Job Discussion Forums

[echo2004sierra]

Are doormen allowed to grab your arm and pull you out of an elevator?

My friend was invited by a parent to teach at her flat in a block of a building, (where my friend, herself, is not a resident).

There are gate men at the main entrance and doormen just inside the door of the block where the parent lives. It was my friend's 4th visit to that same flat.

The 1st time she went to the block, she asked the doorman, Mr Fats, if she needed to fill in a visitor's form and show her HKID. She was told, "no".

The 2nd time my friend visited the block there was a different doorman, Mr Y, who didn't ask to see HKID nor want a form filled in.

3rd visit Mr Y didn't make any demands.

4th visit, Mr Fats was back and required a form to be filled in. My friend had three minutes to get up to the flat on floor 20. She took the form from Fats and made for the elevator (one lift was out of order so there were loads of people waiting in the lobby area to go up and we had to wait for a long time for the elevator to come down).

As the lift arrived, Fats started shouting that my friend should fill in the form at the desk, but my friend stepped into the lift, took out his HKID, and looked for a pen, (with the intent of filling in the form and giving it to the doorman an hour later when his lesson had finished).

But Fats stood in the doorway and blocked the elevator doors. Everyone stood in silence. My friend explained that Fats could have a look at her HKID or keep it at the desk until an hour's time when she would have finished teaching her lesson, would take back her HKID and hand in the completed form.

Fats wouldn't have any of it. He started shouting that my friend was holding up all those people and should get out of the lift. My friend retorted that it was Fats who was holding up the elevator as he was standing in the doorway and the other lift had an out of order stand placed in front of it. Fats became very angry and shouted that company rules dictate that the form should be filled in at the desk (my friend was thinking what about the other 3 visits and the two different doormen).

With that, Fats grabbed my friend by the arm and pulled her out of the lift. The elevator went up.

My friend, quite shocked and emotional, wrote her name, HKID, and parent's flat number on the form and returned to wait for the elevator. Three minutes later the lift came down. (Then the out of order lift came down with a young boy in it and he was trying to figure out how he could exit the lift given that the barrier had been erected at the entrance, so my friend helped him to move the barrier so that he could come out of the lift - was the lift broken or had the doorman just put the barrier there so that he could inconvenience residents, so that that lift could be used only by residents coming down (not those going up), and so that he would have people to talk to?).

So my friend spent 6 minutes trying to get from A to B - because of a doorman who had been told by the resident that my friend would be visiting at that time, a doorman who had seen her before, a doorman who had told her previously not to fill in a form.

What do you think AsiaTraveller, does my friend have a case of assault here?

What's the solution guys, I don't want to have that happen to my friend again?

[once again]

I suggest that your friend was very lucky to meet a doorman who could speak such wondeful English to explain all about holding up other people, given that your friend can not speak Cantonese. I also suggest that your friend does not take on students whose parents are so demanding that they insist that the tutor be there at the very minute of the agreed time. That way, the tutor could have filled out the form at the desk and avoided such an ugly and English speaking incident. Given that the doorman spoke such good English, couldn't your friend of just asked why the form now had to be filled? This kind of situation has happened to me before, and actually it seems that all visitors must infact be registered, but for a variety of reasons, they have not done it for the first few times.
But why on earth would your friend want to be a tutor to someone that watched the clock for the sake of a minute or two..and had no access to CCTV, where the could watch the lobby and/or lift?

[Zero Hero]

Are doormen allowed to grab your arm and pull you out of an elevator? If you do not have permission to be on the property, then yes, they do. And, before you ask, the policemen also have the right to discharge their firearms in public (I've seen it) and security guards in banks have the right to use those Remmington shotguns they carry (and it's not birdseed they are filled with).

Before I moved out to the NTs I lived in such a housing development and I was always very glad that the security guards made sure that only residents and registered guests were allowed into the lifts and thus elsewhere in the development. I certainly did not want any non-residents or other strangers wandering around the 40-odd floors.

You seem to be suggesting that as one guard did not do his job properly, the other(s) should also refrain from enforcing the rules. However, you can not blame one security for simply doing his job all because another does not bother to follow the book and thus fails to discharge his responsibilities. You are criticising the wrong guard.

As regards the English element of this incident, my old guards were from Nepal (ex-British army) and spoke excellent English.

[ChrisRose]

Most buildings in HK have a deed of mutual covenant.

Pretty much their own by-laws, also they are private property.

As such, anyone there without permission or without following the rules of the deed of mutual covenant is a tress-passer.

As such the security staff may use the minimum required force to detain, expel or place under citizens arrest until handed over to a member of the police.


YES, he was entitled to use minimal force to prevent the none resident, from gaining entry to the lift.


