Board to strip Theater District club of its liquor license for three days after bouncer punched out visiting gay Texan who objected to drag queens and trans patrons there
The Boston Licensing Board voted unanimously today to suspend the Legacy's liquor license for three days because the Warrenton Street club didn't immediately fire a bouncer who is shown on the club's own video cold cocking one of three visiting gay Texans who had been yelling transphobic insults at a drag performer and a transsexual regular at closing time.
At a hearing Tuesday, a Boston Police detective reported that police arrived on Warrenton Street around 2:30 a.m. on March 4 on a report of a brawl to find 15 to 20 people, many with blood-spattered clothing and clearly intoxicated, several with injuries and yelling for help as one man in a yellow jacket lay on the ground, barely conscious, blood pouring out the top of his head and his jaw broken.
At a meeting this morning, board members said that after watching surveillance video provided by Legacy, they concluded that as egregious as a bouncer, who had worked there for two years, punching somebody out was, Legacy compounded the problem because it obviously had no working policy for deescalating potentially violent situations and because it only suspended, rather than fired, the bouncer.
"You take pause when you saw what hapen and management did not fire this two-year employee immediately," Chairwoman Kathleen Joyce said.
Joyce said video the club supplied to the board showed that during an argument between the three men and a drag performer outside the club, the bouncer "came out of the blue" as the men were arguing with the performer and punched one of the men in the jaw, breaking it and sending him to the ground.
BPD Det. Karl Dugal testifed Tuesday that in interviews - via text and e-mail from his bed at Tufts in the case of the newly wired-jaw man in the yellow jacket - the men said they were on the opposite side of Warrenton waiting for an Uber after their third straight night at the club, when the guy in the yellow jacket "got into a scuffle with some locals." The argument grew heated - one of the men claimed a drag queen "loudly told them this was their city and why are you here?" and then a club bouncer "struck him out of nowhere with an uppercut," knocking him down with a broken jaw and opening up his scalp when he hit the ground.
Dugal continued that the men struck a nerve earlier inside, when they'd gone inside a VIP rope.
Last month, police formally charged the bouncer, Andre Lozano, with assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, and the performer, who goes by Arabella LaDessé, but who testified Tuesday as Rashaun Plourde, with assault and battery.
At Tuesday's hearing, LaDessé denied any violent intent towards the men - she said as a queer Black man from New Hampshire, she has learned to diffuse tense situations, which she said she was trying to do in March.
She said she had first noticed the three men the night before, when Legacy had a drag show and, when she talked with them, discovered they were not having a good time, because they were not into drag performances. She said she invited them back to the club the next night and told them they would have a better time and that while there might be some drag performers in attendance, they were not part of that night's show.
They arrived the next night and, at first, they seemed to have a better time - after, she said, they'd had a bad time at Club Cafe nearby - but things began to sour when one of them went around some ropes and got up on stage. Still LaDessé said she talked him down, the club photographer even snapped her and the guy with smiles on their faces.
But as the night ended, she said, they began hurling insults at a transgender patron who, she said, had rejected their attempts to pick her up. They then left, yelling "she was an ugly man anyway," and that "they don't have trannies where they're from," LaDessé said.
They went outside and she followed, trying to calm them down, not expecting any violence but "an adult conversation" with people she had been "very cordial with all night." Instead, she said, one of the men went "Is there an issue, who has an issue? I'm here to handle issues." She said she replied, "honey, honey, there are no issues."
Board Chairwoman Kathleen Joyce said this morning that while it's unclear from the video who started the overall brawling, what was very clear was that a bouncer "came out of the blue" and punched the issues guy's friend, in the yellow jacket, to the ground.
At Tuesday's hearing, Legacy manager Terrance Gathers said he immediately suspended the bouncer but that he would not fire him until the outcome of his criminal case.
Unacceptable when the video evidence is so clear, board members said.
The bouncer "was out there with bad intentions from the get go, from what I saw," board member Liam Curran said. "I don't see how they can look at [the video] and not have already fired him." He added he is concerned that the video showed the bouncer alone out on the street for quite some time - no other club employees went out to try to settle things down.
At Tuesday's hearing, Gathers said he rushed outside from his downstairs office as soon as he heard there was trouble there. "People were yelling Terrance, watch out, knife, knife, knife!"
Police said they found no knives.
Legacy has had no recent cases involving employees attacking patrons, and normally, under the board's usually procedures, the penalty for a first offense would be a warning letter. But board members agreed the severity of what happened, or didn't happen, in the case of firing the bouncer, warranted immediate escalation.
In addition to the suspension - for which Legacy has to propose three dates - the board also said it will require Legacy to retrain all its employees in de-escalation, and to provide proof that such training actually took place.
Legacy, however, can appeal the punishment to the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. After the board voted to permanently shut the Sons of Boston because of an incident in which one of its bouncers allegedly stabbed a man to death, the ABCC overruled the Boston board.
Watch the Tuesday hearing (does not include the video referenced by the board today):
Innocent, etc.
Ad:
Comments
Mad Libs
That headline goes into the Hall of Fame.
Don't you mean...
The Hall of Flame?
Gay Black New Hampshire.
Can’t remember the last time I saw all those words together in the same sentence.
Yes I can. Never.
To be fair,
there are some mighty long sentences in the account, and occasionally the latter parts of the sentence don't have much to do with the earlier parts, which can make for some lengthy bits that would almost surely be helped by being broken up into 2 or 3 sentences, but who cares about Strunk & White, anyway.
I dunno
I think it would have been better with "cold cocked" instead of "knocked out."
Log Cabin Republicans.
Go F yourself
Not necessarily
Although it certainly does appear the patrons were acting in reprehensible manner, it is nonetheless an opportunity for spotlighting the fact that the LGBTQIA+ alphabet soup is not as unified as many like to think. And frankly, as a queer person I am uncomfortable with it because it lumps the often very different needs of different populations into one monolith. I frequently find that "as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community" I am strongly expected-by both gay and straight people- to have certain beliefs that I do not always have. Then out come the slings and arrows like "go F yourself Log Cabin Republicans", of which I am not one, and "self-hating gay", which I am also not.
Two words
Peter Thiel
Actually, no one ...
Believes or expects that there is a single unifying mindset, attitude or personal belief system across the entire "alphabet soup" as you and like-minded morons are so quick to word vomit.
Unless you live(d) under a rock, we were all taught at an early age to "shut your fucking pie hole if you don't have something nice to say."
Texas, where these brutes hail from, is a largely Republican state, therefore, the Log Cabin connection is not out of bounds.
Hurt dogs holler
Maybe you are exactly what you claim not to be or you wouldn’t take people saying that about other people as a personal insult?
Sorry...
...but no prize. That comment is exactly like the subtly homophobic people people who immediately assume and declare that every boisterous homophobe absolutely MUST be a "repressed" or hidden homosexual. Sure, some are (pause here while people trot out the tired old examples of politicians, etc), but people act like it's an absolute constant rule. Sometimes a homophobe is just a homophobe. The people who make this constant assumption do not see that they themselves are the homophobes. "The hidden, sick homosexual is disturbingly acting out in other ways".
Hmm
Would I be the only one here siding with the club and the bouncer here rather than the insulters from TX?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
No, you wouldn't but ...
The board does not countenance violence by bouncers where self defense is not an issue, and insists that license holders train their staff to use other steps to de-escalate things even in cases like this. See the Sons of Boston case.
Self defense includes others
The bouncer is charged with defending the other employees of the club. Why should people who have been shouting slurs all night at someone be allowed to corner them outside with no recourse?
Well of course not.
But you’d be wrong. Sucker punching someone and sending them to the hospital is a scumbag move, particularly where there was only a verbal discussion ongoing.
I hope those guys from Texas had a lousy weekend and never come back, but only a deranged person would support the violence meted out by the bouncer in this case.
Well said.
Well said.
This is not a movie where the
This is not a movie where the good guy punches the bad guy in the face and nothing happens. It is real life and there are real consequences. We have laws for a reason. As horrible as these people sounded, is knocking them out the right move? No. Especially when it is the employee of the facility, their job is not to be a vigilante. Their job is to keep the peace and protect the establishment. What if he took a swing and missed and knocked out another patron? What if the Texas jerk moved out of the way and hit him back?
Liquor License Cage Match!
Sponsor the bouncer!
she followed them outside
maybe she should have just let them leave instead of trying to have “an adult conversation”??
So in other words…
Your first reaction to what happened here is to blame the trans person.
in this case yes
does that make me transphobic? if the two assholes from texas chased her outside to have an “adult conversation” i’d be blaming them. are trans people incapable of doing something wrong under any circumstances?
Your weird moral universe
It doesn't apply here.
You got me
Because I was obviously saying that trans people never, ever do anything wrong, as opposed to maybe saying there might be something morally questionable about your instinctively blaming the victim of transphobic behavior as opposed to the perpetrators of that behavior—or even the bouncer for perpetrating the actual violence, if you believe it wasn’t justified. Out of everyone involved in that situation, you pick the trans person to blame (whom you’ve now decided didn’t just follow them, but “chased” them out).
As another commenter pointed out: Weird moral universe.
Like this?
Was there any mention of the
Was there any mention of the actual standard the Liquor Board has for incidents like this?
Yes, they have to sanction the bar somehow. But it seems that the bar WAS trying to do the right thing by suspending the bouncer pending the investigation, only to be told that there is a different arbitrary way the board saw the issue. Why would you go through the effort of a suspension in this case when firing is probably much easier (I think a relatively unprovoked attack on a patron counts as a good cause for termination), unless you thought that was the right thing to do? If all the board wanted to see was the bouncer fired, couldn't they just tell the bar manager to do so BEFORE the hearing?
This! Seems like the bar
This! Seems like the bar attempted to do what they could while also not risking a wrongful termination suit, or worse, the board deciding "well you fired that person as a way to CYA and blame them for all the problems but we know you have training issues" etc etc. For as specific as the board likes to hold everyone's behavior, they need to actually put out guidance.
For the Bouncer Category of "Best of Boston"
This dude is the clear winner.
Vigilante justice is still
Vigilante justice is still justice.
no it's not
No it's not.
"Vigilante justice is still justice"
I can't believe you said that. Is this what we've come to when somebody doesn't agree with your ideology?
A shit sundae
is still a sundae?
Lol! I’ve yet to see …
…. a better impersonation of overtrick of the Globe comments sections. Bravo!
Talk shit get hit
Sounds like those transphobes more than had it coming. Should people insulting the performers all night simply be allowed to corner them outside of the venue. Something tells me this ruling might have been different had they been shouting slurs about any other group.
Bro you cannot follow people
Bro you cannot follow people outside a public venue and assault them because they were being assholes. Trust me, you do not want "well I thought the shit they were saying before they left was bad" to be a viable defense for assault. That logic will 100% be turned around on people you agree with.
I don't like how the
I don't like how the Licensing Board decides that video evidence is more important than the outcome of the criminal case. Someone should send them a middle school Social Studies textbook with the section on "innocent until proven guilty" highlighted, plus a copy of the 5th Amendment.
I'm only an ally, but it's heartbreaking to
me to see transphobia from gay men, especially at a moment when right-wing leaders are programmatically conducting an utterly disgusting, morally unconscionable campaign of anti-queer hate for cynical political purposes. How can these men not realize that they're the inevitable next target, and so empathize with and stand up for a fellow oppressed minority?
I can't endorse the violence, but my atavistic self gets it.
Semi-off topic but mostly curious
I thought the gramatical convention of calling drag queens (who are not transgender women) "she" only applied while they were on/acting in their character? If the person came to court presenting and testifying as a man under the male name wouldn't "he" be used? Using "she" for someone who identifies as a man but dresses up like a woman on the weekends seems disrespectful to transwomen who struggle to get their pronouns recognized consistently as an integral part of their identity and not a costume/show.
Yep
I know the convention, but obviously, I'm not well enough versed in it, because while the testimony was under the male name, it was about the activities done while in drag.
Yeah did not mean this as
Yeah did not mean this as criticism as I'm sure the APA stylebook doesn't cover these cases. More just curious than anything.
Clarification of how to handle this
When he is on the stand, any reference to what he said there should be “he” (“he testified” etc.) , but if he’s talking about his drag persona in third person or you are paraphrasing something he is saying about it you would refer to that character as “she.
Thanks
Thought about that, too, but decided there were so many people involved in this story that might be a bit confusing.
To answer the next question, yes, I thought about using "they/them" as well, in fact, started to do that, but, again, it seemed to wind up getting confusing because there were so many people involved.
I'm glad you brought that up
As a young gay male coming out in the mid 1970s I noticed that there was a whole, certain demographic of cisgender gay men who referred to each other as "she". I myself was never comfortable with this as I did not feel I was a "she", nor did I want to call people "she" who did not feel like they were she's. I came to understand the history of it, but I still wasn't thrilled with it. But that was the 70s and 80s. From what I can see, this practice continues. I'm wondering how it plays out in today's climate.
Wouldn’t it be better to ask
Wouldn’t it be better to ask the person what pronouns to use under which circumstances, rather than assuming a convention should apply?
It would
This is one of the drawbacks of Zoom public hearings, at least for reporters - in the old days, I probably would have gone up to the performer after the hearing and asked.