Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Kewy said:
Zarco said:
It's highly unlikely this even happened.
It's so tiring people just preaching about stories that never happened.Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It seems like some people have nothing interesting happen in their lives and therefore anytime someone else tells a story of something out of the ordinary it must be a lie.
If you don't believe it happened, unfollow the thread and go your merry way.
Yawn.
It seems to crop up on the most mundane threads these days.
Reminds me how every YouTube video (in the early days of it) used to have a 'Fake and gay' comment on it.
The Surveyor said:
Can I suggest there will be 3 versions here, the OP's recollection of what happened, the Security Guards recollection, and then what really happened. The OP has already said he couldn't remember punching the guard as well as forgetting that they had a receipt, the security guard will be equally vague on the detail he would rather not recall as a result of his red mist.
Also, unless the CCTV shows the whole confrontation including sound recordings of what was said from the moment the OP and partner scanned their shopping, the initial approach and confrontation with the security guard, and the scrap in the car park, the CCTV won't be particularly conclusive either IMHO.
Wise words. Also, unless the CCTV shows the whole confrontation including sound recordings of what was said from the moment the OP and partner scanned their shopping, the initial approach and confrontation with the security guard, and the scrap in the car park, the CCTV won't be particularly conclusive either IMHO.
It's unlikely that anyone's's version of events can be provided beyond reasonable doubt.
The police tried to talk to me regarding a "stolen" wheel clamp (in NZ). Fortunately I had seen this on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
When I was assaulted and arrested (by the police) for theft of two heat pumps, I would have again refused to talk - but they never even tried to interview me. Unsurprisingly the case collapsed (even the police worked out I was repossessing my own units, albeit a year after the event).
So I would decline any invitation to talk to the police. If the OP hasn't done anything wrong, talking will NOT help. If he has done something wrong, plenty of time to see the evidence and plead guilty.
Judging by what the OP has said so far I doubt the CPS will prosecute. (what would they prosecute for?)
caziques said:
The police tried to talk to me regarding a "stolen" wheel clamp (in NZ). Fortunately I had seen this on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
When I was assaulted and arrested (by the police) for theft of two heat pumps, I would have again refused to talk - but they never even tried to interview me. Unsurprisingly the case collapsed (even the police worked out I was repossessing my own units, albeit a year after the event).
So I would decline any invitation to talk to the police. If the OP hasn't done anything wrong, talking will NOT help. If he has done something wrong, plenty of time to see the evidence and plead guilty.
Judging by what the OP has said so far I doubt the CPS will prosecute. (what would they prosecute for?)
That video provides some terrible advice when applied to the UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
When I was assaulted and arrested (by the police) for theft of two heat pumps, I would have again refused to talk - but they never even tried to interview me. Unsurprisingly the case collapsed (even the police worked out I was repossessing my own units, albeit a year after the event).
So I would decline any invitation to talk to the police. If the OP hasn't done anything wrong, talking will NOT help. If he has done something wrong, plenty of time to see the evidence and plead guilty.
Judging by what the OP has said so far I doubt the CPS will prosecute. (what would they prosecute for?)
There are plenty of times when it’s important to talk to the police.
One obvious and possibly very relevant example is when justifying using force / self-defence i.e. raising a defence.
If you ‘decline an invitation’ then that will likely end up with an arrest. Ironically, something you’d want to avoid if wanting to travel to the US.
The best advice has already been given if the OP is being interviewed as a suspect. Take legal advice from a solicitor at the police station (free and independent).
Advice from an American aimed at the American system video should be ignored.
Not sure why the OPs being branded as behaving like a freeman of the land.
Security guard should have some sort of evidence before initially wasting the OPs time with a random spot check.... swinging kicks at a customer who didn’t have a receipt for a bag full of groceries but has walked out of the self checkout is not exactly reasonable force.
Security guard should have some sort of evidence before initially wasting the OPs time with a random spot check.... swinging kicks at a customer who didn’t have a receipt for a bag full of groceries but has walked out of the self checkout is not exactly reasonable force.
ambuletz said:
report it as a hate crime for him calling you gay while attacking you.
I can't see I agree with you refusing to go with him but at the same time I can understand and you done nothing wrong!His reaction there after is totally uncalled for.
I had an issue with a security guard a few years ago and similar to you he presumed to know me from a sterotype and when challanged about it as he was wrong he got his back up and tried to threaten to man handle me. Luckily I managed to deal with it in a more intellectual way.
As others have said report him, report him to the store and report it has a hate crime which it was.
More likely that not the guard will get into trouble or moved to another post. I never saw the same security guard again at the store I went to after I made my complaint in store.
Black_S3 said:
Not sure why the OPs being branded as behaving like a freeman of the land.
Security guard should have some sort of evidence before initially wasting the OPs time with a random spot check
Um, because a random spot check is just that; random.Security guard should have some sort of evidence before initially wasting the OPs time with a random spot check
Use of the phrase "I take my civil liberties very seriously" and walking away from the guard without even so much as a "sorry mate, I've paid for everything" does lend itself to being branded a freeman-type.
Centurion07 said:
Black_S3 said:
Not sure why the OPs being branded as behaving like a freeman of the land.
Security guard should have some sort of evidence before initially wasting the OPs time with a random spot check
Um, because a random spot check is just that; random.Security guard should have some sort of evidence before initially wasting the OPs time with a random spot check
Use of the phrase "I take my civil liberties very seriously" and walking away from the guard without even so much as a "sorry mate, I've paid for everything" does lend itself to being branded a freeman-type.
LeoSayer said:
OP if this happened again (security guard asks you to come with him) would you behave differently?
Yeah. I'd have engaged a bit more. And I'd be asking why he wanted me to come with him. I'd also be asking what his problem was. The most pathetic thing is... I still don't really know why he stopped me. He never said. He just asked for a receipt. The copper on the phone just said it's common to steal stuff from the self-service. I asked her if she was accusing me of robbing and she said she was not. We were both idiots really. He didn't want to let it go and I ended up digging my heals in. I don't think it's right that the police are automatically taking one side - but neither of us came out of it looking well.
After asking why I'd sort out the specifics. If it was he said he saw me put something in my pocket I'd turn out the pocket. If it was because he didn't think there was something on the receipt I'd ask what thing it was.
I'd still not randomly walk around with someone. Nor would I be going into any back rooms if I had done nothing wrong. I'd also be on the phone to police before things got physical. But that is beside the point. I think there are some big lessons here - most importantly that if you are challenged and you have done nothing wrong you should be straight on the phone to 999 if they are getting physical. Even being in the right doesn't protect you from being attacked and the law seems to have no consideration for innocent people going about their business.
It seems pretty standard to me that the police have a habit of automatically siding with the "working person" as a default. That, in my and others experience has been security guards, bus drivers, club bouncers etc etc.
If you're the non working member of public in a dispute against someone whom was working, you'll invariably find you'll be expected to prove innocence to a much higher degree than them.
I would refuse to give the apology. You don't have to agree not to use the shop again per-se, but the shop do have the right not to admit you.
In the meantime I would do as others as suggested and report a hate crime. Which these days, does seem to be something they investigate. To me it feels like they spend more time these days chasing up facebook comments than they do attending say house break-ins.
If you're the non working member of public in a dispute against someone whom was working, you'll invariably find you'll be expected to prove innocence to a much higher degree than them.
I would refuse to give the apology. You don't have to agree not to use the shop again per-se, but the shop do have the right not to admit you.
In the meantime I would do as others as suggested and report a hate crime. Which these days, does seem to be something they investigate. To me it feels like they spend more time these days chasing up facebook comments than they do attending say house break-ins.
markyb_lcy said:
It seems pretty standard to me that the police have a habit of automatically siding with the "working person" as a default. That, in my and others experience has been security guards, bus drivers, club bouncers etc etc.
If you're the non working member of public in a dispute against someone whom was working, you'll invariably find you'll be expected to prove innocence to a much higher degree than them.
I would refuse to give the apology. You don't have to agree not to use the shop again per-se, but the shop do have the right not to admit you.
In the meantime I would do as others as suggested and report a hate crime. Which these days, does seem to be something they investigate. To me it feels like they spend more time these days chasing up facebook comments than they do attending say house break-ins.
If the OP had reported it first it would have been the other way round, no one's siding with anyone.If you're the non working member of public in a dispute against someone whom was working, you'll invariably find you'll be expected to prove innocence to a much higher degree than them.
I would refuse to give the apology. You don't have to agree not to use the shop again per-se, but the shop do have the right not to admit you.
In the meantime I would do as others as suggested and report a hate crime. Which these days, does seem to be something they investigate. To me it feels like they spend more time these days chasing up facebook comments than they do attending say house break-ins.
And your opinion of dealing with facebook comments than more serious crime simply isn't the case.
Greendubber said:
And your opinion of dealing with facebook comments than more serious crime simply isn't the case.
It's an opinion and generally based on hearsay, and was something of a throwaway comment. Obviously they are not *actually* spending more time on facebook than they are not on facebook.Fact remains though, that you read more and more about police chasing up bullying / hate crime etc on social media, then you read about them not turning up to 2/3s of home break ins. Sure, don't believe everything you read, but these are worrying trends if you ask me.
The police are shaped by their demand and other factors.
Idiot A calls idiot B something on social media, it may technically be a crime and there are reasonable lines of enquiry to follow-up. You can't just say, "No thanks this is garbage", and ignore it.
In contrast burglaries often have very few reasonable lines of enquiry.
It's also a lot harder to get rid of rubbish like that as the police could a couple of years ago. Before it was easy to work around it and not record it as a crime, but technically most should be recorded as a malicious communications offence and once it's on the system with a 'suspect' - it's harder to get rid of as quickly as one would otherwise like to.
Idiot A calls idiot B something on social media, it may technically be a crime and there are reasonable lines of enquiry to follow-up. You can't just say, "No thanks this is garbage", and ignore it.
In contrast burglaries often have very few reasonable lines of enquiry.
It's also a lot harder to get rid of rubbish like that as the police could a couple of years ago. Before it was easy to work around it and not record it as a crime, but technically most should be recorded as a malicious communications offence and once it's on the system with a 'suspect' - it's harder to get rid of as quickly as one would otherwise like to.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff