Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
4rephill said:
Hmmm...... 
Without being there, and without seeing the video footage, I'm suspecting that what really happen is, you got a major cob on with the security guy talking to you in an aggressive manner, suggesting you hadn't paid for some, or all of your shopping, rather than remaining calm and getting everything sorted out, the red mist has come down and you've decided to storm off out of the shop, causing the guard to come after you, as it appeared to him that you were leaving the store without paying.
As the guard has followed you across the car park (probably still calling/shouting at you), you've tripped up, all of your own accord, but as you were no longer thinking clearly (your words - not mine), you've convinced yourself that the security guard has tripped you up deliberately, and so you have got off the ground and thrown a hand/fist at the guard, making contact with him (committing common assault at that point).
You say the blurry video footage clearly shows the security guard kicking you, but is too blurry to make out if you punch him or not - That doesn't tally up! If the footage is as blurry as you claim, I suspect it could just as easily show the security guard steeping towards you after you'd tripped up and fallen, with his leg coming to rest right next to you, to either restrain you, or even help you back up.
Fair enough mate. I'm not able to post the footage so I understand you are reading between the lines which is understandable. Without being there, and without seeing the video footage, I'm suspecting that what really happen is, you got a major cob on with the security guy talking to you in an aggressive manner, suggesting you hadn't paid for some, or all of your shopping, rather than remaining calm and getting everything sorted out, the red mist has come down and you've decided to storm off out of the shop, causing the guard to come after you, as it appeared to him that you were leaving the store without paying.
As the guard has followed you across the car park (probably still calling/shouting at you), you've tripped up, all of your own accord, but as you were no longer thinking clearly (your words - not mine), you've convinced yourself that the security guard has tripped you up deliberately, and so you have got off the ground and thrown a hand/fist at the guard, making contact with him (committing common assault at that point).
You say the blurry video footage clearly shows the security guard kicking you, but is too blurry to make out if you punch him or not - That doesn't tally up! If the footage is as blurry as you claim, I suspect it could just as easily show the security guard steeping towards you after you'd tripped up and fallen, with his leg coming to rest right next to you, to either restrain you, or even help you back up.
I certainly wasn't happy with how I was being spoken too. And that formed part of my reason for leaving. I didn't like being ordered to 'come with me'. That was probably a mistake. But I'd done nothing wrong - and still feel like people shouldn't assume they have the right to dictate to others save in exceptional circumstances.
Tbh I didn't trip/fall when he was behind me. At that point he'd gotten in front of me. It's as I'm backing away and turning around to get away from him I go over. Whilst the footage doesn't show him shoving me it does show me going backward forcefully. It also shows me spinning away from him whilst he tries to grab my arm. Unless I'm trying to dance that is me retreating.
The footage is blurry. But the fact it doesn't show a punch/shove is because of it's blurriness and also the camera angle. The angle shows the back of my head. Even with perfect optics you'd not see my hand. And it certainly shows my arm going out towards him. As it shows his leg going out towards me.
I can't prove my innocence here. And doing so wouldn't change the reality of it. When I have the footage I'll post it and you can make your own mind up with the facts. I'll even post the witness statements minus the names if you want. I don't really mind - I said a long time ago if I'm guilty I deserve to be punished. But I don't think I am. I'll live with the repercussions and get on with my life. I'm not the best person on this site, nor am I the worst. I'm normal and will get on with it.
milkround said:
...... I'm not able to post the footage ....
What??!!??! Why not?What happened to your cast iron guarantees all the way through this thread that, whatever happened, you would post it up????
Edit: or I could just read until the end if the post!
Edited by Rewe on Sunday 19th May 22:30
If it's any consolation if anyone else acted the way you did they'd probably be in the same boat.
Innocent and rational people don't tend to react the way you did, so your reaction contributed to the belief the SC already had that you might have nicked something and it sortof just spiraled down to a predictable conclusion from there. The Police, courts, etc will say - rightly in my opinion - that a reasonable person would understand that self-service checkouts, whilst great for honest customers who are in a hurry, are also by their very nature a weak point in security that gets exploited often. A reasonable and innocent person would seek to defuse any suggestion of theft.
It also does amuse me if I'm honest - sorry - about how you keep talking about your limbs as if they are under your supervision but not under your control, e.g. stuff like "before I'm fully up my arm goes forward and connects with his upper body area". I don't know if that's because you know the Police & CPS are well aware of this thread, or whether you genuinely believe that's a tenable position to take. Either way, it's amusing.
Despite the circumstances and the fact that I can not understand or sympathise with your reaction, I hope it doesn't turn out too badly for you in terms of the punishment. It seems that this whole affair has gotten away from you and escalated beyond what you imagined it would.
Innocent and rational people don't tend to react the way you did, so your reaction contributed to the belief the SC already had that you might have nicked something and it sortof just spiraled down to a predictable conclusion from there. The Police, courts, etc will say - rightly in my opinion - that a reasonable person would understand that self-service checkouts, whilst great for honest customers who are in a hurry, are also by their very nature a weak point in security that gets exploited often. A reasonable and innocent person would seek to defuse any suggestion of theft.
It also does amuse me if I'm honest - sorry - about how you keep talking about your limbs as if they are under your supervision but not under your control, e.g. stuff like "before I'm fully up my arm goes forward and connects with his upper body area". I don't know if that's because you know the Police & CPS are well aware of this thread, or whether you genuinely believe that's a tenable position to take. Either way, it's amusing.
Despite the circumstances and the fact that I can not understand or sympathise with your reaction, I hope it doesn't turn out too badly for you in terms of the punishment. It seems that this whole affair has gotten away from you and escalated beyond what you imagined it would.
Jonno02 said:
Situations like this makes me wonder why all supermarkets now seem to ask you "Do you want to print a receipt" now, rather than just doing it.
Because it saves paper and in the real world I very much doubt many innocent people would react the way the OP did. I probably buy stuff without receipt 8 to 10 times per week, every week without issue. I certainly have no intention to ask for a receipt in the future.
maccas99 said:
When I get asked the question by the self-service till if I want a receipt or not, I now think of this thread, every single time! I think there will be a shortage of till paper as a result
So long as you're prepared to rationally deal with whatever inquiry might come your way from a SG or whoever is normally standing around on the self-service tills then you don't need a receipt.I too have never been stopped and I probably get a receipt maybe 1 out of 10 times using one (for expenses).
I tend to think if you look shifty you're going to arouse suspicion. Tangentially related but many years ago I was heading home from a mates house who lived about a mile away at about 1am. I was jogging along the street wearing dark clothing. A Police car rolled up alongside me and effectively pulled me over and asked me where I had been, where I was going, etc. All dealt with in the space of a couple of minutes once they realised I wasn't tooled up to break in to things, they didn't even get out of the car. On the one hand i could've got massively offended - like the OP did - at the mere suggestion that I was a burglar, or - as I did at the time - I realised it wasn't personal, I did look suspicious running down the street at 1am, and them stopping me was a positive thing in terms of policing (i.e. if I had been a burglar), etc.
FiF said:
On this question of the places that ask do you want a receipt, what about returning faulty goods? What's the first thing they ask for? Probably "Do you have a receipt?" Seems to be a disconnection in logic to me, #alwaystakeandkeepreceipt
If you’re purchasing anything that could end up faulty, get a receipt. I never do for food etc. but will ask for a receipt for other things such as a kettle or toaster.FiF said:
On this question of the places that ask do you want a receipt, what about returning faulty goods? What's the first thing they ask for? Probably "Do you have a receipt?" Seems to be a disconnection in logic to me, #alwaystakeandkeepreceipt
Not really, we're not talking about buying an 80" TV. It's generally small purchases in convenience stores. FiF said:
On this question of the places that ask do you want a receipt, what about returning faulty goods? What's the first thing they ask for? Probably "Do you have a receipt?" Seems to be a disconnection in logic to me, #alwaystakeandkeepreceipt
Technically you don't need a receipt to return goods. You need a proof of purchase. If you can provide the bank statement with date/time stamp and amount then that is sufficient as they are also obliged to keep their records.Durzel said:
So long as you're prepared to rationally deal with whatever inquiry might come your way from a SG or whoever is normally standing around on the self-service tills then you don't need a receipt.
I too have never been stopped and I probably get a receipt maybe 1 out of 10 times using one (for expenses).
I tend to think if you look shifty you're going to arouse suspicion. Tangentially related but many years ago I was heading home from a mates house who lived about a mile away at about 1am. I was jogging along the street wearing dark clothing. A Police car rolled up alongside me and effectively pulled me over and asked me where I had been, where I was going, etc. All dealt with in the space of a couple of minutes once they realised I wasn't tooled up to break in to things, they didn't even get out of the car. On the one hand i could've got massively offended - like the OP did - at the mere suggestion that I was a burglar, or - as I did at the time - I realised it wasn't personal, I did look suspicious running down the street at 1am, and them stopping me was a positive thing in terms of policing (i.e. if I had been a burglar), etc.
Exactly this. It's very easy to complain a SG is a "jumped up wanna be policeman", but ultimately he/she is just doing a difficult job with minimum training probably for minimum wage and the threat of the sack if they are not performing.I too have never been stopped and I probably get a receipt maybe 1 out of 10 times using one (for expenses).
I tend to think if you look shifty you're going to arouse suspicion. Tangentially related but many years ago I was heading home from a mates house who lived about a mile away at about 1am. I was jogging along the street wearing dark clothing. A Police car rolled up alongside me and effectively pulled me over and asked me where I had been, where I was going, etc. All dealt with in the space of a couple of minutes once they realised I wasn't tooled up to break in to things, they didn't even get out of the car. On the one hand i could've got massively offended - like the OP did - at the mere suggestion that I was a burglar, or - as I did at the time - I realised it wasn't personal, I did look suspicious running down the street at 1am, and them stopping me was a positive thing in terms of policing (i.e. if I had been a burglar), etc.
Not a job I'd want, hence I'm always polite and accommodating to SG, ticket inspectors, police, regardless of how they are with me,
The Wail and Wail Readers' opinions on what appears to be a similar incident ….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6507111/S...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6507111/S...
Also
"A Morrisons spokeswoman said: 'The guard works for a security company and he was recovering items he believed might be stolen from a couple who he suspected were shoplifting. The police are now dealing with the alleged shoplifters.' "
I didn't think an SG could recover the items, only detain?
That was also significant force used to detain... proportionate?
IANAL.
"A Morrisons spokeswoman said: 'The guard works for a security company and he was recovering items he believed might be stolen from a couple who he suspected were shoplifting. The police are now dealing with the alleged shoplifters.' "
I didn't think an SG could recover the items, only detain?
That was also significant force used to detain... proportionate?
IANAL.
Vaud said:
Also
"A Morrisons spokeswoman said: 'The guard works for a security company and he was recovering items he believed might be stolen from a couple who he suspected were shoplifting. The police are now dealing with the alleged shoplifters.' "
I didn't think an SG could recover the items, only detain?
That was also significant force used to detain... proportionate?
IANAL.
There are a number of issues. You can use force to prevent crime as well as arrest offenders so trying to stop them taking or keeping stuff is still OK. As for the use of force being proportionate it needs to be the minimum to achieve the lawful objective. This level of force may have been necessary owing to the actions of the offender which, has some scope for escalation as someone using lawful force can use more lawful force to defend against unlawful force and so on. "A Morrisons spokeswoman said: 'The guard works for a security company and he was recovering items he believed might be stolen from a couple who he suspected were shoplifting. The police are now dealing with the alleged shoplifters.' "
I didn't think an SG could recover the items, only detain?
That was also significant force used to detain... proportionate?
IANAL.
The possibility of whether it will escalate, should be a consideration at the outset; but it's a slippery slope to let everyone go in case they resist and you have to use a higher level of force. They are supported by legislation now (Which is similar to the existing case law)
"Evidence of a person’s having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose. "
milkround said:
I felt I was tripped. He says I fell. The video is inconclusive. Being brutally honest it looks more like I tripped. But it's dark and blurry and that's just my opinion. It does show him kicking me. And it does show me getting up and before I'm fully up my arm goes forward and connects with his upper body area (can't tell if it's chest or head, I remember head). The police say 'that's definitely a punch' I'd assume they are more expert at looking at grainy footage than me,(I'm not convinced as you can't see my arm or hand as the camera is directly behind me), and the solicitor seemed to not agree with them.
The reality is that I openly admit I applied force to him. And as some have said assault is assault no matter if it's a shove, a punch or simply tickling someone if they don't like it. My defence is I was defending myself from him and I was trying to get away. It will be up to the magistrates/DJ how they see all of this.
Tbh I see all of this as a monumental waste of police time. And I can sort of see why they wanted to bin it off now. I was literally devastated when I found my bike wasn't where I left it. And all I got was a reference number as 'no viable lines of enquiry' so they didn't come out. I'd rather live in a society where the police were out looking for those stealing cars/bikes/burgling than dealing with two idiots squabbling in a car park. But they were called and probably had to do something. I've been very critical of the Police and with time for reflection feel I was a bit harsh. I don't agree with them trying to force me to accept the RJ but I do see why they wanted it to go away.
It doesn't really matter if you were purposefully tripped or if you fell. You believed you were tripped at that moment in time and that set off your fight or flight response to defend yourself.The reality is that I openly admit I applied force to him. And as some have said assault is assault no matter if it's a shove, a punch or simply tickling someone if they don't like it. My defence is I was defending myself from him and I was trying to get away. It will be up to the magistrates/DJ how they see all of this.
Tbh I see all of this as a monumental waste of police time. And I can sort of see why they wanted to bin it off now. I was literally devastated when I found my bike wasn't where I left it. And all I got was a reference number as 'no viable lines of enquiry' so they didn't come out. I'd rather live in a society where the police were out looking for those stealing cars/bikes/burgling than dealing with two idiots squabbling in a car park. But they were called and probably had to do something. I've been very critical of the Police and with time for reflection feel I was a bit harsh. I don't agree with them trying to force me to accept the RJ but I do see why they wanted it to go away.
Even if you only fell being on the floor infront of an attacker is going to change your response as it's such a vulnerable position.
I applaud to an extent you following through with your pride and gut, I guess I'm one for the easy life. If I've done nothing wrong, I'll happily waive some of my rights to have an amicable exchange and be on my way swiftly.
One of my friends ended up in a cell after another friend was pulled over, he refused to give his details to the police (again I understand the principle) and (probably illegally) ended up going to the police station with them for many hours.
Rather than say 'I'm John Smith'.
I guess we all have a line with what we feel is reasonable.
Out of interest, did the security guard concede that you didn't steal anything ?
One of my friends ended up in a cell after another friend was pulled over, he refused to give his details to the police (again I understand the principle) and (probably illegally) ended up going to the police station with them for many hours.
Rather than say 'I'm John Smith'.
I guess we all have a line with what we feel is reasonable.
Out of interest, did the security guard concede that you didn't steal anything ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff