Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
ritch said:
OP - have you lodged a complaint either with the Police or supermarket with regards to homophobic verbal abuse? Such things are deemed as unacceptable in society these days, and cannot be justified by suspicion of theft or any other suspected crime.
CCTV & the police officer: OP, if you are were captured on CCTV clearly assaulting the guard, I would have expected police action sooner, and you to be at least cautioned or even charged accordingly. I would also assume the supermarket (or security contractor to) to be pushing the police to press charges.
You need to see the CCTV and what it actually shows. If what you have said is 100% true, and it only shows you pushing the guard, I would be somewhat suspicious. You should not admit to anything without proper legal advice and ignore fannies on the internet (like me).
Interested to see the outcome of this.
Yes to the first question. As soon as I got home I called 101 and told them everything. At the time I just wanted to know in case it was alleged I'd been robbing and made off! The officer(I assume) on the phone said I'd been assaulted and I was given a crime reference number. CCTV & the police officer: OP, if you are were captured on CCTV clearly assaulting the guard, I would have expected police action sooner, and you to be at least cautioned or even charged accordingly. I would also assume the supermarket (or security contractor to) to be pushing the police to press charges.
You need to see the CCTV and what it actually shows. If what you have said is 100% true, and it only shows you pushing the guard, I would be somewhat suspicious. You should not admit to anything without proper legal advice and ignore fannies on the internet (like me).
Interested to see the outcome of this.
The next day I emailed the CEO of the company. A day or so later I got an email saying they asked the manager to look into it. The same day I got the call from the police. I reckon it's a coincidence but hey ho.
The police might have been busy. If there was something really serious or someone really needed help I can see that taking priority. And rightly so. They might have been run off their feet for a few days. Who knows.
I'm not here to lie or wind folk up. I don't like/want the attention. My memory of the event is 100% of what I've written on here. My partner also has the same memory. If CCTV shows something totally different I'd be flabbergasted. I had physical marks on my body and my top was ripped. How this happened if he never touched me is beyond me. It would be some serious Darren Brown stuff.
I have a solicitor going with me on thursday afternoon. I'll see what they say. I can't do anything other than wait and see now.
buggalugs said:
I would wager £3 or maybe even as high as £4 that the police lady who said the CCTV showed whatever, had not actually seen it at that point and was just trying to get the OP to fold and put everything to bed before end of shift.
And I'd bet the opposite. I can think of nothing more unprofessional. Put it this way one of us is going to be hugely embarrassed tomorrow. I'll freely admit right now if the CCTV is as she said I'll want to die on the spot of humiliation. I'd imagine she would be the same if she's made it all up. What I think is far more likely is that the CCTV shows a scuffle which she has watched briefly and has been explained away to her. Her takeaway from it was a security guard was struck. It's not overly important and it's been a few days since she saw it. So she's said no contact with me or my partner. When I've said no she has said she is going to have a think so she can check. She is insure so she has asked her boss. She still thinks I'm out of order for pushing/punching him so is bringing me in to explain myself. She's also probably put herself into a corner by saying what she said on the first call and saying whatever she has said to the supermarket.
I might be well off the mark as well. My first gut reaction after speaking to her is that she was young and a bit daft rather than being malicious. There are a few reasons for that. Not least because she started off a conversation the first time I spoke to her by telling me we had the same name and giggling. I was a bit wtf when I realised she thought I was a criminal and was acting like that. I'll wait and see what she's like in person.
Mojooo said:
What have the supermarket said about giving you the CCTV footage direct?
Not a lot mate. They have simply said they are not looking into my complaint and will leave it with the police to deal with. I have sent the form along with a copy of my ID's etc which they demand. I'm sure I'll get it at some point. Dibble said:
It really won’t. You’ll be interviewed and that’ll be it for a while. The officer should get all the evidence together (cctv, statements, interview and anything else there is) and submit it to CPS, who will make a decision on the disposal, eventually. Once the interview is sorted tonight, it can take months for the file to be submitted (it shouldn’t, ideally) and more months for the CPS to review the evidence and make a decision (it shouldn’t, really).
One thing I don’t think anyone has mentioned is that your partner should make a written note about what she remembers of the incident, in as much factual detail as possible, add the date and keep it safe (if she hasn’t done this already). She shouldn’t make it with input from you, it should be her account and hers only.
In the event CPS ask for a witness statement from her, it can be based on her notes. If asked to surrender the notes, make sure she has a copy - ideally, get a copy beforehand anyway. Ideally, the notes should have been made at the time/as soon as possible after the incident, but even now, better to do it today than 4 or 8 or 12 weeks (or months) down the line.
Ignore the posters on here saying “Go no comment, all the way”, listen to the advice from your solicitor at the Police station (which may be the same, but better he or she says it, in possession of disclosure, rather than some random internet “experts”, in which I include myself).
Thank you for your advice. I really appreciate it. One thing I don’t think anyone has mentioned is that your partner should make a written note about what she remembers of the incident, in as much factual detail as possible, add the date and keep it safe (if she hasn’t done this already). She shouldn’t make it with input from you, it should be her account and hers only.
In the event CPS ask for a witness statement from her, it can be based on her notes. If asked to surrender the notes, make sure she has a copy - ideally, get a copy beforehand anyway. Ideally, the notes should have been made at the time/as soon as possible after the incident, but even now, better to do it today than 4 or 8 or 12 weeks (or months) down the line.
Ignore the posters on here saying “Go no comment, all the way”, listen to the advice from your solicitor at the Police station (which may be the same, but better he or she says it, in possession of disclosure, rather than some random internet “experts”, in which I include myself).
I'll ask her to write down everything that she remembers. I won't be having an input. I might be silly - but if our memories were identical I'd be more sceptical about that than anything else. But I'm no expert. I don't get why the Police lady didn't say that. In fact, she said what she saw/witnessed was irrelevant and would not be of any use. She just told me 'you need to get me an independent witness' which obviously I cannot do. But thanks for pointing out my partner should write her side down before she forgets too much more.
I'll do as the Solicitor advises. With a bit of luck this time tomorrow I can forget about all of this. It lingering for months doesn't sound great. But at in less than 12 hours time I'll have given my side officially and will not be able to do a lot more.
Greendubber said:
Im pretty sure a low level assault allegation could be dealt with by a Sgt and doesn't need to end up in the mire that is the CPS.
It might well be wrapped up tomorrow.
Assuming I will be charged (which I hope I am not as I truly don't think I attacked anyone). It depends what they charge me with surely. At this point all she has talked about is a 'punch' but for all I know I'll rock up and be told she is charging me for theft as well. I'm not sure what they will say I stole. I'm taking a photocopy of the till receipt to prove I stole nothing. It might well be wrapped up tomorrow.
And if she is saying that I attacked him and he was doing a lawful arrest (but she hasn't said that) then the charge should be assault with intent to resist arrest. Which carried up to two years in prison. I can't see how she could say he was acting lawfully a charge me with normal assault. But as I've proven throughout I am far from an expert in all these things.
I wish I could claim I'm super cool about all this. But I'm a little bit worried by it all really. I'm looking forward to fully telling my side of the story and seeing this elusive CCTV. I've taken the day off work and done the first service on my motorbike. It will be a huge relief when all this is over and done with. I'm excited to just go back to my normal none criminal life. Was up until 5am as I couldn't sleep.
Either way guys/girls. Thanks all to those who have given me some advice. Not least the police officers and former police officers. I am still totally clueless but not as totally clueless as I was before.
I will post back once I'm home. With a bit of luck this monster thread can be put to bed asap. And I can start using this forum to ask mundane things about car maintenance/tools.
I will post back once I'm home. With a bit of luck this monster thread can be put to bed asap. And I can start using this forum to ask mundane things about car maintenance/tools.
Umm a strange evening that is for sure.
When I got there I said I was there for an arranged interview with officers name. To my surprise a bloke popped around and said he was going to be dealing with it. He said he'd taken over it now. He didn't really go into why. But I think after my complaint they have changed the officer. He was alright actually.
Then on to chat with the solicitor. And they'd added stuff on including me hitting the bloke over the back of the head with a pan when he kicked me. I was amazed. Also made it clear that community resolution is off the table etc. It's either nothing or court.
Then he comes in. It was video'd on his body worn camera. Went through him asking if I was going to harm myself etc. Asked if I'd taken drugs. Then onto his first question - tell me what happened. I explained as I have on here. He then reads out bits and bobs from the two statements they have.
Both of them include things which are clearly shown not to be the case on the CCTV. Factual errors. Including the 'witness' who said the SG kicked me as I went to smack him with a pan. The problem is that the camera shows that at that point I didn't even have a pan in my hands. Officer waved this off as 'people can make mistakes'. It also doesn't show the alleged witness anywhere on the footage. But allegedly he was close enough to hear my thunderous attack.
SG claimed his reasons for stopping me were that I walked out from the wrong isle. Which again the footage shows to be untrue. He also states explicitly that he asked me for a receipt but I just ignored him and walked off. But the footage shows me standing and talking to him.
He claims he never touched me. He says he just stood in front of me to stop me leaving. But it does show me having to roll out of when he tried to twist my arm. At this point I asked the officer why he felt I did that and if in his experience it would be a reaction to grabbing someone arm and trying to twist it. He wouldn't comment. The footage is dark - SG was dressed all in black. But you can see me as I had light trousers. At all times i'm moving back. Officer didn't seem to think this was important - fair enough. It also shows me being forced back by him etc.
It does show me strike him. But only from behind showing my head. The officer claims that he can't see me being roughed up but he can definitely tell it was a punch. I have no idea how. It is what it is.
At the end he said he was cautioning me with respect for reporting me for prosecution. It's now in the hands of a supervisor. I'm not sure what it all means. I should get a call in a week letting me know. I think they will charge me. In the end, he shook my hand. I have to say that he seemed like a decent type. He needs to write it all up. The saga continues. Sod all I can do now.
When I got there I said I was there for an arranged interview with officers name. To my surprise a bloke popped around and said he was going to be dealing with it. He said he'd taken over it now. He didn't really go into why. But I think after my complaint they have changed the officer. He was alright actually.
Then on to chat with the solicitor. And they'd added stuff on including me hitting the bloke over the back of the head with a pan when he kicked me. I was amazed. Also made it clear that community resolution is off the table etc. It's either nothing or court.
Then he comes in. It was video'd on his body worn camera. Went through him asking if I was going to harm myself etc. Asked if I'd taken drugs. Then onto his first question - tell me what happened. I explained as I have on here. He then reads out bits and bobs from the two statements they have.
Both of them include things which are clearly shown not to be the case on the CCTV. Factual errors. Including the 'witness' who said the SG kicked me as I went to smack him with a pan. The problem is that the camera shows that at that point I didn't even have a pan in my hands. Officer waved this off as 'people can make mistakes'. It also doesn't show the alleged witness anywhere on the footage. But allegedly he was close enough to hear my thunderous attack.
SG claimed his reasons for stopping me were that I walked out from the wrong isle. Which again the footage shows to be untrue. He also states explicitly that he asked me for a receipt but I just ignored him and walked off. But the footage shows me standing and talking to him.
He claims he never touched me. He says he just stood in front of me to stop me leaving. But it does show me having to roll out of when he tried to twist my arm. At this point I asked the officer why he felt I did that and if in his experience it would be a reaction to grabbing someone arm and trying to twist it. He wouldn't comment. The footage is dark - SG was dressed all in black. But you can see me as I had light trousers. At all times i'm moving back. Officer didn't seem to think this was important - fair enough. It also shows me being forced back by him etc.
It does show me strike him. But only from behind showing my head. The officer claims that he can't see me being roughed up but he can definitely tell it was a punch. I have no idea how. It is what it is.
At the end he said he was cautioning me with respect for reporting me for prosecution. It's now in the hands of a supervisor. I'm not sure what it all means. I should get a call in a week letting me know. I think they will charge me. In the end, he shook my hand. I have to say that he seemed like a decent type. He needs to write it all up. The saga continues. Sod all I can do now.
V1nce Fox said:
what feedback/opinion did your solicitor give you of the meeting?
She said we will have to wait and see. Said that if I've not heard from the Police in a week call her and she will be chasing them up. My gut feeling says I'm going to be charged. The CCTV literally shows him chasing me around a car park. Me continually retreating. And then after I go down (it does look more like a trip on my behalf) I got up, he is still coming towards me and I go strike out. My contention is it was a shove rather than a punch. But I don't really see why that really matters. Unlawful force is unlawful force. Maybe they are trying to angle a shove is reasonable and a punch is now. Who knows.
Seight_Returns said:
Do you think you've seen all the video of the incident - or just the bits that make you look bad ?
Have you considered asking someone you trust to go back to the store and note the locations of all the cameras that may have captured relevant footage ?
Sadly I think I've seen it all. Have you considered asking someone you trust to go back to the store and note the locations of all the cameras that may have captured relevant footage ?
And the worst part is... What I've said is shown (or sort of shown on it). He claims he doesn't touch me but you can see me forcible moving backwards. He claims he doesn't touch me but as I walk sideways you can see me have to twist out of an arm lock.
It even shows me continually retreating. At all times he keeps coming towards me.
But the Police seem to think that doesn't matter. It shows me strike. Which I have denied.
I am more worried about the 'statement' from the witness. They claim to be able to hear and see a punch. But three different wide angle cameras don't show the person. I asked where this person was and the officer said he didn't know as he'd only got the case this afternoon. I pointed out he said I went up with a pan but the CCTV showed I didn't have one. He also described the kick as 'move his leg out'. He refers to the SG by first name and says how well he took a punch as he was still standing. This was a punch that didn't even leave marks. My true and sincere belief is that he's a total lier supporting his mate who has done wrong.
He did read a caution saying he was going to be reporting me for the offence of common assault. I pointed out me being shoved and having to roll out of the arm lock. He said he couldn't see that as it was too dark. But he was sure it was a punch even though you cannot see my hands.
In the statement, the guy doens't say he was arresting me. The officer says he doesn't need to as it's implied. I honestly feel this is a total sham.
Red 4 said:
So the security guard's version of events does not tally with the CCTV ... Especially the bits about having reasonable grounds to stop/arrest you, grabbing hold of you and him being hit with a pan ...
I reckon this will be NFA'd.
He said he was reporting me for the offence. And I'd know in a week as he'd call me. I stated to solicitor I was moving house and officers was all over wanting me new address. I explained I didn't know it off by heart yet. I assume the 'supervisor' thing is just a rubber stamping exercise. And truly believe now I'll be charged. I reckon this will be NFA'd.
They'd already written up the statements on the computer etc. The worst part is... I was expecting me to be more in the wrong that I was. The officer said it showed me pointing my finger. Which it does when I'm moving backwards and trying to remonstrate for him to leave me alone.
The police don't care that I was just doing my shopping. They don't care he chased out after me. They don't care he kept coming at me. They don't care that I was just trying to get away from him. They just want to paint me as the aggressive one. Very strange an aggressive person moving back at all times. Even after the 'strike' I was moving back.
The Mad Monk said:
Where did the "pan" come from? What sort of "pan"?
We brought it from the shop. And it was more the sort of thing you use to cook a chicken with. So not big and heavy. I'd thrown all my shopping (and the receipt I didn't think I had) in it. And was carrying it out. It fell out of my hands when I went down and my partner picked it up. I'm alleged to have tried to hit him with it (according to a witness) after this. It's a total joke if I'm honest. kestral said:
Can you can you actually state some facts about this interview?
Lets have some facts about what your solicitor actually said to you.
Was it tape recorded?
Did you admit you punched or struck the security guard?
Did you state the words which in your opinion were homophobic?
How many police officers were present at this interview?
Were you cautioned before the interview?
Were you arrested or told you were not under arrest and can leave at anytime you chose?
How is it you cannot remember the address you are moving to?
Was there any documentation given to you at anytime by the police?
The solicitor started off by telling me what the Police had said. Then listened to my version. She said I had a defence of self-defence. And said I'd be best giving that side of the story. She said to give my side of the story and nothing more. At times in the interview, she did tell me firmly I'd said enough. Lets have some facts about what your solicitor actually said to you.
Was it tape recorded?
Did you admit you punched or struck the security guard?
Did you state the words which in your opinion were homophobic?
How many police officers were present at this interview?
Were you cautioned before the interview?
Were you arrested or told you were not under arrest and can leave at anytime you chose?
How is it you cannot remember the address you are moving to?
Was there any documentation given to you at anytime by the police?
It was recorded on the officers body worn camera. Which was mounted on some form of tripod.
Yes I admitted that I pushed him after going to the ground. I said I did this because I was scared and he was still coming towards me even after I'd repeatedly tried to withdraw. A big bone of contention for them was if it was a push or a punch. You cannot see at all from the video.
I did say the words used. The officer asked if I was just saying that to get out of trouble. I explained this was ludicrous as if I didn't want to get into trouble I'd have simply written the letter if I felt I was in the wrong. What i couldn't do is say exactly how they were used. When I tried to paraphrase the solicitor stopped me. Sadly i just can't remember word for word what was said.
One Police officer was present.
Yes I was cautioned. I even had to say back in my own words what I thought it meant.
I wasn't arrested. He said I could leave - but if he felt he needed to question me still he could arrest me for a prompt and effective investigation.
I can't remember the address as I've not moved there yet. I've not actually been inside it (partner has). I gave the road name I just don't know the block of flats name. I don't see why this is relevent.
The only documentation given to my be the police was some yellow form beforehand which outlined my rights. It was not overly relevant. It included things like having the embassy called if I was a foreigner. Or having an appropriate adult with me if I was a child etc.
I'm not sure how any of that stuff helps tbh.
Bigends said:
If hes reported you for the offence you'll either receive a summons to court or be informed of no further action. I doubt this will be until after the security guard has been interviewed as a suspect and theyve got the full story
I'd be willing to bet my left testicle that the guard will never be interviewed (and I only have one testical). At no point did the Police show the slightest interest in if he was in the wrong or not. And given they did not seem it important to even get a statement from my partner - from the supermarket they have:
-Statement from SG.
-Statement from the 'witness'.
-Copy of the letter of complaint I sent to the supermarket CEO (remember I said she only called me the day they emailed back...).
- Someone has listened to the phone call I made to 101 when I got home that night and compared it to what I said later. Fortunately, my events match.
So they seem to have put a lot of effort into this. I was questioned about the smallest discrepancy between any of these things. There were not really any. He did say when I called I said I'd been grabbed on my arm rather than my wrist. So clearly someone has taken the time to check all those things... But didn't think to speak to the only other person in the footage.
In total, I was interviewed for 1 hour 20 mins. The solicitor said it's nearly unheard off for an interview over such a minor offence to take so long. I don't know if it's because I complained. I don't know if it's because they just don't like me. I don't know why it's turned out like this.
The officer who interviewed me was professional and polite. I cannot fault him. However, he refused to even consider the massive contradictions between the statements he read and the CCTV. He would not get drawn into that.
I shall be looking into paying money to getting the footage digitally enhanced if I'm charged. I am sure it will be ridiculously expensive if it's even possible. But I want a bit of justice here.
La Liga said:
The text you’ve quoted says it captures the strike the police office apparently can tell is a punch. If that’s corroborated by the statements then there could be a real risk of a summons depending on what account the OP actually provided.
OP you included irrelevant things like the risk assessment in your post, but omitted the most important part; what account / defence you actually provide? Did you raise self-defence? Did you say the things that needed to be said according the law?
Short version. OP you included irrelevant things like the risk assessment in your post, but omitted the most important part; what account / defence you actually provide? Did you raise self-defence? Did you say the things that needed to be said according the law?
Went. Left. Spoke to him. Found him aggressive so left. Came out hyper agressive so tried to remove myself. He assaulted me I tried to retreat. Incredly scared. No intent to harm anyone. Reacted because i was in fear. Was withdrawing at all times. Removed myself from the situation as soon as possible.
Not sure if that is the right things according to the law.
vonhosen said:
The rights & wrongs of which doesn't help the OP if he wanted to avoid all of what he is experiencing now.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Given his propensity for violence, how do I know if I'd gone with him he wouldn't have just attacked me when there were no cameras? Or made other allegations which are total lies against me? Ones I could not so easily disprove (using his words and the footage?). If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Your primary assumption was that he was a normal person peacefully doing his job. He was not. He is a thug that likes to feel important and throw his weight around.
Red 4 said:
... Which is why I asked for your opinion based on what the op has said.
Do you think the security guard's evidence is credible given that the CCTV footage appears to contradict his version of events ?
This should be taken into account when any charging decision is made.
Should be but imo won't be. The officer was really polite - I can't knock him at all. But he had little interest when I pointed out inconstancies. He either kind of shrugged it off, or he said 'people make mistakes'.Do you think the security guard's evidence is credible given that the CCTV footage appears to contradict his version of events ?
This should be taken into account when any charging decision is made.
I reckon the decision as to what will happen was decided long before I walked into that interview. And I'm okay with that. I feel better after seeing and hearing the evidence. I can show certain things are untrue. I can show I was retreating (in my head I had a niggle maybe I wasn't backing off all the time). And with a little bit of luck (and a lot more money) I can show he assaulted me multiple times before I even thought of responding (with the cctv).
If he hadn't lied he could have said he pushed me back because he thought I was getting too close (even though he was coming towards me). He could say he attempted to twist my arm because he thought I would kick off and wanted to control the situation. By lying through his back teeth he's lost any credibility when/if he says that. His witness could have just said they saw a strike and didn't think it was needed. But they added stuff. They claim to be able to see a close fist in darkness from a minimum of 20m away. But their eyes saw me go towards him with a pan - which is shown I never had on cctv.
They both claim I hit him with everything I have in the form of a punch. The witness said he was amazed John (the SG) could even stand. I'm referred to as a 'large male' by both. John says he felt an explosive searing pain. But there was not a single mark on him. Not swelling. Not bruising. Not a cut or broken bone. It's a total joke.The idea that any 17 stone male could launch a full on punch on someone's face and not leave a mark is comedy gold imo.
If by some miracle I am convicted I'll say right now I'll go for round two on appeal. No if's, no buts and no maybes.
Monkeylegend said:
Red 4 said:
Monkeylegend said:
Some people are so gullible.
Hardly.My comments are based on the op's version of events.
So once you accept that me telling lies on here is not going to do me any good. Nor is telling the truth really. You have the simple choice if you want to take someone at face value and offer opinion and comment - or call them a liar for no reason other than you to have a pop at someone on the internet you do not know, and will probably never know.
I hope you have a fantastic weekend mate. I'll be enjoying it with my girl and looking up how to change me cambelt (never done one). I'll be trying my best to have fun and be happy. I certainly wouldn't spend my time writing stuff on the web just to get a reaction from people I don't know.
kestral said:
It can now go one of two ways.
No further action. Then the OP can have a think about a civil action against store.
Or.
Charge / Summons in which case the OP will have to pay out money ( unless he reps himself) that he will have trouble recouping even if found not guilty. To my knowledge... only legal aid rate is recoverable Approx £500. So funds paid out would have to be recovered via a civil prosecution against the store.
NFA = No civil action. I move on with my life. I forget about it. No further action. Then the OP can have a think about a civil action against store.
Or.
Charge / Summons in which case the OP will have to pay out money ( unless he reps himself) that he will have trouble recouping even if found not guilty. To my knowledge... only legal aid rate is recoverable Approx £500. So funds paid out would have to be recovered via a civil prosecution against the store.
Charge means I'll need to spend a ton. If I lose I lose. I'll appeal. If I win I'll try launching civil action against store to recover those costs. But I have no idea if I can even do that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff