The sign above the entrance to Nectar’s in Burlington, where Chelsi Parker was shot in February. Photo by Aidan Quigley/VTDigger
BURLINGTON — After a shooting outside of the bar last year, Nectar’s is planning to defend itself in front of state liquor authorities by arguing that the bar should not be held responsible for the shooting.
Nectar’s was scheduled to appear before the state Liquor and Lottery Control Board Wednesday, and faces the suspension or revocation of its liquor license. But the board granted a request from Nectar’s to postpone the hearing, which is now scheduled for May 8.
In its motion to postpone the hearing, Nectar’s attorney, Sandra Strempel, questioned assertions from the state Division of Liquor Control that the bar’s staff should have called police instead of taking possession of the alleged shooter’s firearm and returning it to him.
Strempel wrote that it is not unlawful to carry a gun into a bar, and that the bar does not have the authority to take and keep property from customers.
The alleged shooter, Rashad Nashid, is facing state and federal charges over the Feb. 26, 2018 shooting which seriously injured a bystander, Chelsi Parker.
Police say Nashid gave the gun used in the shooting to a Nectar’s bouncer after Nashid got into an altercation with two men — Dennis and Carl Martin — inside the bar. The bouncer returned the gun to Nashid as Nashid prepared to leave the bar.
Later that night, Nashid opened fire after confronting the Martin brothers outside the bar.
Parker was hospitalized at the University of Vermont Medical Center for three weeks after being shot in the lung, and has filed a civil suit against Nectar’s seeking damages.
The motion to continue the hearing, obtained by VTDigger, offers Nectar’s side of the story publicly for the first time.
Strempel argues that the altercation between Nashid and the Martin brothers “was not caused or related to excessive (or any) alcohol use.”
“Rather the witnesses confirmed that the incident was a result of a pre-existing conflict between Mr. Rashid and the Martins relating to the former’s girlfriend,” Strempel writes. “In other words, there is no nexus between the ‘altercation’ and excessive use of alcohol.’”
The DLC is alleging that Nectar’s violated a state regulation requiring licensed institutions to control the conduct of individuals in their establishments and to ensure the safety of its patrons.
“No licensee shall permit or suffer any disturbances, brawls, fighting or illegal activity upon the licensed premises; nor shall a licensee permit or suffer such premises to be conducted in a manner as to render such premises or the streets, sidewalks, parking lots or highways adjacent thereto a public nuisance,” the regulation states.
Rashad Nashid at his arraignment in October. Pool photo by Elizabeth Murray/Burlington Free Press
The DLC did not release the document explaining their case against Nectar’s, saying it is an investigative work product on a pending case.
But according to Nectar’s motion, which was released by the DLC, the basis for the charge is that a manager became aware of the altercation between Nashid and Dennis Martin inside the bar and should have called police instead of taking possession of Nashid’s firearm and returning it to him.
Strempel writes that the DLC does not allege that Nectar’s should have anticipated that the altercation would have taken place, and that the DLC notes that no further altercations took place inside of the bar.
“There is also no allegation that an alcohol violation took place,” Strempel writes. “In fact, the DLC does not allege, and the report does not state, that Mr. Nashid was served any alcohol while at Nectar’s.”
In asking for the delay, Strempel writes that Nectar’s had asked for, but not received, responses to discovery requests and an inquiry about whether settlement was possible.
Nectar’s had asked for, but not received, an interview of Andrew Myers, a Nectar’s employee.
“His statement is critical to Nectar’s defense because the police affidavit indicates that Mr. Myers recalled serving Nashid a sprite and a hamburger on the evening at issue and he did not see him consume any alcohol at Nectar’s,” Strempel writes.
Nectar’s also had asked for, but not received, any evidence the DLC had relating to the furnishing and consumption of alcohol by Nashid and the Martin brothers on the night of the shooting.
“This evidence, or lack thereof, is very important because Nectar’s has reason to believe that these individuals may have consumed alcohol at a different licensed establishment after they departed Nectar’s,” Strempel writes.
According to the police affidavit in Nashid’s criminal case, Nashid went to Esox, a neighboring bar, after leaving Nectar’s. Esox did not respond to a call requesting comment Wednesday.
Police said that Nashid was intoxicated when he was taken into custody.
While the police affidavit in Nashid’s state-level case notes that Nectar’s bouncer, Jamael Regular, told them that Nashid returned to Nectar’s at one point in the night to “finish a drink,” it’s unclear if it was an alcoholic drink.
Strempel wrote that are many legal and factual issues at play in the case.
“Since it is not unlawful for patrons to carry firearms in licensed facilities, there is no allegation or evidence that a firearm was aimed or pointed at another, and the DLC has not promulgated any regulations relating to weapons or circumstances when a licensed facility is required to contact the police, the facts will be critical in determining whether or not Nectar’s violated General Regulation #36,” she wrote.
However, Dennis Martin told police that Nashid had pulled a gun on him inside of the club during their initial altercation.
Regular, the bouncer who took and returned Nashid’s gun, was told by another patron that two people were flashing guns at each other, according to the police affidavit.
A sign on the door to Nectar’s in Burlington. Photo by Aidan Quigley/VTDigger
Regular did not witness this himself, but took Nashid’s gun and believed that Dennis Martin had left the bar to store his own gun in a nearby car. Regular never saw Martin with a gun, and Martin denied ever having a gun.
His brother, Carl, pulled his own gun on Nashid outside of the bar immediately before the shooting.
The motion also mentions that Nectar’s legal team had been unable to speak with Nashid, who is being held in custody. Strembel questioned if the DLC had alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation.
Strempel also questioned if Nectar’s had a duty to call the police, as the initial altercation was not foreseeable and Nectar’s staff successfully prevented any further altercations inside the bar.
“The DLC’s implied allegation that Nectar’s manager should not have returned the firearm to Mr. Nashid is also legally problematic in that the DLC has raised no authority which Nectar’s had to seize and retain Mr. Nashid’s property,” she wrote.
Strempel declined to comment further Wednesday on the pending litigation. Noel Donnellan, a co-owners of Nectar’s, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Donnellan told VTDigger in November that the bar now prohibits dangerous weapons and has instituted a policy that police will be called if any patrons are seen with a weapon or are making threats.
“People legally carrying guns into bars is an unfortunate reality in this country and this state,” he said at the time. “It is dangerous and unnecessary. Alcohol and guns don’t mix. It is our sincere hope that policy makers will enact long overdue common sense gun reform, including prohibiting firearms from all bars and clubs.”
The board can take a number of disciplinary steps depending on its findings, Skyler Genest, the DLC’s director of compliance and enforcement, told VTDigger in November.
The board can impose monetary sanctions, suspend the liquor license or completely revoke it. It could also require the installation of metal detectors or video surveillance, Genest said.
Nectar’s has not yet responded to Parker’s civil suit, which was filed in January. The bar has until April 15 to answer the charges in that case, according to court records.
Burlington lawyer Ian Carleton is representing Parker in that lawsuit and argued in that lawsuit that Nectar’s failure to call police after confiscating the gun and the decision to return it to Nashid led to the shooting.
The lawsuit also alleges that the bar continued to serve Nashid and the Martin brothers alcohol after the initial altercation in the bar.
“This case is about what happens when a downtown bar treats the City of Burlington like the Wild West, confiscating and then returning a firearm to an intoxicated patron threatening to kill another patron, telling the combatants to ‘take it outside’ rather than calling the police, causing an outrageous and unacceptable threat to public safety,” the lawsuit argues.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Nectar’s argues it should not be held responsible for shooting.