Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
BrettMRC said:
I have been following this from the start, only thing I can add is this:
Unless tesco is now providing the basic build on its devices with editing software, most theories are pure fantasy.
Over the years I have provided hours of footage for various reasons from multiple sources and generations of equipment, none of which output in formats that are easy to use or edit.
TL;DR Plenty of wrong doing here, none of it via CCTV IMPO.
You may be right. But the CCTV I posted earlier which had been pixelated, cropped and butchered shows they can edit the footage if they so wish. Unless tesco is now providing the basic build on its devices with editing software, most theories are pure fantasy.
Over the years I have provided hours of footage for various reasons from multiple sources and generations of equipment, none of which output in formats that are easy to use or edit.
TL;DR Plenty of wrong doing here, none of it via CCTV IMPO.
I am hoping the officers are right. And it's just a cock up when it comes to copying video. I am severely doubtful about this simply because it's only that part which is gone.
BrettMRC said:
milkround said:
You may be right. But the CCTV I posted earlier which had been pixelated, cropped and butchered shows they can edit the footage if they so wish.
I am hoping the officers are right. And it's just a cock up when it comes to copying video. I am severely doubtful about this simply because it's only that part which is gone.
Sorry - I didn't spot you had posted it, and can't find it now.I am hoping the officers are right. And it's just a cock up when it comes to copying video. I am severely doubtful about this simply because it's only that part which is gone.
Happy to take a look if you still have link.
Here is the footage Tesco gave me when I did a SAR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sWygynXlM&t=...
Here is a screen shot of the footage which the CPS provided.
image hosting
Now... I know no one can see the whole footage. So some trust is required. But in the SAR they cropped the image, they blurred much of it out - and most critically they have intentionally degraded the footage. I know this because the documentary producing neighbour not only told me this, but he showed me how you'd do it!
As far as the footage goes - the neighbour/mate tells me that the CCTV wouldn't be produced in an MP4 format. It would certainly be in some other format. It's probably been given like that to make it easier to view. But I'd like to see the original footage and work out how to play it myself if I'm honest.
What's more... in that footage you can actually see me pay for my shopping. And you can see me walking from paying... To the doors. The time marking between my paying and leaving the store prove chategorically I didn't walk out the wrong way.
They also cropped out the second video outside... Here is another screenshop from the other footage:
image hosting
That's important as it shows a member of staff standing and smoking whilst all the initial interaction took place. Someone who could give context to all of this, and who could say what was said. I've taken a screenshot so you can't see him. The point here is that the supermarket were totally able to edit the footage as and when they wanted.
Edited by milkround on Monday 16th September 17:13
vonhosen said:
They're not missing are they?
Didn't the OP say he saw the footage of those 12 secs when he was interviewed?
The SAR copy he received from Tesco will be different to the evidential master copy that the Police have taken as an exhibit.
Because the guard says he never touched me... Here is a snippet. I apologize for the terrible quality. I've increased the brightness and slowed it down to see whats going on.
https://youtu.be/JUTVU9ykDHE
Just as he moves out of the frame from that camera my partner goes to pick up the shopping he'd just knocked from my hands. And it's exactly at this point where the footage stops on the other camera.
That might not indicate anything to anyone else. But I know what happened. He claims he never touched me. He claims he just stood there. And if I had the footage from the other camera I know you would see clearly exactly what he did. Which is why I don't think I'll get that footage.
Edited by milkround on Monday 16th September 20:15
carinaman said:
milkround, I assume your Solicitor was present when you were shown the evidential master copy the police are using that shows the missing 12 seconds?
A solicitor was present yes. They even asked for the bit in question to be replayed. However, given they probably do multiple interviews a day (I presume) and this was on April 9th I sincerely doubt they will remember every second of the CCTV. No copy was given at the time. Similarly, no copy of the interview was given at the time - and the CPS don't want to give it now. I see no reason for them not giving this, if they are that hard up I'll even buy them a DVD to burn it on or lend them a USB stick. Similarly the CPS don't want to disclose the phone calls both parties made to the Police. I want that because I'm interested in two things - when the calls were made and what was said. But apparently they don't think that I should have those recordings.
I don't think it's a conspiracy. I reckon they are understaffed and it's not that important. But I don't think everyone is doing their job very well.
Just to add some basis for my 'conspiracy' it's not only a copy of a copy of a copy - it's both versions I have been given. Both showing no footage at that point. Both by the CPS and by the Supermarket. However they were both in different file formats - one avi, and one mp4.
Now it could be my laptop - but my macbook doesn't have a CD/DVD drive. So I use a windows based laptop to transfer the files to an external HD before moving them to my macbook. I have tried on both computers obviously. I've also tried playing the DVD's on my Blueray/DVD player and get the same.
To give me a little credit. I'm not a complete fool and have some experience of getting software and videos to work. On both sets of footage, it isn't there.
I don't agree with much of what carinamann says - but I think when it comes to this evidence he is closer to the truth than some on here. I've never burnt a disk and randomly had footage disappear. I have dealt with corrupted HD's and flash media however. Nor have I transferred a file and managed to lose bits of continuous video footage etc.
Now it could be my laptop - but my macbook doesn't have a CD/DVD drive. So I use a windows based laptop to transfer the files to an external HD before moving them to my macbook. I have tried on both computers obviously. I've also tried playing the DVD's on my Blueray/DVD player and get the same.
To give me a little credit. I'm not a complete fool and have some experience of getting software and videos to work. On both sets of footage, it isn't there.
I don't agree with much of what carinamann says - but I think when it comes to this evidence he is closer to the truth than some on here. I've never burnt a disk and randomly had footage disappear. I have dealt with corrupted HD's and flash media however. Nor have I transferred a file and managed to lose bits of continuous video footage etc.
Greendubber said:
You have nothing to base those accusations on other than the OP saying the copy of the CCTV he has doesn't play properly, there could be a number of legitimate reasons for that.
Quite a leap to make really but then I suppose you can't always hide your prejudice against the police.
Greengrubber - I have nothing against the police. I think they do a thankless job and having been around the world a bit are one of the best on the planet. Not perfect - but closer to perfect than most. I want them paid more, trainer more, and more of them. I could post many positive stories I've had and people I know have had with the Police. But that isn't the point now. Quite a leap to make really but then I suppose you can't always hide your prejudice against the police.
But I think your comments are not fair.
Officers (two PC's, 1 Sergeant and potentially another supervisor) signed off that the SG did not touch me. I know this because the first PC said so and said her Sergeant said the same, and the second PC wrote it explicitly in the summary I first got when I plead NG. Now please look at the footage I just posted and tell me if you really think the CCTV supports that? The same footage they had. The one I was given.
The CCTV doesn't play properly. Nor does the SAR footage. On PC, Mac, or straight DVD plater using lots of software. I don't blame the Police for that. I think the supermarket has given it them like that (maybe a 'full' version). I think the police are probably too busy to even notice. Same for the CPS.
Perhaps I'll still be found guilty. Perhaps I will lost the little gamble I've taken. But the 'full' disclosed CCTV actually shows bigger inconsistencies with the witness statements once it's been cleaned up and optimized. I've just chosen to not go into them on here. If a truck driver and a neighbor who does documentaries can work that out - how can it possibly be acceptable for a professional police force to miss it? Yeah it matters to me more than anyone else - but it's like a PC reversing an artic better than me because he wants to get his shopping more than I care about delivering it.
Centurion07 said:
Nothing to add except that that is a HELL of a coincidence for twelve seconds of missing footage to be the EXACT twelve seconds that completely contradict the security guard's statement...
I have a bit of experience with video files and editing software and can't say I can recall a time when I've had an otherwise perfect file be missing a few seconds of footage, certainly not in the middle anyway.
If there's an issue with a file, or the software being used to edit or playback then that can manifest itself in a number of ways, but missing entire chunks out and the rest of the file is fine? Hmmm...no.
And it's a hell of a coincidence that is happens literally exactly as I step out of the view of the other camera and you see him start to get physical... I have a bit of experience with video files and editing software and can't say I can recall a time when I've had an otherwise perfect file be missing a few seconds of footage, certainly not in the middle anyway.
If there's an issue with a file, or the software being used to edit or playback then that can manifest itself in a number of ways, but missing entire chunks out and the rest of the file is fine? Hmmm...no.
Like you I've played with videos. I used to teach a scuba diving course on underwater videography. Thousands of hours of footage and never once has part magically gone missing from the middle and just freeze.
If the file was corrupted then certain things would happen. The idea it would just play nicely like that isn't one of them. Someone has tried to play a game here and I plan on causing as much hassle as needed to get to the bottom of it.
It's also rather odd. If he thought I was stealing and was using that force to stop me. Why lie about using any force? Especially given he know where the cameras are and what they would show? If the footage was available that is.
La Liga said:
The question is, who would edit it?
The CCTV was working during the interview.
So this is post-supermarket unless the supermarket has somehow given the police a newer version. I can't see how that'd occur and would be rather strange given the CCTV was used in the interview.
The police then have to make copies of the CCTV when the matter goes to trial. This is usually done via a simple DVD tower. Master in the top, several blanks in the bottom.
Sometimes there may be some conversion needed i.e. if the shop's CCTV is using an unusual format. This can be done be 1x recording of the footage being played back or converted with some software.
In terms of editing there are usually very few people who can use basic non-linear editors software like Camtasia. This is usually done when something needs annotating i.e. X person needs a label placing upon them to ID them.
It'd be rather surprising if someone were willing to take an imprisonable risk. Especially given the CCTV was shown in interview and witnessed in working form by several people as well as audio commentary discussing it.
As others have said, what's your solicitor doing? About the witnesses you were seemingly mistaken about and this matter?
I've said I don't believe for a second anyone from the Police did that. And I mean it. I think if I am correct in my belief then it's likely to have been done by someone in the supermarket. The CCTV was working during the interview.
So this is post-supermarket unless the supermarket has somehow given the police a newer version. I can't see how that'd occur and would be rather strange given the CCTV was used in the interview.
The police then have to make copies of the CCTV when the matter goes to trial. This is usually done via a simple DVD tower. Master in the top, several blanks in the bottom.
Sometimes there may be some conversion needed i.e. if the shop's CCTV is using an unusual format. This can be done be 1x recording of the footage being played back or converted with some software.
In terms of editing there are usually very few people who can use basic non-linear editors software like Camtasia. This is usually done when something needs annotating i.e. X person needs a label placing upon them to ID them.
It'd be rather surprising if someone were willing to take an imprisonable risk. Especially given the CCTV was shown in interview and witnessed in working form by several people as well as audio commentary discussing it.
As others have said, what's your solicitor doing? About the witnesses you were seemingly mistaken about and this matter?
You are right that it all seems a bit far fetched. But the solicitors copy is the same. Simply burning a disk wouldn't mean that part of it goes blank but still plays. You need to watch the timestamp rather closely to even notice it. Which is why the solicitors didn't. It was me who was looking for a certain event that realised.
I don't know enough about Police process to comment further. If I was to guess I'd say they got a quick copy for the interview (given it was about two weeks after the event, and the witness statements hadn't been taken until the day before) and got a better copy after. The PC had it given to him a couple of hours before my interview. And it was me who was saying the police should get a complete set of CCTV. Perhaps they asked for a full set. I doubt I'll ever know. But what I do know is that at the very moment I step out of one camera the other one freezes. For 12 seconds and then starts again.
Officers have said that there will be an audit trail when it comes to CCTV. So maybe that will shed some light on it. I hope it does.
Solicitor is writing to the CPS asking for a copy without bits missing. I guess it's just a waiting game.
La Liga said:
've not said it's far fetched.
It sounds unusual that more CCTV would be provided, especially if you've not had the opportunity to comment on it.
There should be full continuity of the CCTV that you've been served.
Statement from whoever produced it at the supermarket, handing it to the police officer, the police officer placing it in the property store, creating duplicates etc.
This is all information that should come with disclosure.
Sorry I meant I think it sounds far fetched. If I was reading this I'd struggle to believe it tbh. It's all a bit odd. What I do know is that the footage didn't just disappear due to some problem with copying footage. It sounds unusual that more CCTV would be provided, especially if you've not had the opportunity to comment on it.
There should be full continuity of the CCTV that you've been served.
Statement from whoever produced it at the supermarket, handing it to the police officer, the police officer placing it in the property store, creating duplicates etc.
This is all information that should come with disclosure.
The footage stops just as SG gets physical and goes out of the frame. Massive massive coincidence. And then restarts just in time to see me push him.
We shall see what the CPS come back with.
In the interview I didn't get to see it all either. The officer had a little laptop and zoomed through parts which didn't show much. He had the footage on a USB stick then if I remember correctly.
I'm a bit miffed with the mg3 form tbh... It says the CCTV doesn't show him touching me and 'appears' to show me punching the SG. Both of which I'll stick my neck out and say are total lies. I'm happy to back this up with the CCTV in question.
Henz said:
I'm a reasonably valued member of my company, but if they had CCTV of me acting inappropriately I'd be escorted off site sharpish rather than them conspiring with me to edit the evidence.
Assuming someone senior from the store has seen the original CCTV and it corroborates Milkrounds story, why on earth did they allow it to progress to the police stage initially?
Did they establish that you had paid at the store after the kerfuffle?
That's a good point. And being totally honest if I were driving a truck for the company (as I did) and the dashcams showed me doing something silly there is no way anyone would have deleted it. All I will add is that the person who was viewing the footage that night was the one who allegedly did something... I have no knowledge if he would have been able to change that. As a driver it was a black box style system and I couldn't even view it. My gut tells me that it would require administrator-level privileges to change it. Back in the real world someone on site must be able to access that footage and give it to the police if needed during opening hours. And I'd be shocked if that person wasn't the SG or a line manager. Assuming someone senior from the store has seen the original CCTV and it corroborates Milkrounds story, why on earth did they allow it to progress to the police stage initially?
Did they establish that you had paid at the store after the kerfuffle?
As far as did they establish I paid. Well according to the SG's statement he never saw a receipt. However the better quality footage shows my partner pointing it out, picking it up and him snatching it from her before letting her go. Part of my gripe with the police is that they only collected the footage outside - I know for certain that the store would have gone over the footage to see if there was something to show me up. It's just how they work. They will for sure have checked the camera and seen what I put through the tils and what I was carrying. The Police didn't get that footage and the supermarket didn't give it either in the SAR.
Dibble said:
Unequivocally, the police can ask you anything they like, any time.
You’re not necessarily obliged to stop and/or answer. There is a whole world of difference between being asked something in a general interaction, to being spoken to regarding stop/search, to being spoken to during house to house enquiries, to being interviewed under caution and everything in between.
But you are correct, Cat. Both of the statements made by Carinaman can’t possibly be true, they very obviously contradict each other.
Not only can the Police ask anything they want. But so can any member of the public. You’re not necessarily obliged to stop and/or answer. There is a whole world of difference between being asked something in a general interaction, to being spoken to regarding stop/search, to being spoken to during house to house enquiries, to being interviewed under caution and everything in between.
But you are correct, Cat. Both of the statements made by Carinaman can’t possibly be true, they very obviously contradict each other.
You can ask me to sleep on the floor tonight so you can sleep on my bed. I can ask you for your mobile to call a premium rate telephone number. As long as it isn't offensive/obscene/unlawful then we can all ask each other whatever we want.
The more pertinent question is... given the college of policing's advice on the issue is someone not answering your questions enough to constitute reasonable grounds to suspect? I ask in reference to stop and search - but the same legal test is applied for an any person arrest. So if you don't have grounds before they don't answer your questions - do you have grounds after? Put simply can somoenes refusual to comply with your demands in itself give grounds for an officer to reasonably believe an offence has been commited?
Carinaman isn't someone I agree with most of the time. But on this point he seems to be vague in his wording. What I think he means is that you are free to ignore a request or a question (from a member of the public or an officer in some circumstances) unless they have prior grounds to reasonably suspect you of committing an offence. Unless I have misunderstood him.
Roman Rhodes said:
No, one of life’s victims is someone who thinks that an ordinary bloke carrying out the routine job of a security guard at a supermarket is a “petty Hitler” who thinks that they are “part of the flying squad”.
If you were asked to evidence that you’ve paid for something at the point you leave the shop do really feel that you’re ‘giving in’ to something if you comply? Is your life really that empty?
Factuallly - rather than hypothesis. If you were asked to evidence that you’ve paid for something at the point you leave the shop do really feel that you’re ‘giving in’ to something if you comply? Is your life really that empty?
The retailer in question asks if you want a receipt or not. They have made the commercial decision that it isn't important.
Compare that with Cosco. Who insist on a receipt and who have massive signs on the wall saying they will be checked. If I'd have told the staff member in that instance to FU then I'd be totally trying to prove a point.
In my case, I genuinely didn't think I had one. I explained this. As you can see from the CCTV if you saw it. I pointed to where I'd paid. He could have asked me to wait a moment whilst he checked his CCTV. He could have asked me to wait a moment whilst he called the colleague over who both authorized the 4 pack of Jack Danials and Coke cans, and also authorised the removal of an item my partner returned. Or I could have followed him to the security office/wherever he wanted to take me. Shoulda woulda coulda.
You could also look at the CCTV and see me standing calmly. If he thought I was a thief he could have called the Police. Instead, he lunged at me and knocked my property out of my hands. And then tried to grapple with me. If he had said "I'm arresting you please wait with me" I would have. He didn't feel confident enough to do that but decided to go hands on. He then complained because I shoved him back after being repeatedly assaulted.
I'm not one of life's victims. I'm totally fortunate in my life. I wake up each day and feel really grateful for everything I have. I have great health, a beautiful smart and amazing partner, a nice home and endless opportunities. I love life and am pumped for it. Please don't tar your negativity onto me. Life is great and I feel lucky with my lot. I am sorry that one moment's decision in my life makes you feel so negative about me. But that isn't me.
LosingGrip said:
Has it been to court yet? Thought it was September?
Yeah I'm currently in prison writing this on my phone I stuck up my bum (wasnt easy with these huge samsung galaxys). Back to reality. Trial was cancelled as one overran so I will fight for justice in the name of all that's good in December.
flashbang said:
You make a good point but train services are woeful at the best of times.
At least I'm in a position to afford it. If me and my partner got day return tickets to the nearest stations it would be over £20 and involve about an hours walking each way.
If we were out of work with no financial support or savings that would hurt a lot. The magistrates gave me a stern warning about how I must turn up etc but how are you meant to do that if you dont have two coins to rub together?
Red 4 said:
I see what you're saying but the reality is that a fail to appear warrant could be issued for your arrest.
This wouldn't involve the police providing a taxi service direct to court for you but could result in you being woken from your slumber at daft o'clock in the morning, conveyed to a police station, placed in a cell and put before the next available court.
The court would then deal with the fail to appear offence and would likely bail you again.
You then need to make your own way home from court and the cycle starts again because the matter still has not been dealt with
To save the aggro, if you can, it's probably better to call in a favour and get a lift, etc etc.
The greatest irony being that the system criminalizes and abuses those who don't turn up in such a way, but then has the audacity to discard the time and energy of those who do turn up due to its inefficiency. This wouldn't involve the police providing a taxi service direct to court for you but could result in you being woken from your slumber at daft o'clock in the morning, conveyed to a police station, placed in a cell and put before the next available court.
The court would then deal with the fail to appear offence and would likely bail you again.
You then need to make your own way home from court and the cycle starts again because the matter still has not been dealt with
To save the aggro, if you can, it's probably better to call in a favour and get a lift, etc etc.
The last 'trial' that never happened in total cost me and my partner over £400 combined in lost wages, fuel, and parking. Money we will never get back (before we think about other costs). That's seen as no big deal to the people in the system. But it's annoying for me.
FWIW I think people should treat court with the respect I think it's due and turn up. I think the prosecutor should really know the case. And the witnesses and alleged criminal should show it the respect to consider it a big deal etc. But it's a mockery to say 'we will hold the trial if you don't turn up' - whilst also saying 'sorry we are a bit busy today please come back in a few months and we shall see if we can fit you in'. It's not like they are even paying the people who decide what the result is... They ask them to do it for free!
Exige77 said:
I thought court case was towards the end of the year ? Maybe December ?
It’s been a long thread so lost track a bit.
You are correct. It’s been a long thread so lost track a bit.
No real developments at all. Just under 2 months until it could all be over - or it could all be delayed again. Trials at court are a bit like brexit - they delay and delay and it just keeps going on and on.
The Mad Monk said:
Any news on this milkround?
Nah as said trial is meant to be in December. Until then it's just a waiting game. My partner is working in Jersey atm so at the end of next week I'll be going over on my little bike for a bit to see her. When I come back a few days later I have my moment of truth. Will be good to spend time with her in case I'm in prison for xmas (and I am saying that tongue in cheek before someone points out that it's a minor thing and nearly unheard off etc).
When it comes down to it, you could toss a coin. It's subjective the Police say there is no evidence of him ever laying a finger on me (Police statement of evidence to the court) he says he never touched me. So it comes down to which witnesses the magistrates believe. Here is a slowed down part of the CCTV which has turned green due to me trying to improve the lighting. https://youtu.be/qbNU5mn1P0w Make your own mind up. In that he'd already shoved me once - and I think you can see me moving back etc. It included the punch which according to the Police is shown on that video - I can't see anything of the sort personally.
I've said already if I lose I'll appeal. I'm looking forward to it all being over. I could have apologised for the truth - which is me shoving him after him shoving me and trying to grab me etc. Including him kicking me. But I wasn't going to lie. It should never have came to this - and frankly it's embarrassing it did.
Edit - not until I go to the ground my hands were full of stuff. You can see my partner picking it up after. So I wasn't able to really defend myself and was moving back. I'd love to get this professionally enhanced - but frankly don't have the money to do so, so that's my home DIY attempt using Final Cut Pro which I'm not that great with.
Edited by milkround on Wednesday 20th November 11:05
Ken Figenus said:
Whack it over and I'll put it through my Avid Symphony which has a pro colour correction device - and crucially backed by a bit of know how over the years 
It cant create or reveal detail that hasn't been recorded but I'll give it a bash for you as it could have been me getting stroppy back too 
. PM me.
Thanks. I'm literally just about to leave the house for a night shift. But i'll do it as soon as I get back tomorrow morning. It cant create or reveal detail that hasn't been recorded but I'll give it a bash for you as it could have been me getting stroppy back too . PM me.If you can help in anyway that would be fantastic.
Graveworm said:
Kind of except unlawful use of violence by the SG would only be one limb of self defence. That would not cover whether the use of force by the OP was necessary and if the level of force used was reasonable & proportionate in all the circumstances. Self (Which may have been superseded by Sowande) does not say that unlawful arrest = no case to answer.
You don't get to say they should't have tried to arrest me so I get to use force, it is "I had to use force and I only used a reasonable amount of force".
Self - really doesn't have much to do with this case (nor does Sowande which I've read). Because Self was charged with a totally separate crime and was cleared because for the offence to be made out someone would have had to be lawfully arresting him (you need to intend to resist lawful arrest). There is no such wording in normal common assault. You don't get to say they should't have tried to arrest me so I get to use force, it is "I had to use force and I only used a reasonable amount of force".
If the Police thought the SG was arresting me and it was lawful they could have charged me with that. As someone (La Liga?) pointed out - why would they bother? It makes getting a conviction a lot harder for in reality no gain in sentencing. It also allows me a jolly to the crown court which would again make life harder on the prosecution.
From my limited understanding self defence is a statutory defence. Meaning as soon as it's mentioned it's for the crown to disprove it to the criminal standard. It's based on what I was objectively felt at the time. And you need to prove within all reasonable doubt either no use of force was necessary (and that I thought that), or the use of force was so excessive that it was totally unreasonable.
Given that there was absolutely no injury reported (not even a red mark) I cannot see the CPS trying to argue the level of force was grossly disproportionate. If I'd ran him over with me car it would be different. But a single push (or even punch if you think I'm lying and believe the SG) with no injury won't cut that. So it's for them to prove that I had no reason to believe I was in any danger.
The SG explicitly said in his statement he never touched me. He will have to back that up after seeing the CCTV and being challenged. He will have to explain why the CCTV looks like he is shoving me but he said differently to the Police. The CCTV supports what I said. He also will have to explain why he chose to ignore his training - thankfully his company even put their training and policy on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJx1IZDjPZE
You would have to ask why he didn't back away from me and kept coming towards me. Clearly his company don't feel he should do that.
And here is their policy on when it's okay to stop people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIDYDGIZ-h4
Now not following company policy doesn't mean you should be assaulted. But it does indicate his behaviour was not professional and not in keeping with what is expected. He can justify why he chose to ignore his training and instead target a paying customer. Etc.
All of this is before I need to say anything other than confirm my name and address and say not guilty.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff