Man bounced from bar, lands in jail

A bar patron landed himself in jail early Wednesday morning after getting kicked out by bouncers and threatening to retrieve a gun from his car, according to a police report.
Sandusky Register Staff
Jan 2, 2014

Sandusky officers were summoned to the 100 block of Columbus Avenue just before 2 a.m. when Jeremy Braucher, 27, of Huron, was ejected from a bar.

Police found him shirtless, walking south on Columbus Avenue, screaming that he’d been punched in the face by a bouncer.

Witnesses told officers Braucher had been causing problems in the bar throughout the evening, and when he was thrown out, he punched a bouncer in the face and threatened to get a gun from his car.

Police arrested him when he tried to get in his vehicle, and they found no weapon in the car.

Before taking him to the county jail, police took him to the hospital for treatment, where he yelled at hospital staff.

He was booked in to the jail on two counts disorderly conduct, assault and resisting arrest.

Comments

whattheBucks

Another drunken urinite being a di©k in sandusky

yea right

do not know the guy or what took place. but bouncers do have a tendency to over step their boundries. example they like to hit ppl..not allowed..it is still assault.. then carry it to the sidewalk ..then if the person wants to "hang" around by the light pole then they think they "own" the sidewalk too..

this is so true in 3rd world counties where they make 1st graders a police office.. thinking they can do what ever they want and it dont matter to human rights..

Raoul Duke

Those savages.

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

Just like any other citizen, bouncers DO have the right to defend themselves, which includes hitting others.

yea right

you are way to misinformed

yea right

in the state of Ohio there is NO law stating you have the right to defend..including your home..

Kingsin

Umm, yea right, they're called "castle laws"- and they've been on the books for an umpteen # of years. In fact, these laws have become even stronger since the right to carry has been in effect. It used to be that you had to be in a measure of "retreat"- even within your own home- before being legally justified to use deadly force- but not anymore, you can basically shoot them as soon as they enter the premises (and you feel they pose a threat of harm).

The Bizness

I was about to post that, it also extends to your vehicle, or the vehicle of an immediate family member.

I would post the link but this terrible spam block is not letting me.

www . legislature . state . oh . us / bills . cfm ? ID=127_SB_184

Erieboater

The Ohio Concealed Carry Law Handbook states it as this,

‘Castle Doctrine’
“Castle Doctrine” generally encompasses the idea that a person does not have a duty to retreat from the residence he lawfully occupies before using force in self-defense or defense of another. Additionally, there is no duty to retreat if a person is lawfully in his vehicle or is lawfully an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of that person.
However, being a lawful occupant of a residence or vehicle is not a license to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is attacked, without fault of his own, may use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or death. If the person does not have this belief, he should not use deadly force. Again, if it does not put your life or the life of others in danger, you should withdraw from the confrontation if it is safe for you to do so.
The law presumes you to have acted in self-defense or defense of another when using deadly force if the victim had unlawfully and without privilege entered or was in the process of entering the residence or vehicle you occupy. The presumption does not apply if the defendant was unlawfully in that residence or vehicle. The presumption does not apply if the victim had a right to be in, or was a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle.
The presumption of self-defense is a rebuttable presumption. The term “rebuttable presumption” means the prosecutor, and not the defendant, carries the burden of producing evidence contrary to the facts that the law presumes. However, a rebuttable presumption does not relieve the defendant of the burden of proof. If the prosecutor provides sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant created the confrontation or that the use of deadly force was not reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, then the presumption of self-defense no longer exists.

Statutory Reference(s): ORC 2901.05 sets forth the rebuttable presumption.
ORC 2901.09(B) establishes that there is no duty to retreat before using force if a person is a lawful occupant of his vehicle or a lawful occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member.

deertracker

This is very true! It may serve some of you well to read ^ this. You can't just shoot and kill a person because they are on your property.

Kingsin

"If the prosecutor provides sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant created the confrontation or that the use of deadly force was not reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, then the presumption of self-defense no longer exists."

I'll find that odd kitchen knife which will miraculously have the bad guys fingerprints all over it...

From the Grave

What do these comments have to do with another drunk causing problems in a bar?