AnneMarie

A lot of people have asked for my take on the incident at the Quarry Tap Room last weekend. I have watched the video. I have read the comments. I have read the patron’s version, the eyewitness account supporting the establishment and the absolute declarations of guilt being issued by people who learned everything they know from a partial cellphone video. After all of that, I have exactly as much information as everyone else on the internet. Chief Zac Kindelan has promised a full, neutral investigation, and I have no doubt he will ensure that happens. He was sworn in as Hallowell’s chief a little over 30 days ago...Then, Hallowell handed him this shitshow and demanded an immediate verdict from a video that begins after the confrontation was already underway. Welcome to Hallowell, Zac... Police now have to interview witnesses, compare statements, obtain cellphone videos, review the establishment’s security footage and determine what happened before, during and after the portion we have seen. That includes the patron’s version. That includes the establishment’s version. That includes the account of a witness who says the patron had already been removed, attempted to reenter, headbutted the bouncer and began swinging. At this point, those are competing accounts. They are not findings of fact. What I can address is the repeated claim that bouncers have no authority to put their hands on anyone and must call the police to remove a patron. That is simply false. Under 17-A M.R.S. § 402(1)(D), a person commits criminal trespass by remaining somewhere in defiance of a lawful order to leave personally communicated by the owner or another authorized person. That authorized person can be an employee. It can be a bartender. It can be security (bouncer). Police do not need to arrive and ceremonially announce that the person has been voted off the island. Once an authorized person lawfully orders someone to leave, that person’s permission to remain has been withdrawn. They are no longer licensed or privileged to be there and thereby are committing criminal trespass. More importantly, 17-A M.R.S. § 104(1) expressly allows a person possessing or controlling the premises, or someone lawfully present there, to use nondeadly force when and to the extent they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass. In plain English, despite the binding decision handed down by Facebook’s finest legal minds consisting of a distinguished panel of unlicensed lawyers covering all 52 states, Maine law does, in fact, allow a bouncer to physically remove someone who has been lawfully ordered to leave and refuses. They do not have to call police and stand around politely hoping the person eventually becomes tired of being disruptive. That authority is not unlimited. The force must be reasonably believed necessary. It cannot be punishment, retaliation or an opportunity to continue beating someone after the threat or trespass has ended. But I will be very direct about the level of force shown in the video. If the investigation determines that the bouncer was legally justified in using force, I see nothing wrong with the level of force she used. I say this all the time when law enforcement videos circulate. Using force to gain control of someone who otherwise does not want to be controlled is not pretty. Violence is not pretty. Period. When physical force is legally justified, it often looks ugly. Bodies twist. People fall. Arms and legs go everywhere. The person resists, the person applying the force adjusts and the entire thing looks chaotic because it is chaotic. During this period of legal violence, people sustain injuries. That does not automatically make the force excessive. The purpose is not to create a visually pleasing removal for the Facebook audience. The purpose is to gain control of the situation before it becomes more dangerous.