Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
CubanPete said:
The Mad Monk said:
milkround said:
Went to a supermarket.
etc, etc,
Next time, will you do exactly the same thing?etc, etc,
The security guard came on aggressively and he reacted. The security guard then over reacted.
The policewoman made an assumption from one side of the story and thought she could sweep it up nice and quickly.
We have only heard one side of events, but it sounds like everyone would have reacted differently in retrospect.
I don't know about it well enough. But if she truly felt that I'd been shoplifting and then attacked the gaurd whilst he tried to lawfully detain me before getting away, then youd think that was the sort of person who should be arrested and put before the courts.
I suspect that there is a bit more to it than you infer. Not least because I've so far been given two versions of what happened by her from the CCTV.
As others have said you have all only heard one side of this from me. But I'd wager not a single police officer on here would admit that if they'd only give a shoplifter who attacked someone making a citizens arrest and the made off a community resolution to say he is sorry.
No one comes out of it well. Not least me. But that doesn't mean I should be the one held to be criminally at fault.
bad company said:
I doubt the op has it yet. He may not be able to post it when/if he has it for legal reasons.
Correct on count one. Once I do have it unless I get a really convincing reason not to I will post. All faces apart from mine will be pixelated out anyway. So it's not like I'm harming anyone else.
The Mad Monk said:
You don't know that.
Actually... And I don't want to engage with you if it's going to be arguing. You can know that. Simply because if an investigation is completed the officer has neither the need nor the right to interview.
Once they have the evidence to charge they can do. There is no need for an interview. As I have not been charged then she is still investigating.
Also... PACE Code C states:
[i] No interviewer may try to obtain answers or elicit a statement by the use of oppression.
Except as in paragraph 10.9, no interviewer shall indicate, except to answer a direct
question, what action will be taken by the police if the person being questioned answers
questions, makes a statement or refuses to do either. If the person asks directly what
action will be taken if they answer questions, make a statement or refuse to do either, the
interviewer may inform them what action the police propose to take provided that action is
itself proper and warranted. [/i]
Now I do accept on the phone that I was not being interviewed with regards to PACE. But it seems rather suspect to continually badger me into admitting it and even say 'you will definitely be going to court if you don't admit it'.
Maybe totally irrelevant. And as always it's just my side of things. But I do wonder how I'd even know about any of this stuff if she hasn't said it. I'm not exactly an expert in Police procedures as some will have worked out.
I'm all for rules is rules is rules etc... But the person applying those rules should also subject themselves to the rules they are meant to follow. And not try and bully people into admitting they are guilty of a crime.
Add to this from Code C:
[i] 11.6 The interview or further interview of a person about an offence with which that person has
not been charged or for which they have not been informed they may be prosecuted, must
cease when:
(c) the officer in charge of the investigation, or in the case of a detained suspect, the
custody officer, see paragraph 16.1, reasonably believes there is sufficient evidence
to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for that offence. See Note 11B. [/i]
So on one hand she is saying I'll definately go to court. But on the other hand she is demanding/inviting me to go for an interview. Which is breaching their own rules.
I'm not after causing trouble. But I think I've been treated atrociously so far. I didn't set out to hurt anyone. I didn't steal anything. I was a bit difficult (my own admission) and ended up being attacked both verbally with homophobic abuse and physically. I then tried to get away and defended myself (I say a push but lets see the CCTV). And since then the police have been breaking the basic rules they are meant to follow. It's a disgrace really.
Before anyone states - yeah you have only heard what I've said. And I could be a total liar or mentally ill person. Or I could be telling the truth and just be a bit shocked by this. Make your own mind up. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on pretending to be a fool in this position.
[i] No interviewer may try to obtain answers or elicit a statement by the use of oppression.
Except as in paragraph 10.9, no interviewer shall indicate, except to answer a direct
question, what action will be taken by the police if the person being questioned answers
questions, makes a statement or refuses to do either. If the person asks directly what
action will be taken if they answer questions, make a statement or refuse to do either, the
interviewer may inform them what action the police propose to take provided that action is
itself proper and warranted. [/i]
Now I do accept on the phone that I was not being interviewed with regards to PACE. But it seems rather suspect to continually badger me into admitting it and even say 'you will definitely be going to court if you don't admit it'.
Maybe totally irrelevant. And as always it's just my side of things. But I do wonder how I'd even know about any of this stuff if she hasn't said it. I'm not exactly an expert in Police procedures as some will have worked out.
I'm all for rules is rules is rules etc... But the person applying those rules should also subject themselves to the rules they are meant to follow. And not try and bully people into admitting they are guilty of a crime.
Add to this from Code C:
[i] 11.6 The interview or further interview of a person about an offence with which that person has
not been charged or for which they have not been informed they may be prosecuted, must
cease when:
(c) the officer in charge of the investigation, or in the case of a detained suspect, the
custody officer, see paragraph 16.1, reasonably believes there is sufficient evidence
to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for that offence. See Note 11B. [/i]
So on one hand she is saying I'll definately go to court. But on the other hand she is demanding/inviting me to go for an interview. Which is breaching their own rules.
I'm not after causing trouble. But I think I've been treated atrociously so far. I didn't set out to hurt anyone. I didn't steal anything. I was a bit difficult (my own admission) and ended up being attacked both verbally with homophobic abuse and physically. I then tried to get away and defended myself (I say a push but lets see the CCTV). And since then the police have been breaking the basic rules they are meant to follow. It's a disgrace really.
Before anyone states - yeah you have only heard what I've said. And I could be a total liar or mentally ill person. Or I could be telling the truth and just be a bit shocked by this. Make your own mind up. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on pretending to be a fool in this position.
And yet another gem from CODE C of PACE:
[i]11B The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice, paragraph 3.5 states
‘In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of
enquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. What is reasonable will
depend on the particular circumstances.’ Interviewers should keep this in mind when
deciding what questions to ask in an interview. [/i]
How you'd determine that interviewing 1 of the 3 people at the scene as a waste of time as in your opinion they are 'not a witness as they were assaulted' beggars belief to me.
Especially as that person has already given a statement as a victim saying they were assaulted and said what happened. But obviously, that would point away from 'the suspect'. So in this PC's eyes would be a waste of time.
I got some grief before for emailing professional standards. And that was before I'd even read this stuff. I'm even more shocked and appalled now. They have not got back to me yet - but I'd hope they do the right thing and compel this officer to take the statements as she's meant to.
[i]11B The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice, paragraph 3.5 states
‘In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of
enquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. What is reasonable will
depend on the particular circumstances.’ Interviewers should keep this in mind when
deciding what questions to ask in an interview. [/i]
How you'd determine that interviewing 1 of the 3 people at the scene as a waste of time as in your opinion they are 'not a witness as they were assaulted' beggars belief to me.
Especially as that person has already given a statement as a victim saying they were assaulted and said what happened. But obviously, that would point away from 'the suspect'. So in this PC's eyes would be a waste of time.
I got some grief before for emailing professional standards. And that was before I'd even read this stuff. I'm even more shocked and appalled now. They have not got back to me yet - but I'd hope they do the right thing and compel this officer to take the statements as she's meant to.
La Liga said:
You'd probably be better to just let it play out rather than going down the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' route.
If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
Aye mate. There is no point in me pointing out that the officer has been doing exactly the opposite of what the pace rules state in plain English. And no point in pointing out that I'd done nothing wrong and that I think the court of appeal had something to say about that. Interestingly it wasn't 'waste of time' when it was a DC who was accused of stealing and assault. The major difference is that he did take something (not unlawfully) and he did kick off when approached (again ruled lawful). If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
If I keep my mouth shut she might forget all about it. And she might not pursue me for crimes that I've not committed. This might just be me. But I'd be mortified if a member of the public told me I'd been doing my job against the rules. For me it might be them pointing out I'd not strapped my load properly. Or that I had forgot to put my number plate on my trailer etc. I'd thank them for letting me know rather than 'not be impressed'.
I suspect you are a Police Officer as well. And you see a trivial (from your perspective) job turning from 5 mins to many hours because someone is going to cause problems. Which is fair enough. But I also suspect if you were accused of assault and/or theft and the police were acting like this you'd not be keeping quiet and playing along. I may be totally wrong about all that though. Either way have a fantastic weekend - if I've annoyed you I apologise. It's not my intention.
La Liga said:
used to be a police officer and interviewed lots of suspects and was interviewed as a suspect on a number of occasions. Including for assault.
You've not annoyed me. My post contains advice and a reality check. The reality check being it's not a very serious matter so don't be surprised if it's not being resolved too quickly / every enquiry is undertaken prior to an interview (if there even is one). It's not my perspective, it's objectively minor. It may not be to you, but no one external will ever care about it as much as you do.
Secondly, as I wrote. If you're interviewed, just listen to your solicitor once they've had disclosure. That includes what to say during interview and surrounding legal processes / procedures. You're potentially ending up at a Magistrates court, not one of the Senior Courts where they're going to be pouring over the Codes Of Practice and whether an unrecorded phone call adhered to them or not.
You're a normal member of the public and should use normal language that you'd use to describe things. If you have to raise self-defence, the fundamental part of the law is 'an honestly held belief'.
It comes across as honest if you describe things as, "I hit him back because I was scared he was going to hurt me. He attacked me after I did nothing wrong. I honestly thought he was going to cause me a serious injury."
As opposed to, "Well, as per my pile of notes, in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551: It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attached may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense he may do, but only do what is reasonably necessary", which comes across as a post-incident disingenuous Google-fest.
Cheers. That all makes total sense tbh. And I think the key thing is that it's a big deal to me but not to anyone else. I shall get on with my life and see what happens. And that means going out on my new scooter today rather than read up anymore about this stuff. You've not annoyed me. My post contains advice and a reality check. The reality check being it's not a very serious matter so don't be surprised if it's not being resolved too quickly / every enquiry is undertaken prior to an interview (if there even is one). It's not my perspective, it's objectively minor. It may not be to you, but no one external will ever care about it as much as you do.
Secondly, as I wrote. If you're interviewed, just listen to your solicitor once they've had disclosure. That includes what to say during interview and surrounding legal processes / procedures. You're potentially ending up at a Magistrates court, not one of the Senior Courts where they're going to be pouring over the Codes Of Practice and whether an unrecorded phone call adhered to them or not.
You're a normal member of the public and should use normal language that you'd use to describe things. If you have to raise self-defence, the fundamental part of the law is 'an honestly held belief'.
It comes across as honest if you describe things as, "I hit him back because I was scared he was going to hurt me. He attacked me after I did nothing wrong. I honestly thought he was going to cause me a serious injury."
As opposed to, "Well, as per my pile of notes, in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551: It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attached may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense he may do, but only do what is reasonably necessary", which comes across as a post-incident disingenuous Google-fest.
Hope you get out and enjoy the sun. I'll stop looking up rules/laws as I can't see it being too helpful right now.
hutchst said:
I assume you're referring to Sowande, who lost his appeal against conviction in the Magistrates Court for assaulting two shop security guards that tried to prevent him from shoplifting. He tried to raise self defence in the appeal, but was prevented as he hadn't raised it at his original trial. It also helps explain why R v Self might not help here.
So I've tried to google this. But either I'm not smart enough to find it or it's hidden as a legal people only thing. I've found a few links from Barristers websites who were involved all saying it meant different things. Are you willing to give an overview or provide the judgement?
Cheers.
P.S - don't think La Liga was referring to that. Just trying to give me good advice in a general sense with the ability to see both sides of the fence here (due to his previous job) and also keeping things in perspective. Which I fully admit I have lost a bit here.
Graveworm said:
It is part of the problem that La Liga has highlighted in taking your own legal advice as confirmation bias can creep in. In Sowande it was held that the Lawful arrest by anyone other than a constable under 24(1)(b) did not require that actual indictable offence had taken place. Which may ring a bell?
It may also be relevant that it also held that, making off and avoiding detection, could constitute reasonable grounds in and of itself that someone was committing an indictable offence.
That's why I was trying to get the sequence of events nailed down as that could help you but it got lost in the noise.
Your original post said
"so am told very firmly come with me"
and
grabbing me in the car park. Pushing me. Even attempts to twist my arm behind my back. Tells me I can't go anywhere
Either or both of these would probably constitute an arrest.
If the person arresting is depriving you of your liberty to go where you please by words or action then that's an arrest (Spicer V Holt) & (Alderson V Booth)
It's not instantaneous it continues until released or dealt with in a court (Which is relevant here because it means the right to use force continues) (Mohammed-Holgate v Duke)
Fair enough. I'm happy to learn. I might not like what I find but it's good to know the score. It may also be relevant that it also held that, making off and avoiding detection, could constitute reasonable grounds in and of itself that someone was committing an indictable offence.
That's why I was trying to get the sequence of events nailed down as that could help you but it got lost in the noise.
Your original post said
"so am told very firmly come with me"
and
grabbing me in the car park. Pushing me. Even attempts to twist my arm behind my back. Tells me I can't go anywhere
Either or both of these would probably constitute an arrest.
If the person arresting is depriving you of your liberty to go where you please by words or action then that's an arrest (Spicer V Holt) & (Alderson V Booth)
It's not instantaneous it continues until released or dealt with in a court (Which is relevant here because it means the right to use force continues) (Mohammed-Holgate v Duke)
I walked towards the door. He said 'show me your receipt' I said 'I don't hve one'. He said 'come with me'. I walked out. (Mistake). He then comes behind me and stands in front of me and tried grabbing me. At that point, silliness ensues and he says some offensive stuff and it goes south.
If that is the case he also arrested my partner. Which is news to her. As neither of us had stolen anything. And he did let her go once he'd seen the receipt. So he arrested us both, I escaped and he then dearrested her if that's what really happened. Bizarre if you ask me.
Time will tell. Morally I don't think I did anything too wrong. Legally I honestly don't know. I still won't be admitting I assaulted him though.
Do you have a copy of this judgement? Aside from the personal side of this I'm finding it rather interesting to learn more about this sort of stuff. Also enjoying finding out how to change the cambelt on a megane CC but in a different sort of way.
Alpinestars said:
I’ve not followed this, but just read the first and last pages. OP were you subject of a Citizen’s arrest by the security guard, or have I missed the point?
Who knows? I wasn't told I was. I didn't think I was. But apparently, the actions mean I must have been. With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
Red 4 said:
If you were "arrested", op, then the security guard would need reasonable grounds to do so.
No receipt (on its own) is not reasonable grounds.
But I have been told there is case law saying that if I 'make off' which I assume is walking off after he said come with me then that is reasonable grounds etc. No receipt (on its own) is not reasonable grounds.
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a police officer. I'm a normal person who went to the shops and paid for my shopping.
I don't want to be melodramatic. And I know this is only really important to me. But it's not nice and I am very unhappy. I can't concentrate at work and have even been sniping at my partner. I even had the audacity to blame her for this. When he first grabbed me and tried twisting my arm behind my back I told him he was assaulting me. I didn't have my phone so told her to call the police. She was in too much shock to do anything. That sounds ludicrous to most people. But we are not the sort of people who get into this situation normally.
It's easy for some on here to rip me to bits about what I could have done and what I should have done. But I didn't steal anything. I never would dream of doing so. And I didn't set out to hurt anyone. Whilst my behaviour was not perfect I feel that the whole system is a joke and against me.
At this point in time I really don't feel like I can win. I have a police officer ignoring the rules she is meant to obey (by my reading/side of the story). I have a security guard who thinks he can attack people and homophobically abuse them for no reason. And apparently, there is case law saying I have broken the law.
For what it's worth I have done many things which are worthy of me being labelled a criminal. I've had fights when I was younger. I've driven far too fast. I've used substances in my youth which were unlawful. I've even drank too much and driven a vehicle (in Asia on a motorbike and totally stupid). And I've even very recently had an accident I fully blame myself for in a truck which is making me question if I should drive at artic ever again (no one was hurt, fortunately). But what I have never done is gone to the shops to steal and attack security guards on the way out.
So I'm taking the view that I'll tell the truth and live with the consequences. If it doesn't work out for me I'll not die, and I'll live with it. But if I admitted guilt when I knew I did nothing wrong I honestly don't think I could look myself in the mirror. I am very honest with myself. I'm not proud about some of my behaviour in the past. But I can't sacrifice my belief system to make life easy right now.
Alpinestars said:
milkround said:
Who knows? I wasn't told I was. I didn't think I was. But apparently, the actions mean I must have been.
With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
I thought under PACE, amongst other conditions, an arrest other than by a constable had to be for an indictable offence. Not having a parking ticket does not fall into that category. With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
Maybe this point has already been covered?
And under common law, you’d have been required to either be breaching the peace, or about to.
The tills give you the option. I thought, as usual, I said no. He asked me in an aggressive manner 'Show me your receipt'. I said I didn't have one (as I didn't think I did). So he said 'come with me'. Looking back (hindsight) I didn't like his attitude so walked out. And then he chased after me and started going mental.
Long story short I went to the ground and got up and shoved/punched him back. I put the forward stroke there because I truly don't think I punched anyone. But I do know I shoved him.
So he will say it was for theft which is indictable. But I never stole anything. Jumping forward he grabbed hold of my partner (apparently me not fighting him off her even though it was just him holding her arm makes me less of a man on here) - but she saw the receipt was knocked to the floor. After seeing all the stuff we had was on the receipt he let her go.
At present we don't know what he has said. The police have made it clear I am not being investigated for theft. They have also said that from the CCTV it appears I assaulted him. Time will tell on this one.
hutchst said:
The issue isn't about having or not having a receipt, it's about giving the security guard reasonable cause to believe that an indictable offence is being committed by telling him you haven't got a receipt when he just watched you taking a receipt from the till 30 seconds earlier.
Is there really a need for that? Would you say that to a persons face in real life? If as you say he did see my get a receipt he'd have known it was in a pan and told me this. If he saw me get a receipt he'd also know I'd paid for my shopping and should have not bothered me.
I'm still not convinced reasonable cause covers members of the public. Police yes. It's explicitly set out. Normal member of the public I think they have to absolutely know an offence has been committed. I'm not going to go around in circles arguing about that. I'm a truck driver and not a lawyer. If I'm wrong in that believe I can live with my ignorance.
Hope everyone is having fun in the sun and enjoying life.
BrabusMog said:
Barga said:
Did the alarm go off?
No, I was just wondering how he would react if it did.Here are some what-ifs for you as I've humoured you.
1. What if I was running very late for something and literally didn't have any time to stop? Let's say I got a call saying my Son was in hosptial and it didn't look good. Should I still stop when I have done nothing wrong?
2. What if I had a learning difficulty and I responded to fear by running away? This is similar to something that happened my my Mum's best friends son. He had a severe egg alergy. Except they didn't know this when he was a baby. So he got very severe brain damage. They try and give him independence. But when challenged in this way he'd run. He works two jobs - one stacking shelve at a supermarket on weekends. The other as a cleaner in a school. So he has his own money. Should he be beat up after paying for his shoping and terrified? I say it's relavent as a Police car pulled up to ask him a question. He ran to his grandmothers in tears and they came through the door. The officers apologised and said they didn't know why he ran. I'd like to think they were a bit more trained than a security guard so would not hurt him after realising he had problems.
kestral said:
Look on this page at 19:55 it show the ruling in Sowande v CPS 2017.
Quote "In contrast with the position under Sec 24A(1)(B) where there are no opening words to require that an indictable offence has been committed"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qhFQDwAAQBAJ&a...
That's very interesting. But it stills begs the question of when you go from being in the act of committing an offence (or suspected of doing so), to when is the act complete?Quote "In contrast with the position under Sec 24A(1)(B) where there are no opening words to require that an indictable offence has been committed"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qhFQDwAAQBAJ&a...
Let's assume it's alleged I stole something (which is categorically not the case and the PC herself has said so explicitly). I'd have committed the offence as soon as I took it with no intention of paying for it.
Now let's take this one step further. At the doors, I'm already guilty if I've taken something with no intention of paying for it and will keep it. Proving it might be another story. But the offence is complete in a legal sense.
If I was in the act of stealing then I wouldn't be guilty of it... It's very black and white in the law. As soon as you pick it up and don't intend on paying you are guilty. It's not really an offence you can be 'in the act' of doing. I'd argue that something like an assault is more relevant here etc. With a man continuing to beat another.
OzzyR1 said:
numtumfutunch said:
OzzyR1 said:
I was stopped by a security guard just after I stepped outside the door at one of the big supermarkets a couple of years back.
Had also used a self-service till and declined a receipt so he had a quick look in my bag and asked if I would come back inside so he could do some checks. Went back in, pointed out the till I'd used and one of the staff pulled up my purchases on the system.
Was then asked if I had anything else "on me", to which I said no. He then asked if I could take off my jacket so he could pat it down. Did as he asked and went on my way with his apologies and a £5 gift card that the other member of staff (who was called in to get the till details) gave me as a goodwill gesture.
After it was sorted out, I asked why I was stopped. The reason was I'd gone in there to get a bottle of Jack Daniels for someones birthday so headed straight for the booze aisle and popped that in the basket. Then went on to do a bit more shopping and walked past the guard a couple of times with just a bottle of JD in my basket (couldn't decide what to eat!!).
Ended up calling my wife in the shop to ask what she wanted for dinner, mentioned I'd got the JD and she reminded me that we already had a couple of bottles in a cupboard at home that people had given us as gifts (neither of us drink the stuff). Put the bottle back on the correct shelf, got some other bits and went to the check-out.
As the tills were right in front of the security place, he saw that I'd not scanned the bottle so thought I might have pocketed it. The alcohol aisle was at the other end of the shop so he couldn't have seen me put it back.
Fair play to him - he was doing his job and it was only a couple of minutes out of my life to clear up the confusion.
Everyone makes mistakes, can't see the need for so much drama but each to their own.
And on the other hand he hadnt actually seen you stuff the JD down your pants and so the assumption is he thought you were a thief.Had also used a self-service till and declined a receipt so he had a quick look in my bag and asked if I would come back inside so he could do some checks. Went back in, pointed out the till I'd used and one of the staff pulled up my purchases on the system.
Was then asked if I had anything else "on me", to which I said no. He then asked if I could take off my jacket so he could pat it down. Did as he asked and went on my way with his apologies and a £5 gift card that the other member of staff (who was called in to get the till details) gave me as a goodwill gesture.
After it was sorted out, I asked why I was stopped. The reason was I'd gone in there to get a bottle of Jack Daniels for someones birthday so headed straight for the booze aisle and popped that in the basket. Then went on to do a bit more shopping and walked past the guard a couple of times with just a bottle of JD in my basket (couldn't decide what to eat!!).
Ended up calling my wife in the shop to ask what she wanted for dinner, mentioned I'd got the JD and she reminded me that we already had a couple of bottles in a cupboard at home that people had given us as gifts (neither of us drink the stuff). Put the bottle back on the correct shelf, got some other bits and went to the check-out.
As the tills were right in front of the security place, he saw that I'd not scanned the bottle so thought I might have pocketed it. The alcohol aisle was at the other end of the shop so he couldn't have seen me put it back.
Fair play to him - he was doing his job and it was only a couple of minutes out of my life to clear up the confusion.
Everyone makes mistakes, can't see the need for so much drama but each to their own.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Monday 22 April 23:04
The outcome here could easily have been similar to the OP on this thread on another day
If shops employed less security guards and more checkout staff this kind of scenario wouldnt happen
Yes, Im being tetchy but isnt the onus on them to prove you have stolen something before challenging you??
Cheers
Not sure how employing more check-out staff and/or less security would help...
On your last point, how could they "prove" someone has stolen from a shop before challenging them? Genuinely curious to know what you think.
Now I have a bit of expertise on supermarkets. Let me explain. I've worked via agency long(ish) term for both the orange one and the blue one. As not to BS anyone Orange one is J Sainsburys and Blue one is Tescos. I'm a semi-expert in the logistics side of things I feel. The companies don't really care about a bit of loss. I can say this as I've been physically hurt by both with stuff falling all over me and smashing in the back of the trailer. As JS it was generally fresh goods. At Tesco it's mainly 'dry goods' that do this - that's an industry term for anything in supermarket terms than doesn't involve a fridge trailer.
Now at the 'blue one,' it's really really common to get a trailer from another DC (distribution centre) full of not chilled goods like booze etc and it's so shockingly packed than a signigicant amount both is damaged and damages you. Think a crate of gin smashing on your head. When I first experienced this I used loads of foul words. I was told by backdoor staff (those who help us unload) it's totally normal etc.
Now I'm not a thief. And if I were I'd set my sights a lot higher than shoplifting. Especially as I carry huge amounts of high-value loads regularly. But... if the value of the products is so low to the companies that they let them be smashed to bits - why is my time worth any less???
Let me make this clear. They do not make sure all that stuff is safe for transit because it saves them money. But expect blokes like you, to allow people to pat you down in case you stole it. They have no respect for yoour time or dignity. And that's okay if you are cool with it. But everyone does not have to be. And you are not a criminal if you say you don't wanna engage with their BS.
For what it's worth this is all BS. I'd be more reasonable suspicion when I drove back to the DC with stuff I couldn't deliver as they had no fridge space.The police are a bit of a joke and I don't think much more of the company if I'm honest.
vonhosen said:
Bear in mind there is video which the Police have apparently told the OP shows a different picture to that painted by him.
We'll just have to wait & see how the whole things pans out.
All that said, the point still stands that if the OP wanted as little fuss & aggro as possible there was a better approach in the circumstances he outlined than the one he took & he to his credit has accepted that.
Absolutely. We'll just have to wait & see how the whole things pans out.
All that said, the point still stands that if the OP wanted as little fuss & aggro as possible there was a better approach in the circumstances he outlined than the one he took & he to his credit has accepted that.
If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
ellingtj said:
milkround said:
Absolutely.
If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
If they had evidence of assault then wouldn't they just arrest you, no need for an interview to incriminate yourself?If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
I'd guess they want/need to interview so i can give an account.
Like I've said - if it shows me in the wrong I'll admit that. If not I will not. The officers was explicit what it showed. But then changed her mind. She also said that her Sargent agrees with her. My suspicion is the reality is it's 50/50 in terms of what it actually shows otherwise why would she be asking for a second opinion from her boss. But it might be totally normal to ask your boss to look over it in the Police. I don't know how it works.
surveyor_101 said:
OP just skimming the latest replies no formal investigation has taken place.
Unfortunately some PSCO, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE STAFF will say and threaten all sorts when in reality they just gather evidence for the CPS to make a decision.
Since you haven't even attended the station (I may of missed that but don';t think you have) or have been arrested they haven't interviewed you under caution so the chances of them bringing an assault charge are pretty slim. In order to caution you they would need an admission from you.
I would make a FORMAL complaint to the Police about the conduct of the guard for assault as it sounds like he jumped the gun and exceeded his limited authority. Then to tescos and his company as he needs words of advice about his conduct. Can't go jumping on people without reasonable cause and there are ways of dealing with such an incident without violence.
One of the reasons despite having trained and worked as a door supervisor I choose not too as £13 a hour is not worth the risk level and I also I always wanted to deescalate and avoid conflict rather than get into it. Which 5 out of 10 people with SIA badge seem to not understand!
Aye mate. Not been to the Police station yet. Wil be doing in 48 hours near enough exactly. Unfortunately some PSCO, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE STAFF will say and threaten all sorts when in reality they just gather evidence for the CPS to make a decision.
- Sounds like the guard is on another planet and might be pushing the police with his storied version of events. When you say the police, is it an officer or a member of staff as you will be surprised, I knew a lady who used to gob off about being police and threaten all sorts to neighbours and she was a temp administrator for CPS!
Since you haven't even attended the station (I may of missed that but don';t think you have) or have been arrested they haven't interviewed you under caution so the chances of them bringing an assault charge are pretty slim. In order to caution you they would need an admission from you.
I would make a FORMAL complaint to the Police about the conduct of the guard for assault as it sounds like he jumped the gun and exceeded his limited authority. Then to tescos and his company as he needs words of advice about his conduct. Can't go jumping on people without reasonable cause and there are ways of dealing with such an incident without violence.
One of the reasons despite having trained and worked as a door supervisor I choose not too as £13 a hour is not worth the risk level and I also I always wanted to deescalate and avoid conflict rather than get into it. Which 5 out of 10 people with SIA badge seem to not understand!
I shall tell em what I truly remember and see what the CCTV footage shows. If it's anything like my memory there is not a hope in hell I'll be admitting anything. If is shows what she says I'll be scarlet red and pleading guilty pronto. It's probably going to be somewhere in the middle I reckon.
I need to be careful as I'm not sure how it all works. But none of it makes sense to me. She reckons she went the same night and viewed the CCTV. Now if she thought I was a shoplifter who'd taken to battering security guards you'd have thought she'd have come around to my address the same night. Which they'd know as I also called police and my car is registered there.
Instead she waits a few days and calls me on my mobile. She did say she'd tried knocking on the door the day previous (but my girl was in and she heard nothing). After me telling her I wouldn't be apologising as I didn't think I was one in the wrong she said she needed to 'have a think'. Have a think about what exactly... Acording to her she has evidence of me smacking people for no reason. I'd have thought that the only thinking would be is when she was going to lock me up.
Then she calls back still badgering me to accept I'm at fault and write a letter. Literally wouldn't let it go. In the end I told her I was having none of it (in a polite way) and she says she will let me know when is a good time to come in. She then goes on about how her Sargeant has seen footage and agrees with her. Well, I'd hope so if it shows what she is saying... But she changes her tune from he never laid a finger on me or my partner to he was trying to snatch stuff from me. Total rubbish.
Once/when this is all over I want to forget about it. I reckon I'd have a good claim for some compo if I had the patience. But I just want to let it go. The truth is this has/is gotten me down. Those 48 hours cannot come quick enough. One way or the other I want it done with.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff