Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
mph999 said:
My understanding, is that there is no legal requirement to be given a receipt in a shop.
A quick Google seems to support this ...
Under UK law, there is no obligation for retailers to provide a receipt to customers, meaning there are also no rules protecting the quality of a receipt.
... so therefore, the security guard had no right to demand to see a receipt.
The security guard can ask for a receipt. A quick Google seems to support this ...
Under UK law, there is no obligation for retailers to provide a receipt to customers, meaning there are also no rules protecting the quality of a receipt.
... so therefore, the security guard had no right to demand to see a receipt.
The OP doesn't have to obtain one and doesn't have to show it even if he did.
Failure to do so wouldn't prove guilt on it's own and wouldn't provide reasonable grounds, but the security guard can use anything to form part of any suspicions he may need. Not doing what you don't have to, or doing what you are perfectly entitled to do can still be suspicious. Asking for the receipt COULD be used to show that the security guard was trying to be reasonable to allay his suspicions.
The power or otherwise of the SG to see a receipt has little bearing on the OPs actions (which are the ones on trial), unless the OP is saying he didn't believe at the time the SG had a right to challenge him and he believed the SG was going to assault him unlawfully.
I'm not sure how many people being asked by a uniformed SG in a supermarket for a receipt would end up in a fight or whether the OPs belief would be seen as honestly held at the time.
I don't care which way it goes, doesn't affect my life, however my impression of the OP and his behaviour is he doesn't like authority and he didn't like being challenged (by anyone).
I'm not sure how many people being asked by a uniformed SG in a supermarket for a receipt would end up in a fight or whether the OPs belief would be seen as honestly held at the time.
I don't care which way it goes, doesn't affect my life, however my impression of the OP and his behaviour is he doesn't like authority and he didn't like being challenged (by anyone).
janesmith1950 said:
The power or otherwise of the SG to see a receipt has little bearing on the OPs actions (which are the ones on trial), unless the OP is saying he didn't believe at the time the SG had a right to challenge him and he believed the SG was going to assault him unlawfully.
I'm not sure how many people being asked by a uniformed SG in a supermarket for a receipt would end up in a fight or whether the OPs belief would be seen as honestly held at the time.
I don't care which way it goes, doesn't affect my life, however my impression of the OP and his behaviour is he doesn't like authority and he didn't like being challenged (by anyone).
Again, the last sentence is irrelevant. The evidence that he’s shown doesn’t point to him being the aggressor. So what are you basing your view on?I'm not sure how many people being asked by a uniformed SG in a supermarket for a receipt would end up in a fight or whether the OPs belief would be seen as honestly held at the time.
I don't care which way it goes, doesn't affect my life, however my impression of the OP and his behaviour is he doesn't like authority and he didn't like being challenged (by anyone).
Alpinestars said:
Again, the last sentence is irrelevant. The evidence that he’s shown doesn’t point to him being the aggressor. So what are you basing your view on?
Who was the initial aggressor isn't the question. The question is about whether the OPs state of mind when he decided to assault the security guard was sufficient for self defence. Did he hold an honestly held belief that he needed to defend himself by assaulting the SG and, if so, was his level of aggression reasonable in the circumstances. If he claims self defence it's up to the prosecution to rebut it. If there's any evidence anywhere that the OP has an axe to grind or an issue with people in power, that helps the court understand why the OP got asked for a receipt by a SG and ended up in court.
This thread was started by the OP and we're seeing what he wants us to see through his eyes. I'm sure the prosecution case will have a different look and feel.
I don't care which side wins, neither do I believe everything I read on the internet.
Graveworm said:
The OP doesn't have to obtain one and doesn't have to show it even if he did.
Failure to do so wouldn't prove guilt on it's own and wouldn't provide reasonable grounds, but the security guard can use anything to form part of any suspicions he may need. Not doing what you don't have to, or doing what you are perfectly entitled to do can still be suspicious.
Any case law proving that not doing what you don't have to adds to reasonable suspicion ?Failure to do so wouldn't prove guilt on it's own and wouldn't provide reasonable grounds, but the security guard can use anything to form part of any suspicions he may need. Not doing what you don't have to, or doing what you are perfectly entitled to do can still be suspicious.
Seems a rather odd perspective.
janesmith1950 said:
Who was the initial aggressor isn't the question. The question is about whether the OPs state of mind when he decided to assault the security guard was sufficient for self defence. Did he hold an honestly held belief that he needed to defend himself by assaulting the SG and, if so, was his level of aggression reasonable in the circumstances.
If he claims self defence it's up to the prosecution to rebut it. If there's any evidence anywhere that the OP has an axe to grind or an issue with people in power, that helps the court understand why the OP got asked for a receipt by a SG and ended up in court.
This thread was started by the OP and we're seeing what he wants us to see through his eyes. I'm sure the prosecution case will have a different look and feel.
I don't care which side wins, neither do I believe everything I read on the internet.
You’re doing an awfully good impression of someone who doesn’t care. If he claims self defence it's up to the prosecution to rebut it. If there's any evidence anywhere that the OP has an axe to grind or an issue with people in power, that helps the court understand why the OP got asked for a receipt by a SG and ended up in court.
This thread was started by the OP and we're seeing what he wants us to see through his eyes. I'm sure the prosecution case will have a different look and feel.
I don't care which side wins, neither do I believe everything I read on the internet.
As I said, everything you said in your earlier post was irrelevant.
You still haven’t set out your evidence about your belief and how you reach your conclusion on the OP. Especially given the “evidence” shows something entirely different. Do you have other evidence to the contrary?
Red 4 said:
Any case law proving that not doing what you don't have to adds to reasonable suspicion ?
Seems a rather odd perspective.
The only things that can't add to reasonable suspicion are certain protected characteristics. It follows anything else can so long as it was objective. There have been several cases, for example, where anyone who wouldn't give their details were arrested following a major incident as most people will co-operate. Seems a rather odd perspective.
No legal requirement for these party goers to assist police at all but it formed part of the grounds for arrest.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/31/police...
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 23 November 17:33
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
Any case law proving that not doing what you don't have to adds to reasonable suspicion ?
Seems a rather odd perspective.
The only things that can't add to reasonable suspicion are certain protected characteristics. It follows anything else can so long as it was objective. There have been several cases, for example, where anyone who wouldn't give their details were arrested following a major incident as most people will co-operate. Seems a rather odd perspective.
No legal requirement for these party goers to assist police at all but it formed part of the grounds for arrest.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/31/police...
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 23 November 17:33
Nobody present inside the house was prepared to speak so everyone was arrested.
In the op's case he has denied acting in the way the SG describes inside the store.
The CCTV appears to support the op's version of events.
Telling the SG to jog on because he demanded to see a receipt - in the absence of any other grounds - can't add to reasonable suspicion.
I see your point I just don't think it applies to the op.
There is no requirement to produce a receipt.
I'm pretty sure we covered this months ago.
eldar said:
janesmith1950 said:
I'm not sure how many people being asked by a uniformed SG in a supermarket for a receipt would end up in a fight or whether the OPs belief would be seen as honestly held at the time.
This aspect has been interesting. They key, I suspect.The woman produced a receipt, the SG thanked her for her time and understanding and everyone was happy and went about the rest of their day.
Roo said:
eldar said:
janesmith1950 said:
I'm not sure how many people being asked by a uniformed SG in a supermarket for a receipt would end up in a fight or whether the OPs belief would be seen as honestly held at the time.
This aspect has been interesting. They key, I suspect.The woman produced a receipt, the SG thanked her for her time and understanding and everyone was happy and went about the rest of their day.
Roo said:
I've just been to our local Tesco and as I walked in the SG had stopped a customer in entrance foyer and was asking to see a receipt.
The woman produced a receipt, the SG thanked her for her time and understanding and everyone was happy and went about the rest of their day.
I think the op had an issue with the way the SG spoke to him initially and things escalated from there.The woman produced a receipt, the SG thanked her for her time and understanding and everyone was happy and went about the rest of their day.
There's an easy (right) way of doing things and the other way which usually ends up with somebody looking like a complete tit.
It's always best to start well and be friendly/ professional.
You can escalate if need be (if you've got grounds).
Much more difficult to go in all guns blazing and then try to de-escalate.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 23 November 18:18
Red 4 said:
In the op's case he has denied acting in the way the SG describes inside the store.
The CCTV appears to support the op's version of events.
Telling the SG to jog on because he demanded to see a receipt - in the absence of any other grounds - can't add to reasonable suspicion.
I see your point I just don't think it applies to the op.
There is no requirement to produce a receipt.
I'm pretty sure we covered this months ago.
I never said it did apply here. I also said there was no requirement to supply a receipt, however if the security guard and his colleagues say, for example, I thought they had something they didn't pay for. In my X years of experience, when asked, if it's a mistake or they have paid for everything, people co-operate and try to clear things up so this made me more suspicious of the OP. Does that sound objective and reasonable?The CCTV appears to support the op's version of events.
Telling the SG to jog on because he demanded to see a receipt - in the absence of any other grounds - can't add to reasonable suspicion.
I see your point I just don't think it applies to the op.
There is no requirement to produce a receipt.
I'm pretty sure we covered this months ago.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 23 November 18:27
vonhosen said:
Yeah, where as hours having to deal with Police, solicitors & court versus a few seconds or minutes with a security guard seems like an equitable exercise in freedom.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctimonioussanctimonioushttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah, where as hours having to deal with Police, solicitors & court versus a few seconds or minutes with a security guard seems like an equitable exercise in freedom.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctimonioussanctimonioushttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
all to do with morality, everything to do with pragmatism.Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
In the op's case he has denied acting in the way the SG describes inside the store.
The CCTV appears to support the op's version of events.
Telling the SG to jog on because he demanded to see a receipt - in the absence of any other grounds - can't add to reasonable suspicion.
I see your point I just don't think it applies to the op.
There is no requirement to produce a receipt.
I'm pretty sure we covered this months ago.
I never said it did apply here. I also said there was no requirement to supply a receipt, however if the security guard and his colleagues say, for example, I thought they had something they didn't pay for. In my X years of experience, when asked, if it's a mistake or they have paid for everything, people co-operate and try to clear things up so this made me more suspicious of the OP. Does that sound objective and reasonable. The CCTV appears to support the op's version of events.
Telling the SG to jog on because he demanded to see a receipt - in the absence of any other grounds - can't add to reasonable suspicion.
I see your point I just don't think it applies to the op.
There is no requirement to produce a receipt.
I'm pretty sure we covered this months ago.
The crux of the matter is whether the SG had reasonable grounds to suspect the op of stealing before he asked him for a receipt.
If he didn't and he was in Jackanory/ fairy tale mode with his grounds/ statement though, he may find himself in more trouble than the op.
We'll see.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff