Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
I can't see how the OIC has any choice but to take her statement. She's a reasonable line of enquiry.
Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
DT398 said:
Based on what’s been said the last 42(!) pages, I think you are going to get charged. Security guard says you punched him. Witness says you punched him. CCTV shows something that “could” have been a punch.
In your original post, you seemed to be lucid enough to remember that he tried to twist your arm behind your back and that he kicked you, so you have a clear recollection of what he did to you but you said in the OP you “can’t remember” if you punched him or not? Really?
It’s all changed to a bit of pushing over the course of the thread but no flat out denial in the OP that you punched him. Doesn’t add up to me. Unless you have done a fair bit of punching and it’s not such an exceptional event in your life, not sure. I sometimes “can’t remember” if I’ve locked the back door when I leave the house but I do that a couple of times a day, so it’s not an exceptional event. Last time I punched anyone, it was another kid in a bit of playground handbags 40 years ago but I can still remember it...
Good luck if you end up in court, can’t imagine that will be fun for you.
Dude - I'm pumped for court if I need that. I can prove they both lied. I can prove that there was no reason to chase me out (his statement - ask any officer if they'd arrest someone for walking down the wrong aisle, especially when CCTV shows I did not!). I can prove I retreated at all times. And there is a seriously good chance I can develop further CCTV footage of the incident showing further lying and further assaults on me explicitly. So yeah I'm well up for my day in court - if that happens. In your original post, you seemed to be lucid enough to remember that he tried to twist your arm behind your back and that he kicked you, so you have a clear recollection of what he did to you but you said in the OP you “can’t remember” if you punched him or not? Really?
It’s all changed to a bit of pushing over the course of the thread but no flat out denial in the OP that you punched him. Doesn’t add up to me. Unless you have done a fair bit of punching and it’s not such an exceptional event in your life, not sure. I sometimes “can’t remember” if I’ve locked the back door when I leave the house but I do that a couple of times a day, so it’s not an exceptional event. Last time I punched anyone, it was another kid in a bit of playground handbags 40 years ago but I can still remember it...
Good luck if you end up in court, can’t imagine that will be fun for you.
Let's be clear what the CCTV shows. I go down. He's coming towards me again. I get up and as I'm moving back again my hand goes forward. There is about 1 second between me getting up and it happening. I don't remember ever thinking I was punching him. I can't remember doing that. But I don't think it matters. I'm entitled to defend myself. I'm entitled to use reasonable force. And I didn't even leave a bruise. The punch/push is a none issue. What matters is if I was in fear and if my actions were over the top.
The nice thing is I get two shots at this. First time in the magistrates. Then appeal to crown. Don't need legal reasons etc. Just a whole new trial. The prosecution need to prove twice within all reasonable doubt I was not defending myself, or my actions were so over the top that they were unreasonable. It's for them to prove I wasn't defending myself as soon as I say I was. That's twice the evidence being challenged. Twice the witnesses being quizzed/not turning up. Twice for someone to have a bit of doubt. I'll be grand I'm sure. Justice will prevail.
La Liga said:
I can't see how the OIC has any choice but to take her statement. She's a reasonable line of enquiry.
Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
No solicitor told me that she would be a defence witness. She said that on the interview video thing. Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
I am not qualified enough to comment more on that.
milkround said:
La Liga said:
I can't see how the OIC has any choice but to take her statement. She's a reasonable line of enquiry.
Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
No solicitor told me that she would be a defence witness. She said that on the interview video thing. Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
I am not qualified enough to comment more on that.
Bigends said:
milkround said:
La Liga said:
I can't see how the OIC has any choice but to take her statement. She's a reasonable line of enquiry.
Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
No solicitor told me that she would be a defence witness. She said that on the interview video thing. Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
I am not qualified enough to comment more on that.
Police are investigators.
That means investigating not only lines of enquiry that may support an allegation but also those that may undermine that allegation.
vonhosen said:
Bigends said:
milkround said:
La Liga said:
I can't see how the OIC has any choice but to take her statement. She's a reasonable line of enquiry.
Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
No solicitor told me that she would be a defence witness. She said that on the interview video thing. Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
I am not qualified enough to comment more on that.
Police are investigators.
That means investigating not only lines of enquiry that may support an allegation but also those that may undermine that allegation.
milkround said:
Dude - I'm pumped for court if I need that. I can prove they both lied. I can prove that there was no reason to chase me out (his statement - ask any officer if they'd arrest someone for walking down the wrong aisle, especially when CCTV shows I did not!).
I am not familiar with the process but if the police interviewer says "people make mistakes" doesn't that imply that his "lies" will be ignored as simple mistakes?The simple fact is that you are on video "throwing a punch".
Isn't that the sum of the evidence that really matters?
You claimed you didn't hit him (since you didn't remember - you know, people make mistakes...) so both of your comments aren't particularly reliable if someone is just looking at the video with fresh eyes...
So... all I am asking really is whether you should be super confident about the fact that he is lying scum will help you with an assault charge.
And VH seems to imply that SGs do chase people they suspect of shoplifting - isn't that their job?
Don't get me wrong - I completely believe you and the fact that the police are wasting time on this is laughable (they should never have made that original call to you in the first place) so best of luck - just get briefed on what actually matters in court!!
walm said:
You mean how the first WPC took the OP's statement before demanding he apologised? That sort of "reasonable" line of enquiry?
Have you made a complaint against the officer who was originally dealing with the incident, op ?Your post at 20.16 yesterday seems to suggest you have ( hence why she did not interview you ) ?
milkround said:
La Liga said:
I can't see how the OIC has any choice but to take her statement. She's a reasonable line of enquiry.
Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
No solicitor told me that she would be a defence witness. She said that on the interview video thing. Did your solicitor not insist on her having her statement taken?
Sounds odd her statement wouldn't be taken and that a solicitor wouldn't insist on it (and probably make the request on the interview recording).
I am not qualified enough to comment more on that.
I think I’d rather have evidence that helps my case available when the assessment of whether to issue a summons or not is made.
walm said:
La Liga said:
I can't see how the OIC has any choice but to take her statement. She's a reasonable line of enquiry.
You mean how the first WPC took the OP's statement before demanding he apologised? That sort of "reasonable" line of enquiry?Red 4 said:
Have you made a complaint against the officer who was originally dealing with the incident, op ?
Your post at 20.16 yesterday seems to suggest you have ( hence why she did not interview you ) ?
Yes. And I got some stick for it on here. Your post at 20.16 yesterday seems to suggest you have ( hence why she did not interview you ) ?
I was so disheartened after speaking to her I emailed professional standards with the filled out forms. Basically saying I don't think she has looked at the evidence and I don't think she should be pushing people into admitting something they have not done.
At the time I didn't want to get anyone into trouble (bear with me) what I wanted was for someone to objectively look at the cctv and evidence.
Today I got a letter regarding my complaint. It basically said they won't look into my complaint until it's all dealt with unless my solicitor or I ask them too. But they have changed the officer. I think that is a good step. I don't want the officer to get into trouble. I want someone more experienced/senior to have a chat with her.
La Liga said:
I’m not sure about that.
I think I’d rather have evidence that helps my case available when the assessment of whether to issue a summons or not is made.
But I'm a truck driver who at one point was doing a PhD in electrical engineering but dropped out. I'm not a solicitor or a Police Officer. So when the police say they are not interested, and the solicitor says she'll be a defence witness I have to take their word for it. I'm not in a position to challenge them as I don't have the knowledge - in the same way most on here would not have the knowledge to challenge me on the operation of driving an articulated fridge trailer. I have to put my trust in others.
And for what it's worth here is my email to professional standards. I had to fill in a form. I've not included a 'what I want done' bit or the officers details. It would be grossly unfair to her to do so publically without the ability to respond. All typos and spelling mistakes etc my own stupidity and this is as per the email:
[i] On the 9th April I was involved in an incident in XXXXX. Upon getting home I made a complaint to the Police and was given a crime reference number: XXXXXXX . This involved an incident where I was leaving a shop and was attacked and then stopped from leaving.
On the 13th April at 09.45 I recieved a phone call from a Police officer who identified herself as XXX. She said she was looking into the incident and had tried to come to my house the previous day. I explained I would have been at work and asked how I could help. I was then told I 'have nothing to worry about', and that 'there are always two sides to a story'. This seemed to make sense to me. I started to explain what had happened and the officer than said 'I've reviewed the cctv footage and it appears you are the only one assaulting anyone'. To say I was shocked was an understatement. The officer than proceeded to say she proposed to 'deal with this by the way of a community resolution where you write a letter saying you are sorry and agree to not go back to the store'. Again I was very shocked by this. As a victim of crime I felt like my allegation had not been taken seriously. Furthermore - I felt it awful that the officer had clearly made her mind up without hearing both sides of a story.
I asked some specific questions - about what the CCTV footage showed. I was told is just showed me hitting someone, it was also confirmed it did not show my partner being grabbed. I knew this to not be the case. And I'd already started the process of asking for a copy of the CCTV using a SAR. I explained this. I said I was happy to help the police in anyway I could. But I wasn't able to admit to something I had not done.
The Officer also said my partners view of the incident was of no relevance as she was involved in the incident. He words were 'she has been assaulted as well so she is not able to be a witness'. I find this staggering and feel that the officer simply does not want to look at any form of evidence that does not support her opinion of what happened. I believe the job of the Police is to be impartial and collect all the evidence. And I feel this is not being done here.
At the end of the call I said I could not say I assaulted someone when i did not. The Officer then said she needed to have a think about it and would call me back. I am not sure if the calls the police make are recorded - but if they are the recordings will support exactly what I have said.
I recieved another call on the 14th April at 17.53. This started with the officer asking if I'd had chance to think and if I was willing to accept I was wrong and would I sign a letter saying this. I again explained that I did not feel like I was a perpertator of crime but rather a victim. I feel strongly that the Police should not make up their minds until they have spoken to all of the parties and got all of the information.
The officer again told me the CCTV showed me hitting someone. But this time did say that it showed the other party trying to grab things out of my hands. This was a clear change in terms of her position on what the CCTV showed in relation to the first telephone call. I explained I was getting a copy of the CCTV and the officer at this point seemed to get a bit annoyed and said she knew what she was doing. I can see no reason why the Police would object to a member of the public requesting footage.
The Officer also said I was 'definately going to court' if I did not admit this. Again I find this totally unprofessional. How you can determine this until you have spoken to all parties and collected all the evidence is shocking to me. I also fail to see why the officer would need to interview me if she has this level of evidence. Surely it would be better to save Police time and simply summons me to court.
As things stand I still do not know why I was stopped. The officer claims it's because I didn't do what I was told. But the machines do not give receipts. I do not know what reason I was detained for. Hampshire Police have seemingly made no effort to investigate my unlawful detnetion and assault. Nor have they attempted to investigate my partners assault and unlawful detention. We were both stopped from leaving. I asked for the police to be called and this was refused. I was never told why I was stopped. I feel badly let down by Hampshire Police.
If a crime has been commited I think it is right and propper for the Police to investigate this. However I do not feel the Police should try and coerce people into admitting offences. And I do feel that the Police should investigate all reports of crime. This is not and has not been done in my case. Telling people to confess or else and applying pressure is not in the interests of justice. And it's a shameful abuse of our justice system.
Unlawfully detaining someone for no reason is a serious crime. And should be investigated. [/i]
[i] On the 9th April I was involved in an incident in XXXXX. Upon getting home I made a complaint to the Police and was given a crime reference number: XXXXXXX . This involved an incident where I was leaving a shop and was attacked and then stopped from leaving.
On the 13th April at 09.45 I recieved a phone call from a Police officer who identified herself as XXX. She said she was looking into the incident and had tried to come to my house the previous day. I explained I would have been at work and asked how I could help. I was then told I 'have nothing to worry about', and that 'there are always two sides to a story'. This seemed to make sense to me. I started to explain what had happened and the officer than said 'I've reviewed the cctv footage and it appears you are the only one assaulting anyone'. To say I was shocked was an understatement. The officer than proceeded to say she proposed to 'deal with this by the way of a community resolution where you write a letter saying you are sorry and agree to not go back to the store'. Again I was very shocked by this. As a victim of crime I felt like my allegation had not been taken seriously. Furthermore - I felt it awful that the officer had clearly made her mind up without hearing both sides of a story.
