Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Greendubber said:
carinaman said:
An explanation may be useful to me.
What would be far more useful is if people stopped making claims if they don't know what they're talking about. Especially when it comes to legal matters. carinaman said:
I'm not sure that's relevant. It wouldn't be divulged in Court before or during a trial. The law doesn't allow the police to detain and search people on the off chance just because they have previous convictions either.
Is the second sentence wrong then?
carinaman said:
Greendubber said:
carinaman said:
An explanation may be useful to me.
What would be far more useful is if people stopped making claims if they don't know what they're talking about. Especially when it comes to legal matters. carinaman said:
I'm not sure that's relevant. It wouldn't be divulged in Court before or during a trial. The law doesn't allow the police to detain and search people on the off chance just because they have previous convictions either.
Is the second sentence wrong then?
La Liga said:
Thanks La Liga, that's useful to me. I could've made life easier for myself if I'd read and understood that 24-30 months ago, hindsight etc. Red Devil said:
Depends on your view of what is 'perfectly reasonable'. If you were the SG and I had done nothing wrong my response would be coloured by your attitude/behaviour.
Bearing in mind that the opening remark would be yours, not mine.
The sensors going off is a completely different kettle from the OP's encounter. If they did it would be nonsensical for anyone other than a thief to keep walking.
I've never ever had sensors go off. Maybe I've just been lucky, or I'm a statistical outlier.
While Sowande may have overturned Self it is important to understand that each case turns on its own facts.
The OP's solicitor is in a far better position than anyone on here to know what his chances are and will no doubt act accordingly.
The criminal standard will apply. The court must persuaded 'so that it is sure' rather than 'more likely than not'.
Some posters seem quite confident that the OP will be found guilty. Even to the extent of predicting the percentage of those who think so.
I'm not making any bets on the outcome without hearing all the evidence from both sides. It may even hinge on the quality of each of the advocates.
Re: the bit in bold.Bearing in mind that the opening remark would be yours, not mine.
The sensors going off is a completely different kettle from the OP's encounter. If they did it would be nonsensical for anyone other than a thief to keep walking.
I've never ever had sensors go off. Maybe I've just been lucky, or I'm a statistical outlier.
While Sowande may have overturned Self it is important to understand that each case turns on its own facts.
The OP's solicitor is in a far better position than anyone on here to know what his chances are and will no doubt act accordingly.
The criminal standard will apply. The court must persuaded 'so that it is sure' rather than 'more likely than not'.
Some posters seem quite confident that the OP will be found guilty. Even to the extent of predicting the percentage of those who think so.
I'm not making any bets on the outcome without hearing all the evidence from both sides. It may even hinge on the quality of each of the advocates.
Never experiencing a shop doorway alarm activation is quite unusual, so I guess you’ve just been lucky!
I’ll be honest and say I just keep walking when the alarms go off as I leave a shop, it’s probably happened 3 or 4 times in the last 10 years and no one has said a thing to me or even attempted to speak to me about it.
I keep walking purely because I’m a slightly impatient and hurried character when shopping, who doesn’t want to have to waste time walking back into the shop, queue at the till again, explain the alarms have gone off, and then get them to demagnetise the silver strip again or whatever they do.
If the item actually has a large security tag on it that is pinned though the item, they are pretty hard to miss so I always make sure the cashier removes those ones while serving me.
I’ve never been stopped or spoken to by any form of security or shop security in my life, although really weirdly I was followed round B&Q one afternoon by the security guard, who was pretending to inspect things at the end of each isle where I happened to be browsing.
I jokingly handed my wife a giant sheet of wood and said in a voice loud enough to make it clear to the security guard I wanted him to hear “Anna! Just shove this inside your jacket as we walk out of the shop!”
He then huffed really loudly, looked slightly embarrassed, and walked off to presumably follow a different person around the store.
La Liga said:
don't think you appreciate what a low threshold RGS is along with placing too much emphasis on what is known in hindsight, vs what information was available at the time.
Whatever formed the basis of the SG talking to you - the route out of the store etc, along with the not producing the receipt and walking off sounds like RGS to me.
The op isn't disputing what may (or may not) constitute reasonable grounds to suspect.Whatever formed the basis of the SG talking to you - the route out of the store etc, along with the not producing the receipt and walking off sounds like RGS to me.
He is disputing the security guard's version of events, ie the op says he walked directly from the till point - after paying for the goods - to the exit.
That would put a slightly different slant on things.
Red 4 said:
La Liga said:
don't think you appreciate what a low threshold RGS is along with placing too much emphasis on what is known in hindsight, vs what information was available at the time.
Whatever formed the basis of the SG talking to you - the route out of the store etc, along with the not producing the receipt and walking off sounds like RGS to me.
The op isn't disputing what may (or may not) constitute reasonable grounds to suspect.Whatever formed the basis of the SG talking to you - the route out of the store etc, along with the not producing the receipt and walking off sounds like RGS to me.
He is disputing the security guard's version of events, ie the op says he walked directly from the till point - after paying for the goods - to the exit.
That would put a slightly different slant on things.
milkround said:
But what isn't or is a suspicion seems dodgy to me.
LL - if you go back many pages to the bit when the op was interviewed it's in there.
Reasonable grounds to suspect must be just that - not a made up version of events to provide the grounds.
That's why the CCTV is so important.
It will either support the security guard or the op.
The camera never lies, as they say.
Reasonable grounds to suspect must be just that - not a made up version of events to provide the grounds.
That's why the CCTV is so important.
It will either support the security guard or the op.
The camera never lies, as they say.
Red 4 said:
LL - if you go back many pages to the bit when the op was interviewed it's in there.
Reasonable grounds to suspect must be just that - not a made up version of events to provide the grounds.
That's why the CCTV is so important.
It will either support the security guard or the op.
Not necessarily: see below.Reasonable grounds to suspect must be just that - not a made up version of events to provide the grounds.
That's why the CCTV is so important.
It will either support the security guard or the op.
Red 4 said:
The camera never lies, as they say.
Maybe so, but it depends entirely on its field of view and thus what is visible to it.Also the clarity of the image/s.The quality of CCTV is very variable.
Some can be so bad it is useless as reliable evidence in a criminal case.
We can second guess it until the cows come home as none of us has seen t.
His solicitor is in a far better position to judge its probative value.
Red Devil - yes, I appreciate what you are saying.
I was referring to the op's statement that he walked from the till point to the exit though ( not from "the wrong aisle" as the security guard said) and this may have been caught on CCTV.
If this was the case and the footage is available then this will help the op's case and raise the question of where the security guard's reasonable grounds for suspicion came from ...
I was referring to the op's statement that he walked from the till point to the exit though ( not from "the wrong aisle" as the security guard said) and this may have been caught on CCTV.
If this was the case and the footage is available then this will help the op's case and raise the question of where the security guard's reasonable grounds for suspicion came from ...
Agreed. As I understand it (I could well be mistaken) the only CCTV images which have been viewed so far relate to the scuffle in the car park.
There may be others which show him/his partner in-store. He needs to request ALL of those in which either/both of them feature.
Before it is too late (which, of course, it may be already if they have been wiped/overwritten).
There may be others which show him/his partner in-store. He needs to request ALL of those in which either/both of them feature.
Before it is too late (which, of course, it may be already if they have been wiped/overwritten).
hutchst said:
Milkround and his partner were working in tandem, as a team, dodging around in the checkout area. He acknowledged that very early on. That may have aroused the guard's suspicion.
That could easily be taken as implying they were up to no good. Do you have any actual evidence of criminal activity or are you just stirring the pot?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff