Curb nightclub violence with ID scanners, police

By Nick PalmContributing Writer

Violent  acts in and around San Francisco’s nightclubs over the last few years  have become a hot button topic for city legislators, who created the  Entertainment Commission in 2003 to act as watchdog over problem venues  and their owners.

But  a recent deadly altercation at one city club shows that even with the  newly appointed power to shut down a club, the commission has not been  able to change the recurring theme of violence found throughout the  city’s nightlife.

A  friend of mine is a nightclub promoter. He’s at a different nightclub  almost every night, hosting a birthday party or playing DJ to hundreds  of dancing club-goers.

One  day last year, I asked how his gig went the previous night. “It was  cool,” he said, “until somebody got shot and everyone had to go home.”  There was no look of shock in his face, almost as if he had anticipated  it.

Nothing  will change unless certain practical solutions, like the use of ID card  scanners inside and more police presence outside clubs, are in place.

Early  Sunday Jan. 9, two separate brawls took place at Temple nightclub in  the South of Market area. The first left UCSF medical student Joe  Hernandez dead and another hospitalized. In the second, two victims were  sent to the hospital after being stabbed with broken beer bottles.

The  next day the Entertainment Commission ordered Temple to implement ID  card scanners, double the amount of security cameras and have bouncers  search guests using pat-downs before entry.

Those  ID card scanners are quite possibly the most effective method of  violence prevention in nightclubs. When a guest enters the club, their  ID card is scanned, and all the information from the card is stored on a  hard drive, making it easily accessible by management or local  authorities if an altercation occurs.

Of  course, applying these strict security measures will make some people  cringe at the thought of our society coming closer to a true police  state under heavy surveillance. But, as with any act of leisure, there  is a cost for the feeling of safety and well-being.

When  someone finds themselves in a large crowd, like the kind you would find  inside a nightclub, they may encounter a feeling of anonymity. That  feeling, when fueled by alcohol and the presence of other happy  partiers, will typically cause one to let loose and enjoy the party.

Although feeling anonymous can also cause someone to believe they can get away with anything. Even violence.

As  of yet, no arrests have been made in the Jan. 9 Temple assaults.  Whoever killed Joe Hernandez fled the scene, as did many witnesses,  putting a damper on the police department’s investigation.

Taking  the anonymity out of nightclub and party scenarios will help keep  patrons in check by reminding them that their presence in the club is on  record.

But  because any violent acts associated with nightclubs are taking place  outside the actual clubs, scanners can’t solve the whole problem.

The  notorious February 2010 shooting outside Club Suede at Fisherman’s  Wharf, which left one dead and four others wounded, and the August 2010  murder of a German tourist in the theater district brought forth new  legislation aimed at shutting down venues plagued by violence.

This  is a cheap, temporary fix to a much larger problem. Simply shutting  down a nightclub will not stop violence from happening on city streets.

Constant  police presence at peak hours in parts of the city populated by  nightclubs will deter many acts of violence from taking place outside  parties just as ID card scanners will do inside a club.

The  Entertainment Commission was given the insignificant power to shut down  troubled nightclubs in August 2010, just after it was nearly shut down  itself for being regarded as highly ineffective against violence by  Mayor Gavin Newsom and citizen activists.

Responsibility  for stemming the perpetual plague of street violence outside San  Francisco nightclubs needs to be put back in the hands of the police  department. Club owners are neither able nor qualified to police the  streets near their establishments.

For  the most part, club owners have been very cooperative. They don’t want  their investment shot to pieces in a gang fight. They have been  cooperating with the Entertainment Commission and the police department.  Now it’s the police department’s turn to return the favor and protect  San Francisco’s valuable nightlife industry.