself.

Your an honest guy yourself, if you were put on trial, are you going to lie and say "Oh yeah, that drunk was beating everyone up and such"

Or are you going to say what you saw? That he threw a punch at a bouncer, the owner came running around the corner, grabbed him, slammed him against the door then again threw him out?

Not to mention any security cameras shown will prove whatever the drunk says, along with other honest people. Having the owner and bouncer lie isn't going to win any favors.

Also: You'd be surprised how many assholes I've had to fight who STILL would try to come into our store just to steal more beer just because. Starting fights and just being calmly walked out by a bouncer won't stop them coming back the very next day.
Even having police come and arrest them for a day won't stop them coming back, even with restraining orders.
You beat them hard enough though? Sometimes they'll stop.

[DrFaroohk]

No, I'm not there all the time, but I hardly think a guy who has been in there starting fights for the past five months is going to get to hang around that long. We're reaching a bit, aren't we?

As far as the lawsuit, well....in theory, you're probably right, but when it comes down to it, say you're on the jury or whatever....who are you gonna believe? The one alcoholic guy, or the bar owner and his staff saying it was the drunk's fault? Bar owner can come up with half a dozen witnesses who will say the drunk was acting belligerently, vandalized the bar, kicked the door in, harassed the staff and customers, and wouldn't leave quietly, and no one's going to bother to doubt it.

[Plaidman]

And again, are you there all the time? Have you seen the man he threw out before?

Your missing the point that this might have been the tenth or twentith time this drunk tried to start a fight, and the owner lost it and rough him up good to hammer a point of not going back into his bar ever again. Would the bouncer do that? Not likely. He's trained to defend and get people out, not destroy them.

We don't know the history of those two, other then you proclaiming the owner just loves showing off and is very willing to take on any legal action from people that would sue. (After all, if this was uncalled for, that guy can easily sue and win). But if it was proven in the court that this drunk starts fights every time he comes in? Not very likely to win as much then.

[DrFaroohk]

This isn't about his throwing a drunk out of his bar.

This is about him practically killing the guy to do it. The amount of force he used was in no way justified. Plus I'm pretty good and telling what people's motivations are. As it happens, I do sort of know this bar owner and he likes to talk big and act big and I have no doubt in my mind he was just proving a point. Look at me, look at how tough I am, I have anger issues and self esteem issues and this is how I deal with it!

If drunk guy had pulled a knife, I would have said "Way to go, bartender!" If drunk guy had been mercilessly beating some woman, I would have said "Way to go bartender!" If the guy was mercilessly beating ANYONE to the point way beyond a typical bar fight, I'd probably have stepped in myself and given assistance, in addition to saying "Way to go bartender!"

Like in your previous example of jumping into a fight...if it's called for, such as when a drunken psycho jumped on top of my best friend and was pounding him in the face, yeah, that's totally alright to jump into because it's now one-sided and he might have killed him. But there was no need of this.

[Plaidman]

Ok. So you were there from the very moment that owner was born, and he never ever once ever encountered that man he threw out before? That drunk was never ever anywhere near that bar or any of the employees or customers before?

Prove that, then I can belive that there was nothing more then a man who wanted to fight, rather then protect his employees.

[DrFaroohk]

That is jumping to conclusions IMO. I don't think it was DrFaroohk at all and I agree with his point. The owner did seem to have "something to prove"

I love when people are like "There must be more to this story" and then proceed to make up their own lies. No. That's how this works. You work and debate upon with what information you are given. If you feel there's something in error, such as "more to the story", then feel free to do your own research and respond with the FACTS that are discovered. Not make up lies.