I think the doorman is wonderful. Whilst your friend may feel upset, he should understand the fact the doorman in question was being very professional in his work. Heck I will buy him a beer.

As or timing difficulties, that is the contract your friend has entered into with the employer (parents).

He is free to choose not to accept the rules of the contract of either the employer or the building management, or he can choose to try and get their in adequate time to fill in the necessary form for entrance and get to the lesson on time.

[echo2004sierra]

Dear Chris,

Could you please show me where exactly, in the so-called Deed of Convenant, a security guard (private individual, not police force member) has the right to use force on a resident's invited guest, such force could possibly cause the victim to press charges of a physical assault?

Thanks!

[ChrisRose]

You would have to look at the building's own deed. It should be on display somewhere. They are usually very, very long.

As for security guard, you will probably find a specific clause for them. The building is private property. There are conditions and rules which all residents are legally bound to follow. Wether or not they have read the deed, is irrelivant.

Do you know why buildings have security guards?
Amoungst other duties to prevent unauthorised access.

Let's expand on the force issue for a moment.
I assume there was some form of verbal request for him to stop. I don't knwo the language, however both Cantonese and English are legaal languages of HK. Apparently the person understood.

Next the security guard, stopped the lift and requested again verbally that the person follow the rules.

The showing or giving of an ID card are not complete compliance with teh rules. Teh fact that previous security guards or doormen have been less compitent is for the most part irrelivant.
A verbal request was made.
Next the lift was prevented from carrying the person up until the rule had been complided with.
The person chooses not to comply with the verbal request or the stopping of the lift.
Minimal force appears to have been used.

Legally one could argue that the person was causing a disturbance and obstruction by not getting out of the lift, possibly even tresspass.

I have had a similar expereince many years ago. The bottom line is, the guard apears to have acted legally.

Now ask yourself the next question. Do you want a security guard in your buildign protectign your family and home that allows anyone to enter?

Filling in a form and showing identification only take a few seconds. It is no big deal. As for what happened to the person, well he / she did recieve warnings. It is not as if the person was placed against a wall and frisked or forced into a stress position or detained unreasonably. The guard just did his job. All non residents are required to provide proof of identity and register at (what ever place).


Finally , WHat do you think the guard should have done when a person unknown enters the building and fails to comply?

[echo2004sierra]

Chris Rose, it is interesting to note that, as a moderator of this forum, you think the doorman in question is "wonderful" and that you'd "like to buy him a drink".

Yeah, you probably have a lot in common with that doorman who grabbed a woman by the arm and dragged her out of the lift. She was invited to the building by a resident, her purpose was not to harm anyone, she had agreed to fill in the form, despite that same doorman having told her on her 1st visit to the block that she didn't need to fill in a form nor show her HKID card.

The fact that the doorman in question didn't do his job professionally the 1st time (and a 2nd doorman didn't do his job professionally on two other occasions) is not to suggest that neither doorman should never do his job properly, but it is a fact that caused some confusion in the mind of the visitor (my friend), so, effectively it was the doorman who set up the circumstances and the environment out of which the assault arose.

Had she been a man, I wonder whether the doorman would have laid a finger on her person.

[ChrisRose]

So now your point is that she is a woman.

So you are suggesting that women should not be subject to the same rules and regulations, perhaps even laws?

I don't think eother of us are able to speculate as to what the doorman would have done with a different gender.

The doorman acted correctly.

As for her purpose, that too is irrelivant to this issue. The tenants guest and agents are allowed access subject to the rules and regulations of the deed of mutal covernant.

She appears to have ignored his verbal request to sign in. He asked her to leave the lift till she complied. She didn't, he assisted her.
From what I can gather, once she had complied he didn't prevent her legal access.

I suspect by your post a tingle of expat superiority complex? Do you think that as a private tutor or being an expat she is entitled to special treatment? Did she present a letter of invitation from the tenants? The manner in which this is done is by presentation of the ID at the reception and the filling in of a form.

Yet again, I state the fact the previous doormen appear not to have followed the correct procedure is not the fault of the doorman whom did.

If the tutor had of complied with the 2 verbal request, ther ewould have been no need for the doorman to assist her to vacate the lift.

She had not completed the form prior to trying to access the building.

The consequnces of being escorted out of the lift are of her own series of choices.

Feel free to suggest to her that she files some form of complaint or legal action.

As for me beign a moderator of this group and posting my opinion and an outline of the legal background, what is your point?

I stand by my statment, I beleive the doorman / security guard acted correctly, I will happily buy him a drink and compliment him on his dedication to his work.

[ChrisRose]

TO Zero HERO,

A slight correction, the security guards shotguns are bird shot.

#6 actually. They are issued with 3 shells per gun only.

[echo2004sierra]

Dear Chris Rose, I thank you for your advice.

Your siding, so biasedly, with the "righteously indignant doorman is what moderator's should do, is it?

A clever judge once said, "never make a judgment until you have heard both sides".

I went along and talked with the doorman, the resident, the manager of the management office and my friend. The doorman denied manhandling my friend!

I am able to speculate. According to you, yourself, you are not. I would believe it. However, you are able to "suspect a tinge of expat superiority complex" in my post all the same. Well perhaps that's what the doorman in question suspected too and perhaps that contributed to his rude and aggressive behaviour towards my harmeless visiting friend (?).

If the doorman had been female, we'd call him a doorwoman. How ready would a doorwoman have been to grab another she-girl by the arm and pull her out of the lift?


I was not suggesting that females be above rules, regulations or laws, what I was saying is that doormen should consider the potential threat they are faced with and when enforcing the rules, perhaps, ask themselves whether they need to manhandle this woman.

Under what circumstances can a door-person use force on a resident's visitor?

Chris Rose, did you know that apparently, for security reasons, one is not obliged to give out one's HKID unless there is a letter from the HK police posted on the premises allowing door people to record HKID information.

There are other ways to verify a visitor's purpose and intent for being at a premises, such as contacting the intended resident - the resident had informed the doorman to expect my friend.

My friend has launched a complaint with the management office of the premises. The manager said that, although all doormen should ask visitors to fill in forms, in carrying out their duties, door-men should deal tactfully and politely with visitors, especially in relation to the potential threat they pose.

[ChrisRose]

Echo Sierria,

What is your obsention with me being a listed moderator here?

I am posting my own views.

Your asertions that your friend is harmless are irrilivant.

Yet, again, did your freind fail to comply with 2 or more verbal request to fill in the form as per normal prior to leaving the lobby?

How many times does a verbal request have to be ignored?

Your friend then caused an obstruction to the tennants and did not leave the lift.

At what point do YOU allow for a represnative of private property to make minimal pyshical force to protect the rights of access and quiet enjoyment of the tennants?

As for contacting the tennants, I have not as yet seen this don in my 15 years in H.K.

Feel free to lodge your complants etc.
Heck tell your friend to boycott teachign in that builiding too! Or Ask her to demand that the parents escort her personally from the lobby!

While you are at it,perhaps you could cry us a river.

[Welshguy]

As an ex club doorman , former resident of HK and holder of a degree in Law I know he was undoubtedly acting legally and well within the law. The test is a reasonable opportunity to comply with the lawful request (read: I've already asked you once sunshine!) followed by reasonable force to remove you from premises/deny you entry. Seriously, your mate dosen't have a leg to stand on.

[AsiaTraveller]

Once again echosierra describes a recent adventure of a "friend" and asks ESL Cafe readers to offer comments and opinions.

But echosierra then refuses to accept those comments and opinions as reasonable. Instead, echosierra maintains that her/his view of the event is the only valid interpretation possible.

Laughter, banter, and hurled epithets ensue.

Who wants to wager that echosierra gets into an argument wherever she/he goes in HK? How embarrassing must that be for the "friend"??!!

[echo2004sierra]

Oh, my old "friend" AsiaTraveller is back to offer his opinions. Welcome!

On your 1st point, yes, ESL Cafe readers may offer comments and opinions (from experts) and Echo is free to engage with them point by point. Any questions?

2nd point, not guilty, your Honour.

3rd point, a little laughter is good for the spirit (or soul if you've got one), hahaha lol!

4th point, if I might offer my own comment and view, be careful about betting, there are laws in place in Hk to regulate this activity!

[echo2004sierra]

I was out shopping with a different friend yesterday.

Being nearly 58 years old, my legs were rather tired and the coffee shops were all full.

My friend went off to visit the gents, so I sat down for a moment on a ledge where there was a sign stating "no sitting and eating".

Well, over came a young security man dressed in a bright orange jacket to tell me that I should get up, there's no sitting allowed here.

I explained to him that I saw the sign and understood it, but that my legs and back were very tired and I'd like to sit for a moment while I waited for my friend to come out of the gents.

He said, yes but I don't care that you are old and tired, there's a rule that says you can't sit here.

I asked him, "Don't you know that rules were made to be broken?"

He thought for a moment - probably considering that he could shout first and then use force to pull me up by the arm.

Anyway, he just asked me how long I thought I would feel the need to sit there.

With his question, my friend returned and helped me up so off we went without any ugly scenes or arguments or violence.

What do you think, Chris Rose and other like-minded chaps, did the security man not act professionally enough?

Did he "act" outside of the law, perhaps, in his omission to use force?

Should there be more places to sit around the shopping areas of HK? Or is this question irrelevant?