Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[Red 4]

Greendubber said:

I don't see it as a dig, in my experience security guards in big supermarkets are total Walt's and if I'm being honest, a bit of a pain in the arse. I certainly wouldn't expect anything to be brushed under the carpet for the sake of some agency guard. I'd imagine most places would just want shot of someone who's causing issues and they'd be replaced with someone else.

I agree with this.

I had a store detective make a complaint about me once, because she wasn't happy about how I dealt with a job and thought she knew better.

She didn't. Complaint was binned. She still wasn't happy but you can't please all the people all of the time. I'd rather ps off a store detective than act unlawfully.

It's an easy choice to make.

Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 22 August 13:44

[Red Devil]

milkround said:

Red Devil said:

Point 2. Given that the self-service checkouts provide the customer with the option not to have one, the lack thereof cannot per se give rise to a reasonable suspicion.
Point 3. I asked the question a long time ago, how did the OP manage to forget, in such a short space of time, that he had in fact pressed 'yes' on the touch screen and taken the receipt?

I could be wrong (tbh I cba to go back through 100+ pages) but I don't think we have yet been given a satisfactory answer to that.

I'm really not sure why this aspect is still being so assiduously raked over. The OP is facing a charge of assault, not theft. Therefore I'm unclear how any of the above is relevant.
I'm fairly sure his legal advisor/s won't be wasting time on extraneous stuff. If I have understood correctly, the OP's argument will be self-defence.

Point 3 I cant answer as I dont know.

All I can do is tell the truth. I didn't think I took one. I never did.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction there? First you're not sure, then you are certain you didn't. You can't have it both ways.
The fact is there was one, so either you took it, or your partner did. If the latter, how did it end up in the pan you were carrying without you noticing?

milkround said:

All I liken it to is looking for your car keys and after ages finding them in your pocket. Or searching for your glasses and finding them on your head.

I think your car keys analogy is flawed. I very much doubt it was 'ages' between your leaving the till and exiting the store. A few minutes at most.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you're in danger of becoming confused/distracted. If I were your solicitor that would concern me.
What is needed is laser like focus on what you are being charged with and rebutting that.

Listen to your solicitor and follow his/her advice (hopefully he/she is on the ball). That's what you're paying a professional for: to represent you in court.

[Dibble]

Any chance you can answer my questions about the “missing” CCTV, OP?

[milkround]

Dibble said:

Any chance you can answer my questions about the “missing” CCTV, OP?

Sorry dibble.

To be totally honest I dont know if the police actually got the cctv or not. In my interview the officer said it would exist and it would remove uncertainty.

If they have then its not been passed on. Once I actually know for sure after I get the disclosure I can say with more certainty. If it has been collected etc I'll be happy. If not I'll have to live with it. Tesco didn't give me that footage when I did my sar even though I explicitly asked for it.

[milkround]

Red Devil said:

I think your car keys analogy is flawed. I very much doubt it was 'ages' between your leaving the till and exiting the store. A few minutes at most.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you're in danger of becoming confused/distracted. If I were your solicitor that would concern me.
What is needed is laser like focus on what you are being charged with and rebutting that.

Listen to your solicitor and follow his/her advice (hopefully he/she is on the ball). That's what you're paying a professional for: to represent you in court.

I do see your point. But I can only answer it honestly even if that makes me look foolish. I didn't think I had one but I did. It was me who got it but I still cant actually remember getting it. I know that sounds odd.

[Christmassss]

milkround said:

Sorry dibble.

To be totally honest I dont know if the police actually got the cctv or not. In my interview the officer said it would exist and it would remove uncertainty.

If they have then its not been passed on. Once I actually know for sure after I get the disclosure I can say with more certainty. If it has been collected etc I'll be happy. If not I'll have to live with it. Tesco didn't give me that footage when I did my sar even though I explicitly asked for it.

They wouldn't be allowed to hand you CCTV footage.

CCTV Basics -

The CCTV owner might not be allowed to share any footage if:

other people can be seen in it
they’re not able to edit out people to protect their identity

The CCTV owner can invite you to a viewing of the footage if:

they’re unable to provide you with the footage itself
you agree with that arrangement
They can refuse your request if sharing the footage will put a criminal investigation at risk.

[hutchst]

milkround said:

I do see your point. But I can only answer it honestly even if that makes me look foolish. I didn't think I had one but I did. It was me who got it but I still cant actually remember getting it. I know that sounds odd.

When you say odd, do you mean suspicious?

[Red 4]

hutchst said:

When you say odd, do you mean suspicious?

[milkround]

Christmassss said:

They wouldn't be allowed to hand you CCTV footage.

CCTV Basics -

The CCTV owner might not be allowed to share any footage if:

other people can be seen in it
they’re not able to edit out people to protect their identity

The CCTV owner can invite you to a viewing of the footage if:

they’re unable to provide you with the footage itself
you agree with that arrangement
They can refuse your request if sharing the footage will put a criminal investigation at risk.

But they did give me some footage with others blurred out. It's just the bit I really want they didn't hand over.

[milkround]

hutchst said:

milkround said:

I do see your point. But I can only answer it honestly even if that makes me look foolish. I didn't think I had one but I did. It was me who got it but I still cant actually remember getting it. I know that sounds odd.

When you say odd, do you mean suspicious?

No mate. I meant odd as in I cant explain how my mind works.

It might be suspicious to some. But what does it make you suspicious off? Unless you think I decided to not show him a receipt in the hope it would kick off.

[Christmassss]

milkround said:

But they did give me some footage with others blurred out. It's just the bit I really want they didn't hand over.

Probably falls under the 'current criminal investigation' part

[Cat]

milkround said:

Unless you think I decided to not show him a receipt in the hope it would kick off.

I don't think you hoped it would kick off, but it's pretty clear from your initial posts that you didn't like the way the SG spoke to you and that you felt he was somehow violating your civil liberties by wanting to see your receipt and asking you to go back into the store with him. I think that it was for these reasons you chose to tell him you didn't have a receipt despite having obtained one just a few moments earlier.

Unfortunately the situation then escalated and the two of you ended up rolling round in the car park.

Cat

[Flumpo]

Cat said:

milkround said:

Unless you think I decided to not show him a receipt in the hope it would kick off.

I don't think you hoped it would kick off, but it's pretty clear from your initial posts that you didn't like the way the SG spoke to you and that you felt he was somehow violating your civil liberties by wanting to see your receipt and asking you to go back into the store with him. I think that it was for these reasons you chose to tell him you didn't have a receipt despite having obtained one just a few moments earlier.

Unfortunately the situation then escalated and the two of you ended up rolling round in the car park.

Cat

To be fair, if we take everything milky has told us at face value (it’s the only account we have) then he believed he was being targeted because he was a homosexual. It was nothing to do with the purchase, receipt or suspected theft.

I’m pretty sure that is a violation of some sort of law or rights. Anyway, we’re going round in circles again.

[Flumpo]

Flumpo said:

Cat said:

milkround said:

Unless you think I decided to not show him a receipt in the hope it would kick off.

I don't think you hoped it would kick off, but it's pretty clear from your initial posts that you didn't like the way the SG spoke to you and that you felt he was somehow violating your civil liberties by wanting to see your receipt and asking you to go back into the store with him. I think that it was for these reasons you chose to tell him you didn't have a receipt despite having obtained one just a few moments earlier.

Unfortunately the situation then escalated and the two of you ended up rolling round in the car park.

Cat

To be fair, if we take everything milky has told us at face value (it’s the only account we have) then he believed he was being targeted because he was a homosexual. It was nothing to do with the purchase, receipt or suspected theft.

I’m pretty sure that is a violation of some sort of law or rights. Anyway, we’re going round in circles again.

Ps. apologies if this is no longer the case, it’s a long thread!

[Flumpo]

Flumpo said:

Cat said:

milkround said:

Unless you think I decided to not show him a receipt in the hope it would kick off.

I don't think you hoped it would kick off, but it's pretty clear from your initial posts that you didn't like the way the SG spoke to you and that you felt he was somehow violating your civil liberties by wanting to see your receipt and asking you to go back into the store with him. I think that it was for these reasons you chose to tell him you didn't have a receipt despite having obtained one just a few moments earlier.

Unfortunately the situation then escalated and the two of you ended up rolling round in the car park.

Cat

To be fair, if we take everything milky has told us at face value (it’s the only account we have) then he believed he was being targeted because he was a homosexual. It was nothing to do with the purchase, receipt or suspected theft.

I’m pretty sure that is a violation of some sort of law or rights. Anyway, we’re going round in circles again.

Ps. apologies if this is no longer the case, it’s a long thread!

[The Mad Monk]

Flumpo said:

To be fair, if we take everything milky has told us at face value (it’s the only account we have) then he believed he was being targeted because he was a homosexual. It was nothing to do with the purchase, receipt or suspected theft.

I’m pretty sure that is a violation of some sort of law or rights. Anyway, we’re going round in circles again.

He hasn't mentioned the homosexuality allegations since about page 1.

He won't respond to questions about his homosexuality (alleged).

I bet he is wishing he had stopped, shown the SG his receipt and then gone home.

[Red 4]

Cat said:

milkround said:

Unless you think I decided to not show him a receipt in the hope it would kick off.

I don't think you hoped it would kick off, but it's pretty clear from your initial posts that you didn't like the way the SG spoke to you and that you felt he was somehow violating your civil liberties by wanting to see your receipt and asking you to go back into the store with him. I think that it was for these reasons you chose to tell him you didn't have a receipt despite having obtained one just a few moments earlier.

Unfortunately the situation then escalated and the two of you ended up rolling round in the car park.

Cat

It's pretty clear the op was still a bit wound up when he wrote his first post.

I think he mentioned his civil liberties out of a sense of anger/ frustration/ shock/ disbelief rather than being a Freeman on on the land type.

I certainly haven't seen him quoting his human rights since so perhaps your post is a little unfair.

Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 22 August 20:34

[Cat]

Red 4 said:

It's pretty clear the op was still a bit wound up when he wrote his first post.

I think he mentioned his civil liberties out of a sense of anger/ frustration/ shock/ disbelief rather than being a Freeman on on the land type.

I certainly haven't seen him quoting his human rights since so perhaps your post is a little unfair.

Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 22 August 20:34

I'm not suggesting the OP is a full on FOTL type.

From his posts he appears to be an intelligent and rational individual, given that, I can't think of a plausible reason why he would tell the SG he didn't have a receipt, just a few moments getting one, if it wasn't to try and make a point that he was under no obligation to show it.

Cat

[kestral]

The Mad Monk said:

He hasn't mentioned the homosexuality allegations since about page 1.

He won't respond to questions about his homosexuality (alleged).

I bet he is wishing he had stopped, shown the SG his receipt and then gone home.

No I don't think so.

He is by no means a coward and he does have a point.

Live fish can swim against the tide,dead fish go with it.

[kestral]

Cat said:

I don't think you hoped it would kick off, but it's pretty clear from your initial posts that you didn't like the way the SG spoke to you and that you felt he was somehow violating your civil liberties by wanting to see your receipt and asking you to go back into the store with him. I think that it was for these reasons you chose to tell him you didn't have a receipt despite having obtained one just a few moments earlier.

Unfortunately the situation then escalated and the two of you ended up rolling round in the car park.

Cat

Far too much speculation there.