Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[ArmaghMan]

"At this point I get to my car - but he then grabs hold of my partner."

The above is a direct quote from the original post.

Talked to colleagues, friends, and to a man they all gave the same answer....that's the point where he'd have been flat on his back.
I think you and she showed remarkable restraint.

[milkround]

ArmaghMan said:

"At this point I get to my car - but he then grabs hold of my partner."

The above is a direct quote from the original post.

Talked to colleagues, friends, and to a man they all gave the same answer....that's the point where he'd have been flat on his back.
I think you and she showed remarkable restraint.

It's also exactly what the original officer said never happened. I'm going to upset some people right now - but she is a total liar. She lied about loads of stuff to me to try and get me to 'confess'. And it's not on imo.

I didn't go looking for trouble. He chased me out by his own admission because he thought I'd walked down the wrong isle. It's totally out of order. The police in the interview said something about section 3 of the crime act. I've looked it up - and using their twisted logic I could go after anyone who walked near my car as I suspect they are going to break into it.

It's pretty obvious what happened. He realised he cocked up when we hadn't nicked anything. And he's tried inventing a reason for coming after me to justify his position. He's also lied about touching me. The police have gone along with it. Perhaps they want to keep security on side. Perhaps they are just incompetent. I think it's a mix of the two.

I'm not worried about court. I'm not worried about a trial. I think there is more stuff to come out that will help me. I look forward to the 'victim' and the 'witness' being questioned. I'd be amazed if either wanted to turn up. They came out with their lies to cover him. And they will drown in them. As far as I'm concerned bring it on. I'm pumped for it.

What is even more amazing is that they had access to the CCTV and still couldn't come up with a story that wasn't directly contradicted by it. They are not the brightest bunch clearly. Hence why they are working nights in a supermarket for less than £10 an hour.

[BobToc]

I've only read the last couple of posts because its a 44 page thread, so forgive the intrusion and I'm sorry if I've missed something relevant. The Secret Barrister is worth a read before concluding that you're not worried about court.

[Monkeylegend]

milkround said:

They are not the brightest bunch clearly. Hence why they are working nights in a supermarket for less than £10 an hour.

These sort of derogatory comments do you no favours.

You said you were studying for a PhD in electronics but dropped out to be a lorry driver, how do you know those you are referring to haven't done something similar.

You are full of bravado and possibly some BS and could be walking yourself into a world of grief with your attitude.

[Red 4]

Op - it's Section 3 of The Criminal Law Act 1967.

The use of reasonable force in the prevention of crime or LAWFUL arrest of suspects or persons unlawfully at large ...

Given that the security guard's version of events leading up to him stopping/ challenging/ laying hands on you appears to be a fairy tale ( as shown by the CCTV ) then Section 3 appears to be out the window ...

[anonymous-user]

Monkeylegend said:

milkround said:

They are not the brightest bunch clearly. Hence why they are working nights in a supermarket for less than £10 an hour.

These sort of derogatory comments do you no favours.

Indeed - and when your superior intellect fails you, just throw a punch (allegedly)

[mooseracer]

280E said:

Monkeylegend said:

milkround said:

They are not the brightest bunch clearly. Hence why they are working nights in a supermarket for less than £10 an hour.

These sort of derogatory comments do you no favours.

Indeed - and when your superior intellect fails you, just throw a punch (allegedly)

Or a pan

[Taylor James]

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 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.

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.

I think you really want to avoid court unless you are very confident you can beat pretty strong odds against you. Check out the UK figures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

[milkround]

Taylor James said:

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 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.

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.

I think you really want to avoid court unless you are very confident you can beat pretty strong odds against you. Check out the UK figures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

I do not want to go to court. But if I have to it's not something that I'll be devastated about. As I know I'm in the right and have plenty of evidence to support that.

The headline figure you quote is misleading. It included guilty pleas. Most folk in the Magistrates do not elect to have a trial. If you look at stats for those who please not guilty it would be rather different.

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

Op - it's Section 3 of The Criminal Law Act 1967.

The use of reasonable force in the prevention of crime or LAWFUL arrest of suspects or persons unlawfully at large ...

Given that the security guard's version of events leading up to him stopping/ challenging/ laying hands on you appears to be a fairy tale ( as shown by the CCTV ) then Section 3 appears to be out the window ...

What the officer said was that all he needed was a suspicion. Which by my reading is right:

'A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large'.

What I think the officer was getting it was that if the guy suspected me he can use a certain level of force. Which I have no problem with. I also suspected the bloke to be assaulting me and unlawfully detaining me so I was also using a reasonable level of force. It works both ways as far as I can see.

[Dibble]

As others have said, if I submitted that file without a witness statement from the OP’s partner, I’d be surprised if it didn’t come back with an action to get a statement from her (when I said “with” the OP in my previous post, I meant at the time of the original incident. She wouldn’t have been allowed into an interview under caution as (a) he didn’t need an appropriate adult and (b) she’s a witness).

OP, if you think you’ll get the video “enhanced”, you’ve been watching too much CSI:Vegas or similar. Yes, I’m sure there could be some slight “cleaning up” done, but they’re not going to run it through something that miraculously converts it from 625 lines to 5K. By all means, get some “no obligation” quotes, but “enhancing” stuff like that is pretty much fantasy.

[Red 4]

milkround said:

Red 4 said:

Op - it's Section 3 of The Criminal Law Act 1967.

The use of reasonable force in the prevention of crime or LAWFUL arrest of suspects or persons unlawfully at large ...

Given that the security guard's version of events leading up to him stopping/ challenging/ laying hands on you appears to be a fairy tale ( as shown by the CCTV ) then Section 3 appears to be out the window ...

What the officer said was that all he needed was a suspicion. Which by my reading is right:

'A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large'.

What I think the officer was getting it was that if the guy suspected me he can use a certain level of force. Which I have no problem with. I also suspected the bloke to be assaulting me and unlawfully detaining me so I was also using a reasonable level of force. It works both ways as far as I can see.

The security guard can arrest on suspicion if he has reasonable grounds to suspect you are committing an indictable offence (or if an indictable offence has been committed he may arrest anyone who he has reasonable grounds to suspect to be guilty of it).

If he has made up those grounds, however, then any arrest would be unlawful.

The CCTV painted a different picture to what he said in his statement, didn't it ?

Where have his reasonable grounds to suspect you of shoplifting come from ?

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

The security guard can arrest on suspicion if he has reasonable grounds to suspect you are committing an indictable offence (or if an indictable offence has been committed he may arrest anyone who he has reasonable grounds to suspect to be guilty of it).

If he has made up those grounds, however, then any arrest would be unlawful.

The CCTV painted a different picture to what he said in his statement, didn't it ?

Where have his reasonable grounds to suspect you of shoplifting come from ?

His statement said he followed me out (he never said he arrested me in the statement) and he tried to stop me leaving for two reasons:

1. I'd walked out the wrong way. Basically saying I'd come from the shop rather than the tills. This is total garbage. My partner had as she was returning a bin we didn't buy. But I had not. The police did not have the CCTV of which way I walked out. But I told the officer to check it as this was garbage. You can see which way I approach in one of the shots but it only shows the last bit.

2. He said when he asked to speak to me I blanked him and just walked off. But the CCTV shows me standing for 10-15 seconds and chatting to him. Then calmly walking out.

So he's left with he thought I was walking out the wrong way. I personally wouldn't consider that reasonable.

[stuttgartmetal]

is there no chance you can just formally apologise and it will all go away ?
And here’s the thing.
You dont even have to mean it.


LOL.

[Red 4]

milkround said:

Red 4 said:

The security guard can arrest on suspicion if he has reasonable grounds to suspect you are committing an indictable offence (or if an indictable offence has been committed he may arrest anyone who he has reasonable grounds to suspect to be guilty of it).

If he has made up those grounds, however, then any arrest would be unlawful.

The CCTV painted a different picture to what he said in his statement, didn't it ?

Where have his reasonable grounds to suspect you of shoplifting come from ?

His statement said he followed me out (he never said he arrested me in the statement) and he tried to stop me leaving for two reasons:

1. I'd walked out the wrong way. Basically saying I'd come from the shop rather than the tills. This is total garbage. My partner had as she was returning a bin we didn't buy. But I had not. The police did not have the CCTV of which way I walked out. But I told the officer to check it as this was garbage. You can see which way I approach in one of the shots but it only shows the last bit.

2. He said when he asked to speak to me I blanked him and just walked off. But the CCTV shows me standing for 10-15 seconds and chatting to him. Then calmly walking out.

So he's left with he thought I was walking out the wrong way. I personally wouldn't consider that reasonable.

I'm confused now.

If your partner did not use the same self-service checkout as you how did she have your receipt ?

Have you kept the receipt ?

They are time and date stamped ( to the second ) and it may prove useful to show what you actually did rather than relying on the police to gather more CCTV footage/ it becoming your word against the security guard.

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

I'm confused now.

If your partner did not use the same self-service checkout as you how did she have your receipt ?

Have you kept the receipt ?

They are time and date stamped ( to the second ) and it may prove useful to show what you actually did rather than relying on the police to gather more CCTV footage/ it becoming your word against the security guard.

I'll do my best to explain. We went around the shop and selected stuff. She'd previously seen a bin half price and text me about it. It was in the store but as we scanned it the price was not half price. So I asked the member of staff to remove it. My partner then took the bin back and put it in it's place where we had picked it up from.

I paid for the shopping whilst she was doing this using my card and contactless. I didn't think I got a receipt but must have done so. Because it turned out it was in the pan which I put the shopping in. So I did actually get a receipt. My partner found it after she picked up the shopping and it was on the floor. At this point the gaurd had hold of her and she was asking to pick it up. He eventually let her and then let her go.

And yeah we have the receipt. I asked the police if they wanted a copy and they are not interested.

[Flumpo]

Sorry if I’ve missed this bit, but what did the police say about the homophobic insults he was shouting as he pushed you to the floor and kicked you?

I obviously read too much of the daily mail, but I thought this was considered a hate crime and they would have asked a bit more about that.

[Red 4]

If you have the receipt and this is accurately time and date stamped then how does that tie in with the CCTV footage ?

Ie - does that prove that you came from the till point and went immediately to the exit ( the CCTV footage should also show time and date ).

I am assuming that at no point did you go back into the shop ?

Timings may blow the security guard's version of events out of the water ... Which leads to how did he have reasonable grounds to suspect you of theft/ Use of reasonable force, etc.

[A1VDY]

ArmaghMan said:

Talked to colleagues, friends, and to a man they all gave the same answer....that's the point where he'd have been flat on his back.
.

Big talk but in reality he wouldnt be flat on his back at all. Its usually the little geeky types with milk bottle glasses and goofy teeth that big themselves up like this.

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

If you have the receipt and this is accurately time and date stamped then how does that tie in with the CCTV footage ?

Ie - does that prove that you came from the till point and went immediately to the exit ( the CCTV footage should also show time and date ).

I am assuming that at no point did you go back into the shop ?

Timings may blow the security guard's version of events out of the water ... Which leads to how did he have reasonable grounds to suspect you of theft/ Use of reasonable force, etc.

Honestly mate I have no idea how it ties with the CCTV times. I've not got a copy yet and I wasn't looking at the times on it.

But I did pay and then walked to the doors. Met up with my partner. So there won't be more than about 60 seconds difference.

At no point did I go back to the shop. I went to the doors and didn't go back in.

He says his reason for doing it all was that i walked out the wrong way (I didn't) and that I didn't acknowledge him when I went out (cctv clearly shows I stood and talked to him).

So far no one has cared about any of this. They might if/when I'm charged though. I think it will be interesting seeing him being asked some questions from someone who isn't a police officer who is on his side.