I asked some specific questions - about what the CCTV footage showed. I was told is just showed me hitting someone, it was also confirmed it did not show my partner being grabbed. I knew this to not be the case. And I'd already started the process of asking for a copy of the CCTV using a SAR. I explained this. I said I was happy to help the police in anyway I could. But I wasn't able to admit to something I had not done.
The Officer also said my partners view of the incident was of no relevance as she was involved in the incident. He words were 'she has been assaulted as well so she is not able to be a witness'. I find this staggering and feel that the officer simply does not want to look at any form of evidence that does not support her opinion of what happened. I believe the job of the Police is to be impartial and collect all the evidence. And I feel this is not being done here.
At the end of the call I said I could not say I assaulted someone when i did not. The Officer then said she needed to have a think about it and would call me back. I am not sure if the calls the police make are recorded - but if they are the recordings will support exactly what I have said.
I recieved another call on the 14th April at 17.53. This started with the officer asking if I'd had chance to think and if I was willing to accept I was wrong and would I sign a letter saying this. I again explained that I did not feel like I was a perpertator of crime but rather a victim. I feel strongly that the Police should not make up their minds until they have spoken to all of the parties and got all of the information.
The officer again told me the CCTV showed me hitting someone. But this time did say that it showed the other party trying to grab things out of my hands. This was a clear change in terms of her position on what the CCTV showed in relation to the first telephone call. I explained I was getting a copy of the CCTV and the officer at this point seemed to get a bit annoyed and said she knew what she was doing. I can see no reason why the Police would object to a member of the public requesting footage.
The Officer also said I was 'definately going to court' if I did not admit this. Again I find this totally unprofessional. How you can determine this until you have spoken to all parties and collected all the evidence is shocking to me. I also fail to see why the officer would need to interview me if she has this level of evidence. Surely it would be better to save Police time and simply summons me to court.
As things stand I still do not know why I was stopped. The officer claims it's because I didn't do what I was told. But the machines do not give receipts. I do not know what reason I was detained for. Hampshire Police have seemingly made no effort to investigate my unlawful detnetion and assault. Nor have they attempted to investigate my partners assault and unlawful detention. We were both stopped from leaving. I asked for the police to be called and this was refused. I was never told why I was stopped. I feel badly let down by Hampshire Police.
If a crime has been commited I think it is right and propper for the Police to investigate this. However I do not feel the Police should try and coerce people into admitting offences. And I do feel that the Police should investigate all reports of crime. This is not and has not been done in my case. Telling people to confess or else and applying pressure is not in the interests of justice. And it's a shameful abuse of our justice system.
Unlawfully detaining someone for no reason is a serious crime. And should be investigated. [/i]
milkround said:
La Liga said:
I’m not sure about that.
I think I’d rather have evidence that helps my case available when the assessment of whether to issue a summons or not is made.
But I'm a truck driver who at one point was doing a PhD in electrical engineering but dropped out. I'm not a solicitor or a Police Officer. So when the police say they are not interested, and the solicitor says she'll be a defence witness I have to take their word for it. I'm not in a position to challenge them as I don't have the knowledge - in the same way most on here would not have the knowledge to challenge me on the operation of driving an articulated fridge trailer. I have to put my trust in others.
Sheets Tabuer said:
vonhosen said:
but also those that may undermine that allegation.
Yeah in a Disney world.If a defence is possible it should be investigated. If it's true then it may just be that the person is innocent. If investigation rules that possible defence out then it's another nail in the coffin.
Sadly there have been some very prominent cases where my, probably highly principled, views have not been followed, or even deliberately undermined.
The investigation is ongoing until court and certainly until papers go for a decision so deficiencies up until that point are pretty irrelevant.
My view is the key complaint against the original OIC is not they hadn't done everything, at the point of first contact; it's that that they are alleged to have said that if he didn't admit responsibility and apologise then he would definitely go to court. It would be completely proper to say that they & the SG would prefer an informal resolution (Which is XX) They could point out that it would avoid any further investigation, the chance of going to court or getting a criminal record which is not the same thing. It differs from a caution in that way.
From what the OP says the solicitor, on their behalf, told the officer that the partner is a defence witness - In those circumstances for a common assault it's not a slam dunk that the investigating officer would take their statement as the information would be potentially before the court and the witness and what they would say is known to the defendant. They can assume it will corroborate the OP.
The best witness is the CCTV, the next most credible would be the third party. This would be where the decision makers will focus. At this stage it looks like the SG is being treated as a victim, so there are guidelines about acting like Michael Mansfield on them to "Test their account". This actually helps defendants in the long run.
One difficulty the OP may face (Assuming their version of events) is whether the decision maker actually views the CCTV or just relies on a summary from the OIC.
It's an uncomfortable truth that the SG, knowing what they did and what the CCTV would show (Maybe even viewed it) still called the police and started the ball rolling. We also have three officers who have, apparently, viewed it (Original & current OIC together with the Sergeant) and concluded that, at best, it doesn't exonerate the OP or cast blame on the SG. If summonsed or if you are going down a civil route it might be useful to ask for discipline and employment records, as part of disclosure, along with any previous crimes reported by them or allegations made against them.
My view is the key complaint against the original OIC is not they hadn't done everything, at the point of first contact; it's that that they are alleged to have said that if he didn't admit responsibility and apologise then he would definitely go to court. It would be completely proper to say that they & the SG would prefer an informal resolution (Which is XX) They could point out that it would avoid any further investigation, the chance of going to court or getting a criminal record which is not the same thing. It differs from a caution in that way.
From what the OP says the solicitor, on their behalf, told the officer that the partner is a defence witness - In those circumstances for a common assault it's not a slam dunk that the investigating officer would take their statement as the information would be potentially before the court and the witness and what they would say is known to the defendant. They can assume it will corroborate the OP.
The best witness is the CCTV, the next most credible would be the third party. This would be where the decision makers will focus. At this stage it looks like the SG is being treated as a victim, so there are guidelines about acting like Michael Mansfield on them to "Test their account". This actually helps defendants in the long run.
One difficulty the OP may face (Assuming their version of events) is whether the decision maker actually views the CCTV or just relies on a summary from the OIC.
It's an uncomfortable truth that the SG, knowing what they did and what the CCTV would show (Maybe even viewed it) still called the police and started the ball rolling. We also have three officers who have, apparently, viewed it (Original & current OIC together with the Sergeant) and concluded that, at best, it doesn't exonerate the OP or cast blame on the SG. If summonsed or if you are going down a civil route it might be useful to ask for discipline and employment records, as part of disclosure, along with any previous crimes reported by them or allegations made against them.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 27th April 10:32
Matt_E_Mulsion said:
Hmmm, they don't want a witness statement from your partner but they already have a 'mystery' witness statement who saw the whole thing that remains unamed... Hmmm, couldn't be the same person could it?
Where does it say the witness was unnamed (I may have missed it)? A witness would usually be introduced in interview. "John Smith has provided us with a statement which says..."
steveo3002 said:
any mention of the security man getting any bother or is all in the clear and youre the only baddie?
It's being treated as assault so that positions it as offender and victim. Graveworm said:
It's an uncomfortable truth that the SG, knowing what they did and what the CCTV would show (Maybe even viewed it) still called the police and started the ball rolling. We also have three officers who have, apparently, viewed it (Original & current OIC together with the Sergeant) and concluded that, at best, it doesn't exonerate the OP or cast blame on the SG. If summonsed or if you are going down a civil route it might be useful to ask for discipline and employment records, as part of disclosure, along with any previous crimes reported by them or allegations made against them.
If the OP is convicted of assault and instigates civil proceedings, is there not a real risk that could be turned around and the SC have another bite of the cherry against the OP? Way down the potential line, but just a thought that occurred to me.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff