Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
markyb_lcy said:
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.
milkround said:
We were both idiots really.
The big difference I see is he was acting in a professional capacity and will have had training/instruction covering how he should diffuse these situations. The type of goon that goes around escalating situations to violence and homophobic abuse are exactly the ones the SIA accreditation was brought in to remove. Maybe your complaint should also go to them?swagmeister said:
Come to the office with me Sir . . . . . certainly . . . . . all done and on your way in a few minutes but OP feels he needs to be above that and act like a knob.
Does that make it right to assault someone? Because they didn't do as you pleased/asked/barked etc? I think not.You are of course right though in that playing along nicely is usually the path of least resistance and stress, in the long run.
markyb_lcy said:
Does that make it right to assault someone? Because they didn't do as you pleased/asked/barked etc? I think not.
You are of course right though in that playing along nicely is usually the path of least resistance and stress, in the long run.
Use of force doesn't automatically = assault. You are of course right though in that playing along nicely is usually the path of least resistance and stress, in the long run.
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
Just because you were innocent of any offence doesn't make the arrest and therefor the use of force unlawful and wouldn't automatically make any use of force against the person attempting the arrest lawful.
La Liga said:
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.
In Lincolnshire, you just have to live on the "wrong" side of the street...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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185741/N...
(Yes, Daily Fail, so likely sensationalised).
Demands and funding sure do have to have a bearing on what they can do, but arbitrary systems such as deciding whether to visit based on the house number, is hardly fair or reasonable, is it? You don't read about those houses on the "wrong side" for a visit getting a council tax discount.
If you think I'm blaming police for this here, I am actually not. I'm blaming central government, either for not funding or guiding them sufficiently, and/or not calling them out and dealing with it when standards are so obviously slipping.
Seems quite the norm
15:00 outside M&S I saw a young man in tracksuit wrestling a young lady, the young lady shouting "hes gonna rape me"
Turns out the young chap was an undercover security guard and the young lady had stole quite a few leather jackets and he was stopping her walk out with them, but at first glance I nearly jumped in to get him off her! He wasn't holding back no matter what she shouted , fair play to him
The local tesco near me has some rough clientele and on about every other visit I see the addicts and tea leafs kicking off at the door, seems to me its the de rigueur thing to do when caught out.
On a similar note I was stopped by a guard in the same tesco when with my baby son, I thought I paid for everything, only my other half put 4 packets of nappies under the pushchair and didnt tell me......Was a bit awkward when my receipt didnt have them listed and I was walking out to the car park!! All dealt with smiles and a bit of banter, I apologized they believed me and life went on after I paid.
15:00 outside M&S I saw a young man in tracksuit wrestling a young lady, the young lady shouting "hes gonna rape me"
Turns out the young chap was an undercover security guard and the young lady had stole quite a few leather jackets and he was stopping her walk out with them, but at first glance I nearly jumped in to get him off her! He wasn't holding back no matter what she shouted , fair play to him
The local tesco near me has some rough clientele and on about every other visit I see the addicts and tea leafs kicking off at the door, seems to me its the de rigueur thing to do when caught out.
On a similar note I was stopped by a guard in the same tesco when with my baby son, I thought I paid for everything, only my other half put 4 packets of nappies under the pushchair and didnt tell me......Was a bit awkward when my receipt didnt have them listed and I was walking out to the car park!! All dealt with smiles and a bit of banter, I apologized they believed me and life went on after I paid.
Graveworm said:
Use of force doesn't automatically = assault.
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
Just because you were innocent of any offence doesn't make the arrest and therefor the use of force unlawful and wouldn't automatically make any use of force against the person attempting the arrest lawful.
I asked whether you thought it was reasonable, not whether you consider it was lawful. But clearly you moved to more comfortable ground.A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
Just because you were innocent of any offence doesn't make the arrest and therefor the use of force unlawful and wouldn't automatically make any use of force against the person attempting the arrest lawful.
And for the purpose of the discussion, I'll retract the word "assault" ... let's go with "initiate physical contact"?
markyb_lcy said:
La Liga said:
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.
In Lincolnshire, you just have to live on the "wrong" side of the street...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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185741/N...
(Yes, Daily Fail, so likely sensationalised).
Demands and funding sure do have to have a bearing on what they can do, but arbitrary systems such as deciding whether to visit based on the house number, is hardly fair or reasonable, is it? You don't read about those houses on the "wrong side" for a visit getting a council tax discount.
If you think I'm blaming police for this here, I am actually not. I'm blaming central government, either for not funding or guiding them sufficiently, and/or not calling them out and dealing with it when standards are so obviously slipping.
They have safeguards built for when there were likely reasonable lines of enquiry and for vulnerability.
La Liga said:
'd have done it every other report rather than odd / even if looking to gather such data. Although statistically it's probably the same thing it doesn't sound as bad.
Yep, agree with that. Although they are both worthy of criticism, one is fair (to customer, all of whom should have equal access) whilst the other is something I might come up with after 6 pints down the pub.Sorry, I was going to give up but there is one other thing worth saying.
With regard to there often not being many reasonable lines of inquiry for a house burglary, is it reasonable to assume that visiting the scene of a crime is likely to provide more lines of inquiry? Maybe my burglar always wears the same Nike trainers? Or maybe known burglars have a known MO and only visiting the scene would make this obvious.
It sounds like you're an advocate of "oh, these cases never get solved, we never find anything useful, so lets not bother with this one let's go for the low hanging fruit instead". That's not a police service I want to be proud of.
Edit: It's actually not just the police, I honestly think our society is getting more and more lazy in this regard.
With regard to there often not being many reasonable lines of inquiry for a house burglary, is it reasonable to assume that visiting the scene of a crime is likely to provide more lines of inquiry? Maybe my burglar always wears the same Nike trainers? Or maybe known burglars have a known MO and only visiting the scene would make this obvious.
It sounds like you're an advocate of "oh, these cases never get solved, we never find anything useful, so lets not bother with this one let's go for the low hanging fruit instead". That's not a police service I want to be proud of.
Edit: It's actually not just the police, I honestly think our society is getting more and more lazy in this regard.
La Liga said:
'd have done it every other report rather than odd / even if looking to gather such data. Although statistically it's probably the same thing it doesn't sound as bad.
They have safeguards built for when there were likely reasonable lines of enquiry and for vulnerability.
It won't be statistically the same thing after word gets out.They have safeguards built for when there were likely reasonable lines of enquiry and for vulnerability.
Wouldn't surprise me if there are fewer even numbered houses either.
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.
markyb_lcy said:
I asked whether you thought it was reasonable, not whether you consider it was lawful. But clearly you moved to more comfortable ground.
And for the purpose of the discussion, I'll retract the word "assault" ... let's go with "initiate physical contact"?
It's never reasonable to assault someone. It is occasionally reasonable to initiate physical contact. If it's unreasonable, then it's an assault. And for the purpose of the discussion, I'll retract the word "assault" ... let's go with "initiate physical contact"?
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 16th April 16:36
Hackney said:
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.
Centurion07 said:
They may not have, but I'm pretty sure most people, including the OP, wouldn't know one way or the other. Even if they don't, if the security guard THINKS you're trying to walk out with something then he's well within his rights to challenge that person and then when they respond in the way the OP did, it ends up escalating.
They are within their rights to ask you, but if you don't want to engage with them unless they pass SCONE then they won't have any further legal powers.Any escalation at that point is squarely on the guard not the shopper, and puts them on a sticky wicket.
Centurion07 said:
They may not have, but I'm pretty sure most people, including the OP, wouldn't know one way or the other. Even if they don't, if the security guard THINKS you're trying to walk out with something then he's well within his rights to challenge that person and then when they respond in the way the OP did, it ends up escalating.
As a contractor for that company (posh way of saying self employed driver). I have access to more documentation than you'd think. But I agree that it doesn't really matter as company policy does not outweigh law. And I'm going to assume his guidance is grossly different to mine - doing different roles. Hypothetically. He thinks that I'm stealing so he gets physical. I havn't been stealing and think he is attacking so I get physical. Both people have reasonable belief in their actions so neither are found guilty. Which means it's a total waste of police time. I'm really not that proud of this. I still believe he didn't think I'd be stealing. And I do think he was well over the top. But I'm suspect no1 for a reason I suppose - and the female copper said I'd definately be going to court. I can't see her changing her mind on that.
I better enjoy the new bike whilst I still have my freedom. Joking aside I wish this all could go away and I could get on with my life. In the cold light of day I'm pretty mortified. Now I'm totally calmed down about it and my back has stopped hurting - I can't belive I got into this position.
Cyberprog said:
They are within their rights to ask you, but if you don't want to engage with them unless they pass SCONE then they won't have any further legal powers.
Any escalation at that point is squarely on the guard not the shopper, and puts them on a sticky wicket.
That may be. But it would be for a court to decide.Any escalation at that point is squarely on the guard not the shopper, and puts them on a sticky wicket.
In a few weeks me and my partner move into a new apartment. She is applying for post grad medicine. I'm looking for a professional graduate job. We both want to get on with our lives. I don't want this all hanging over me.
I've decided if I'm offered an out I'll take it. I'm not going to lie and say I attacked anyone. But I'm not going to be difficult for the sake of it. If they offer me a way of just enjoying my life I'll take it. What's more - I can't really afford the financial expense of paying for decent solicitors. The legal aid ones are less than impressive. And winning could cost me an awful lot.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff