Bouncers-tips,tricks And Mistakes To Avoid

[Tom Yum]

I'm not defending the drug use, I'm just saying don't be too quick to judge the guy because there are a lot of good things about him too.

My discussion pertains to the troubles that happen when people are on drugs and personal accountability thereof - related to your discussion of women who willingly take party drugs get taken advantage of and lie about being drugged.

I'm not the judgemental type, Lu. I may have a terrible sense of humor but I'm not about to judge someone about their race, sex or where they are from. I know these things are important to different people, but I plea the golden rule.

If someone I knew personally asked me for help with a drug problem, I'd do what I could to help them. No questions asked.

[treelizard]

Well, my friend definitely had it used on her and she wasn't the only victim, and the guy did get busted eventually.

And btw, she didn't say, "some guy put roofies in my drink"--she was describing an unclear situation where she wasn't sure exactly what had happened and thought it was her fault because she'd had a drink (as in, one single solitary drink) and wasn't sure why she passed out or could only vaguely remember what had happened or what she did wrong...

[Sagacious Lu]

Well, my friend definitely had it used on her and she wasn't the only victim, and the guy did get busted eventually.

And btw, she didn't say, "some guy put roofies in my drink"--she was describing an unclear situation where she wasn't sure exactly what had happened and thought it was her fault because she'd had a drink (as in, one single solitary drink) and wasn't sure why she passed out or could only vaguely remember what had happened or what she did wrong...

Sorry, I don't doubt your story at all. That post wasn't directed at your friend, it was just intended to make a point. I'm glad they did eventually get the scum bag.

[treelizard]

No problem. As a rule of thumb, I tend to believe people who say they were victimized and try to direct them towards appropriate care and then let the professionals sort it out...

Sorry, I don't doubt your story at all. That post wasn't directed at your friend, it was just intended to make a point. I'm glad they did eventually get the scum bag.

[Sagacious Lu]

I've known many, many amazingly talented people who managed to get hooked on drugs. That's part of my problem with drug habits - they so often overshadow and tragically end the talents themselves.

Amen to that; that's why I feel so strongly about what I do.

And for the record, if soldiers in my unit were druggies, I'd be the first to turn them in, even if it meant sending them to jail and ruining their careers. "Helping" in those cases is a matter of keeping the guys on your team alive - including the idiot who goes to jail, because they'd clean him up at Leavenworth.

I certainly hope you would, if you're the leader than clearly that's your responsibility. I can't think of many things scarier than a guy who's strung out meth with an automatic weapon in his hand. I also wouldn't want to trust my back to a guy that spent the time he was supposed to spend preparing partying.

Honest people making honest mistakes I can live with. People who let their habits go to a point that buying and carrying their drugs becomes more important than drinking water hardly fall under "honest people making honest mistakes." To me, that qualifies as someone who has let a substance control their actions, their thought processes, and their lives.

Agreed, but I will add that I watch of lot of the people who leave our table and immediately go get themselves some water after they talk to us. All it took was for someone to explain how the chemicals work to them in a non-judgemental way and they chose to take care of themselves. If we hadn't been there they might not have known any better.

I think the important thing to realize is that I am not issuing a blanket statement that says "people who do drugs are bad."

In this light I don't think I have any real problem with where you're coming from. My point is that as a society we look down on drug use so much that we don't address the health issues. We're so busy looking for someone to punish that we aren't helping the people that can be helped. We're so busy trying to scare kids into staying sober (the idea had merit but it has obviously failed miserably) that we aren't giving them the education they need to understand the decisions they are making. Young people do things without considering the consequences all the time. By not teaching them about the dangerous chemicals that they will inevitably encounter we guarantee that they will make decisions based on ignorance. How many people know that you can catch hepatitis C by using cocaine?

As a rule of thumb, I tend to believe people who say they were victimized and try to direct them towards appropriate care and then let the professionals sort it out...

I am trained in CPR and if I see someone who is unable to care for themself while I volunteer I call for help and take care of them as best I can until the EMTs arrive. I remember my first night volunteering we had to call the ambulance three times. I do not believe in blaming the victim but in the cases I'm talking about there aren't any victims. Understand that I have listened to dozens of claims that someone slipped something into someone else's drink in which it's pretty much certain that no physical attack occured. My first question is always did they get medical help, and if so what did the doctor say. From there I ask what symptoms they experienced and after that I try to find out what they might have done voluntarily. The person telling the story frequently didn't seek medical help- that's my first indication that the story might be fishy. Then they describe what happened, which frequently is way out of line with the effects of the chemicals they claimed they were slipped. Then as you talk to them you find out that they had voluntarily used two or more other substances prior to the incident. It's pretty hard to take a story like that seriously, but it's very easy to see their motivation for inventing the story.

[treelizard]

I do not believe in blaming the victim but in the cases I'm talking about there aren't any victims. Understand that I have listened to dozens of claims that someone slipped something into someone else's drink in which it's pretty much certain that no physical attack occured. My first question is always did they get medical help, and if so what did the doctor say. From there I ask what symptoms they experienced and after that I try to find out what they might have done voluntarily. The person telling the story frequently didn't seek medical help- that's my first indication that the story might be fishy. Then they describe what happened, which frequently is way out of line with the effects of the chemicals they claimed they were slipped. Then as you talk to them you find out that they had voluntarily used two or more other substances prior to the incident. It's pretty hard to take a story like that seriously, but it's very easy to see their motivation for inventing the story.

Say you are right 99% of the time. That means that you just treated one person who was assaulted like they were making it up. That's the most common reason I've heard for why people don't report rapes/assaults/etc.--because they think people won't believe them. Wouldn't it be better just to give them the number for the rape crisis center or direct them to appropriate care instead of making judgements about a situation you only know about secondhand? Just because someone's taken ten substances doesn't mean that there wasn't an incident. And if they are taking tons of drugs and making up stories, they probably need counseling anyway.

[Tom Yum]

I also wouldn't want to trust my back to a guy that spent the time he was supposed to spend preparing partying.

Even all those ambitious dudes on Wallstreet....jj ?

I'd have to agree with you on that. If you're on a team, you want people who will prepare and be ready.

[Sagacious Lu]

Say you are right 99% of the time. That means that you just treated one person who was assaulted like they were making it up. That's the most common reason I've heard for why people don't report rapes/assaults/etc.--because they think people won't believe them. Wouldn't it be better just to give them the number for the rape crisis center or direct them to appropriate care instead of making judgements about a situation you only know about secondhand? Just because someone's taken ten substances doesn't mean that there wasn't an incident. And if they are taking tons of drugs and making up stories, they probably need counseling anyway.

That isn't what I do. I don't judge the people I talk to, I don't tell them whether I do or don't believe them because frankly, I'm going to give them pretty much the same answer anyway. The first thing I do is ask if they have had medical attention, if they tell me they haven't I recommend that they talk to their doctor. It's not my place to decide who does or does not need counciling but I ALWAYS tell people with stories like these to talk to a doctor- we wouldn't be very reputable if we said something else. After I recommend professional medical attention I give them information about the substances that they took as well as the ones they think they were slipped. After the conversation is over I keep everything that was said in confience- I never answer questions about who spoke to me when about what.

Even all those ambitious dudes on Wallstreet....jj ?

If they were watching my back I'd trust them to use the opportunity to try to pick my pocket

[treelizard]

Sounds good. Just checkin'.

[Tom Yum]

If they were watching my back I'd trust them to use the opportunity to try to pick my pocket

Thanks for sharing the PG-rated version....

[Sagacious Lu]

Sounds good. Just checkin'.

Right on. The law enforcement and medical professionals I've talked to have all enthusiastically supported us. Hopefully I'll be able to come in handy from time to time since this forum is dedicated to street smarts.

Thanks for sharing the PG-rated version....

Nah, nothing so exciting, none of the executives here are Mrs. Robinson types

[ZaxNeon]

A couple things I didn't see listed...

I've done bar security for several years at a place that could get pretty violent and yes it had a BIG drug problem. A couple things I didn't see anybody else mention were these--keeping in mind these are just my opinions and I don't claim that they're useful for anyone else but me.
First approach every situation as if the person you are going up to will immediately attack you without provocation. This just means that you enter into your dialogs with people keeping a tactical frame of mind.
Secondly, pay careful attention to your range. Unless you are trying to directly restrain someone, don't get within their immediate attack range. Talk to them while hovering just outside where they can strike you.
Third, if it's an argument, get them to take their focus off whomever they want to fight and talk directly to you about their issue. This usually only works with bar regulars, but I always try it.
Fourth, tell people that you are just trying to do a job and what they're doing is making you work too hard! Now I actually do like to work hard, but I learned this trick from another guy who was the smallest bouncer you ever saw in your life, and I swear by this one now. It helps people relate to the situation you're in.
Lastly, don't ever hesitate to call the Cops. Especially for large scale fights involving more than two people. There's no reason to end up in the hospital for a job that pays $8.00 an hour and you're helping the bar in the long run by showing a low tolerance and severe consequences for foolishness.

[TTEscrima]

If'n you ain't man enough to whup 'em fair you can do like the women an poison 'em. Make yer momma proud an yer daddy too embarrassed to show his face in public. You can also kiss havin' a security clearance above cub scout goodbye, seein as character and morality are at the top o' the list as necessities for a TS clearance.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070328-job-candidates-gone-wild-be-careful-what-you-post-online.html

Be careful what you post online if you want to be able to get a job in the future. Your blog, web site, Facebook, MySpace, online dating profile, or even forum postings might "out" your salacious activities to a potential employer. According to a survey conducted by business social networking site Viadeo, one-fifth of hiring managers have used the Internet to find personal information about potential job candidates, and a quarter of those have rejected candidates based on what they found.

-------------------

These stats are at 80% for military security clearances. If you can't follow the job description for a mall cop you will never have a Military security clearance PERIOD. Buyer beware of the BS you're fed. The ability to be truthful, honorable and and follow the rules are EXTREMELY important to the people who vet you for a security clearance for anything but mopping the bathroom floor.

On October 30, 2000, Congress enacted a new law, known as the “Smith Amendment”, which prohibits the Department of Defense from granting or renewing a security clearance to any person who had been “convicted in any court of the United States of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”[2] That Amendment, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 986, provides that “in a meritorious case the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the [above stated] prohibition.”Any person shown to be unable to follow procedure and policy of their command structure shall show forfeiture of clearance due to DoD Directive 5220.6.
This would no doubt apply to people who poisoned customers while bar tending in violation of federal law and the employers policy.

The Smith Amendment resulted from a newspaper article published in USA Today generally critical of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).[3] The article selected thirteen out of several thousand DOHA decisions issued between 1994 and 1999 to bolster the story. Senator Bob Smith picked up on the story to start an investigation of the entire DOHA appeals process.[4]

10 U.S.C. § 986 was subsequently implemented by the Department of Defense by a Memorandum dated June 7, 2001, from the Deputy Secretary.[5] It included convictions in either a Federal or State court, and also included any sentence of more than one year regardless of the amount time actually served. The DoD Memorandum further provided that the decision of whether a particular case was sufficiently meritorious to justify a request for waiver, would begin with the appellate authority of the DoD component concerned. In the case of civilian contractors’ employees, that appellate authority is DOHA.

Government employees of the Department of Defense holding security clearances are also subject to the Smith Amendment. Review of their appeals go instead first to the Central Adjudication Facility (CAF) of the Military Department employing them, and then to the Military Department’s Personnel Security Appeal Board (PSAB). Whether such Boards are applying a different standard than DOHA for recommending waivers is not known because there is no public record of those Boards’ decisions.

The DoD Memorandum requires that all cases must first be fully investigated and adjudicated in accordance with Executive Orders, DoD Directives and regulatory guidance to develop a record upon which to evaluate whether a waiver is meritorious. In cases coming before DOHA, the applicable directive is DoD Directive 5220.6. The DoD Memorandum further requires that before a waiver can even be considered, there must first be a decision, “without consideration of” 10 U.S.C. § 986, to grant or renew the security clearance of the person involved. If sufficient reason is found to grant or renew the clearance, the authority responsible for making that decision, either DOHA for contractors’ employees or the CAF for Government employees, may then recommend to the Secretary of Defense or to the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, that the case merits a waiver of the Smith Amendment.

The DoD Memorandum applies both to initial determinations to grant clearances and to reinvestigations. It does not apply to conversions, transfers or reinstatements of current DoD security clearances for either government employees or defense contractors’ employees.

DoD’s Memorandum is further implemented by DOHA by its Operating Instruction No. 64, dated July 10, 2001.[6] That Operating Instruction directs DOHA Administrative Judges to initially determine whether 10 U.S.C. § 986 applies to the facts of a particular case. If the judge so determines, and further determines, without consideration of 10 U.S.C. § 986, that there would have been a decision to grant or renew the security clearance, the Administrative Judge must then include, without explanation, a statement either recommending or not recommending a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986.[7]

Operating Instruction No. 64 further directs that if a case is appealed to the DOHA Appeal Board, and it would have granted a clearance but for the Smith Amendment, it too shall include, without explanation, a statement either recommending or not recommending a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986. Finally, the Operating Instruction provides that in any case in which an Administrative Judge or the Appeal Board, recommends consideration of a waiver, the Director of DOHA shall, within his sole discretion, determine whether to forward the case to the DoD Deputy General Counsel for further consideration of a possible waiver by the Secretary of Defense, “together with such rationale as may be requested by the Deputy General Counsel.”

Between December 14, 2001 and October 23, 2002, there were 20 cases identified in which eleven different Administrative Judges recommended a Smith Amendment waiver.[8] All of these cases overwhelmingly satisfied the mitigating conditions of Security Guideline J, concerning criminal conduct.[9]

Seven of the cases in which an Administrative Judge did recommend a waiver were appealed.[10] In all of those cases, although the employee would have otherwise been granted a clearance, the three-member Appeal Board did not recommend a waiver.[11] Because DOHA Operating Instruction No. 64 precludes either an Administrative Judge or the Appeal Board from offering any explanation for its decisions, the appealed decisions offer no insight as to why the Administrative Judge recommended a waiver, and the Appeal Board did not.

The record to date is dismal. Prior to the enactment of the Smith Amendment, a felony conviction had always been one of the reasons for denying a security clearance. A judge or other deciding official, however, was permitted the discretion to consider other mitigating factors to outweigh the prior conviction. Historically, mitigation was sparingly applied and in only the most meritorious cases. The Smith Amendment removed that discretion entirely.


Today, no one wants to appear “soft” on security, but the byproduct of that attitude is that many people who erred long ago, and who have rehabilitated themselves and become good and productive members of society are now losing their clearances and their jobs solely because of the Smith Amendment. Many years of meritorious service to the government count for naught. The result is that the government is losing the services of good people valuable to our national defense.


On October 30, 2000, Congress enacted a new law, known as the “Smith Amendment”, which prohibits the Department of Defense from granting or renewing a security clearance to any person who had been “convicted in any court of the United States of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”[2] That Amendment, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 986, provides that “in a meritorious case the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the [above stated] prohibition.”

The Smith Amendment resulted from a newspaper article published in USA Today generally critical of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).[3] The article selected thirteen out of several thousand DOHA decisions issued between 1994 and 1999 to bolster the story. Senator Bob Smith picked up on the story to start an investigation of the entire DOHA appeals process.[4]

10 U.S.C. § 986 was subsequently implemented by the Department of Defense by a Memorandum dated June 7, 2001, from the Deputy Secretary.[5] It included convictions in either a Federal or State court, and also included any sentence of more than one year regardless of the amount time actually served. The DoD Memorandum further provided that the decision of whether a particular case was sufficiently meritorious to justify a request for waiver, would begin with the appellate authority of the DoD component concerned. In the case of civilian contractors’ employees, that appellate authority is DOHA.

Government employees of the Department of Defense holding security clearances are also subject to the Smith Amendment. Review of their appeals go instead first to the Central Adjudication Facility (CAF) of the Military Department employing them, and then to the Military Department’s Personnel Security Appeal Board (PSAB). Whether such Boards are applying a different standard than DOHA for recommending waivers is not known because there is no public record of those Boards’ decisions.

The DoD Memorandum requires that all cases must first be fully investigated and adjudicated in accordance with Executive Orders, DoD Directives and regulatory guidance to develop a record upon which to evaluate whether a waiver is meritorious. In cases coming before DOHA, the applicable directive is DoD Directive 5220.6. The DoD Memorandum further requires that before a waiver can even be considered, there must first be a decision, “without consideration of” 10 U.S.C. § 986, to grant or renew the security clearance of the person involved. If sufficient reason is found to grant or renew the clearance, the authority responsible for making that decision, either DOHA for contractors’ employees or the CAF for Government employees, may then recommend to the Secretary of Defense or to the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, that the case merits a waiver of the Smith Amendment.

The DoD Memorandum applies both to initial determinations to grant clearances and to reinvestigations. It does not apply to conversions, transfers or reinstatements of current DoD security clearances for either government employees or defense contractors’ employees.

DoD’s Memorandum is further implemented by DOHA by its Operating Instruction No. 64, dated July 10, 2001.[6] That Operating Instruction directs DOHA Administrative Judges to initially determine whether 10 U.S.C. § 986 applies to the facts of a particular case. If the judge so determines, and further determines, without consideration of 10 U.S.C. § 986, that there would have been a decision to grant or renew the security clearance, the Administrative Judge must then include, without explanation, a statement either recommending or not recommending a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986.[7]

Operating Instruction No. 64 further directs that if a case is appealed to the DOHA Appeal Board, and it would have granted a clearance but for the Smith Amendment, it too shall include, without explanation, a statement either recommending or not recommending a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986. Finally, the Operating Instruction provides that in any case in which an Administrative Judge or the Appeal Board, recommends consideration of a waiver, the Director of DOHA shall, within his sole discretion, determine whether to forward the case to the DoD Deputy General Counsel for further consideration of a possible waiver by the Secretary of Defense, “together with such rationale as may be requested by the Deputy General Counsel.”

Between December 14, 2001 and October 23, 2002, there were 20 cases identified in which eleven different Administrative Judges recommended a Smith Amendment waiver.[8] All of these cases overwhelmingly satisfied the mitigating conditions of Security Guideline J, concerning criminal conduct.[9]

Seven of the cases in which an Administrative Judge did recommend a waiver were appealed.[10] In all of those cases, although the employee would have otherwise been granted a clearance, the three-member Appeal Board did not recommend a waiver.[11] Because DOHA Operating Instruction No. 64 precludes either an Administrative Judge or the Appeal Board from offering any explanation for its decisions, the appealed decisions offer no insight as to why the Administrative Judge recommended a waiver, and the Appeal Board did not.

The record to date is dismal. Prior to the enactment of the Smith Amendment, a felony conviction had always been one of the reasons for denying a security clearance. A judge or other deciding official, however, was permitted the discretion to consider other mitigating factors to outweigh the prior conviction. Historically, mitigation was sparingly applied and in only the most meritorious cases. The Smith Amendment removed that discretion entirely.


Today, no one wants to appear “soft” on security, but the byproduct of that attitude is that many people who erred long ago, and who have rehabilitated themselves and become good and productive members of society are now losing their clearances and their jobs solely because of the Smith Amendment. Many years of meritorious service to the government count for naught. The result is that the government is losing the services of good people valuable to our national defense.


There is no known instance of a person previously convicted of a felony, who having been later granted a security clearance, was found to have committed any act endangering the national security. Yet in response to sensational newspaper articles, forum postings and personal blogs the government is now losing the services of talented long-time, loyal employees and contractors.

[Tant01]

Yeah, that...

If'n you ain't man enough to whup 'em fair you can do like the women an poison 'em. Make yer momma proud an yer daddy too embarrassed to show his face in public. You can also kiss havin' a security clearance above cub scout goodbye, seein as character and morality are at the top o' the list as necessities for a TS clearance.

[/....Be careful what you post online if you want to be able to get a job in the future. Your blog, web site, Facebook, MySpace, online dating profile, or even forum postings might "out" your salacious activities to a potential employer. .....[/I]

Indeed... I've suggested caution a number of times here and on other forums. Mostly folks that like to boast or speculate or just revealing dirty little secrets about past conduct or acts they may have commited... even accidents...

I had no idea there was a law or what may be included in a background check... Just seems like discretion can be the better part of valor is all...

[kanik]

Kickass thread... I now beleive I have more knowledge after reading this. Haha! I am thinking of persuing a job of a bouncer or security guard... Maybe. Depends on how things play out.