Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
@janesmith. I can't quite fathom your ongoing beef with Milkround. He has, IMO, conducted himself well, especially in the face of a reasonable amount of hostility and suspicion early on. Saying he doesn't like authority doesn't wash. How many of us would be happy with their partner being grabbed, being on the end of homophobic slurs and being pushed about. I wouldn't put up with it either.
Are you the security guard perchance?
Are you the security guard perchance?
Interesting case in New Zealand:
[1] Mr Wright, who some years ago was a partner in an Auckland law firm but
who has fallen on hard times, was a passenger in the back seat of a vehicle when he
was asked by the police to provide identification. Knowing the police had no lawful
right, Mr Wright refused. He did so in an odd and confrontational manner. He was
handcuffed and subjected to a pat-down search on the footpath on Karangahape
Road; taken to the Auckland Central Police Station; charged and locked in a cell for
two and a half hours. Some four months later, the police conceded there was no
lawful basis for the charge and it was dismissed
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf...
Police also arrested me as I refused to replace two heat pumps I had just repossessed - cost them 2,500 pounds in costs.
Hopefully justice will prevail with the OP.
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah, where as hours having to deal with Police, solicitors & court versus a few seconds or minutes with a security guard seems like an equitable exercise in freedom.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctimonioussanctimonioushttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
all to do with morality, everything to do with pragmatism.Unfortunately you are very critical of the op and much less so of the security guard.
That isn't pragmatism. That's having a dig.
HTH.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah, where as hours having to deal with Police, solicitors & court versus a few seconds or minutes with a security guard seems like an equitable exercise in freedom.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctimonioussanctimonioushttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
all to do with morality, everything to do with pragmatism.Unfortunately you are very critical of the op and much less so of the security guard.
That isn't pragmatism. That's having a dig.
HTH.
HTH.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah, where as hours having to deal with Police, solicitors & court versus a few seconds or minutes with a security guard seems like an equitable exercise in freedom.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctimonioussanctimonioushttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
all to do with morality, everything to do with pragmatism.Unfortunately you are very critical of the op and much less so of the security guard.
That isn't pragmatism. That's having a dig.
HTH.
The OP was either the victim of an entirely random, unprovoked homophobic attack and has, to add insult to injury, somehow bizarrely become the one being prosecuted or the OP reacted to a simple request by the SG in such a way that the whole thing escalated. Observing that the reaction in the latter case was not pragmatic is not having a dig.
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah, where as hours having to deal with Police, solicitors & court versus a few seconds or minutes with a security guard seems like an equitable exercise in freedom.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctimonioussanctimonioushttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
all to do with morality, everything to do with pragmatism.Unfortunately you are very critical of the op and much less so of the security guard.
That isn't pragmatism. That's having a dig.
HTH.
HTH.
He has freely admitted that he would have done things differently given the opportunity/ the benefit of a time machine.
Ergo, your posts are sanctimonious and holier than thou.
The op has posted his version of events, his account of what the security said in his statement and CCTV footage.
There's always ( at least ) two sides to a story but I don't see many discrepancies in what the op said to begin with and what he posted later in order to support his account - is CCTV evidence.
Until the security guard makes an appearance on here I'll post based on the evidence currently available.
PS - I'm sure the SG would be ever so grateful for your words of wisdom.
Maybe you should email Tesco and ask them to distribute your advice throughout the network.
Just be sure to mention you're being pragmatic, there's a good chap.
Roman Rhodes said:
Well when the SG posts up his version of events everyone can criticise him too. At the moment all we have to go on is the OP's description of how he managed to end up being prosecuted even though he was the victim of an entirely random, unprovoked homophobic attack.
The OP was either the victim of an entirely random, unprovoked homophobic attack and has, to add insult to injury, somehow bizarrely become the one being prosecuted or the OP reacted to a simple request by the SG in such a way that the whole thing escalated. Observing that the reaction in the latter case was not pragmatic is not having a dig.
You need your head testing.The OP was either the victim of an entirely random, unprovoked homophobic attack and has, to add insult to injury, somehow bizarrely become the one being prosecuted or the OP reacted to a simple request by the SG in such a way that the whole thing escalated. Observing that the reaction in the latter case was not pragmatic is not having a dig.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah, where as hours having to deal with Police, solicitors & court versus a few seconds or minutes with a security guard seems like an equitable exercise in freedom.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctimonioussanctimonioushttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
all to do with morality, everything to do with pragmatism.Unfortunately you are very critical of the op and much less so of the security guard.
That isn't pragmatism. That's having a dig.
HTH.
HTH.
He has freely admitted that he would have done things differently given the opportunity/ the benefit of a time machine.
Ergo, your posts are sanctimonious and holier than thou.
The op has posted his version of events, his account of what the security said in his statement and CCTV footage.
There's always ( at least ) two sides to a story but I don't see many discrepancies in what the op said to begin with and what he posted later in order to support his account - is CCTV evidence.
Until the security guard makes an appearance on here I'll post based on the evidence currently available.
PS - I'm sure the SG would be ever so grateful for your words of wisdom.
Maybe you should email Tesco and ask them to distribute your advice throughout the network.
Just be sure to mention you're being pragmatic, there's a good chap.
GTH
vonhosen said:
If the OP wouldn't do the same again (or anybody else has thought a little about how they would react in such a situation) then my advice has been of use.
GTH
Give yourself a pat on the back whilst simultaneously shaking your own hand.GTH
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
If the OP wouldn't do the same again (or anybody else has thought a little about how they would react in such a situation) then my advice has been of use.
GTH
Give yourself a pat on the back whilst simultaneously shaking your own hand.GTH
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
If the OP wouldn't do the same again (or anybody else has thought a little about how they would react in such a situation) then my advice has been of use.
GTH
Give yourself a pat on the back whilst simultaneously shaking your own hand.GTH
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
Never mind. Give it time.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
If the OP wouldn't do the same again (or anybody else has thought a little about how they would react in such a situation) then my advice has been of use.
GTH
Give yourself a pat on the back whilst simultaneously shaking your own hand.GTH
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
Never mind. Give it time.
You keep arguing the toss with everyone over a load of theoretical nonsense & I'll stick to the practical real world realities.
vonhosen said:
Yeah whatever.
You keep arguing the toss with everyone over a load of theoretical nonsense & I'll stick to the practical real world realities.
Theoretical nonsense ?You keep arguing the toss with everyone over a load of theoretical nonsense & I'll stick to the practical real world realities.
That's quality coming from you
You're the one preaching to the op about what he should have done - not what actually happened (according to the op).
The "practical, real world reality" is that the op has found himself with a pending court case and, potentially, a criminal record.
He doesn't need some sanctimonious know it all telling him what he should have done.
Anything else you'd like to add about the practicalities of the situation the op now finds himself in ?
Red 4 said:
Theoretical nonsense ?
That's quality coming from you
You're the one preaching to the op about what he should have done - not what actually happened (according to the op).
The "practical, real world reality" is that the op has found himself with a pending court case and, potentially, a criminal record.
He doesn't need some sanctimonious know it all telling him what he should have done.
Anything else you'd like to add about the practicalities of the situation the op now finds himself in ?
Who knows what we'd do in the OP's shoes. I can say without doubt, if a SG manhandled S in front of me he'd be knocked out. Under pressure who knows how you'd react. That's quality coming from you
You're the one preaching to the op about what he should have done - not what actually happened (according to the op).
The "practical, real world reality" is that the op has found himself with a pending court case and, potentially, a criminal record.
He doesn't need some sanctimonious know it all telling him what he should have done.
Anything else you'd like to add about the practicalities of the situation the op now finds himself in ?
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Who knows what we'd do in the OP's shoes. I can say without doubt, if a SG manhandled S in front of me he'd be knocked out. Under pressure who knows how you'd react.
Quite.Alternatively, the SG might, one day, just pick on the wrong person.
Lots of nutters and plenty of scallywag kids about who would probably, it seems, know the law and what a security guard can and can't do better than him.
A security guard was stabbed at an Asda not a million miles away from me a couple of months ago.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 23 November 21:12
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah whatever.
You keep arguing the toss with everyone over a load of theoretical nonsense & I'll stick to the practical real world realities.
Theoretical nonsense ?You keep arguing the toss with everyone over a load of theoretical nonsense & I'll stick to the practical real world realities.
That's quality coming from you
You're the one preaching to the op about what he should have done - not what actually happened (according to the op).
The "practical, real world reality" is that the op has found himself with a pending court case and, potentially, a criminal record.
He doesn't need some sanctimonious know it all telling him what he should have done.
Anything else you'd like to add about the practicalities of the situation the op now finds himself in ?
The theoretical nonsense is you talking about the legalities of his situation now. Offering advice on what the Police should/shouldn't be doing & what he should/shouldn't be doing when you only have heard one side of the argument is daft, whether you are capable fo seeing that or not.
Where as I'm dealing with the reality of the situation he got himself in, a situation that I don't need to have to have heard the other side because it can be based on the OP's account alone.
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Yeah whatever.
You keep arguing the toss with everyone over a load of theoretical nonsense & I'll stick to the practical real world realities.
Theoretical nonsense ?You keep arguing the toss with everyone over a load of theoretical nonsense & I'll stick to the practical real world realities.
That's quality coming from you
You're the one preaching to the op about what he should have done - not what actually happened (according to the op).
The "practical, real world reality" is that the op has found himself with a pending court case and, potentially, a criminal record.
He doesn't need some sanctimonious know it all telling him what he should have done.
Anything else you'd like to add about the practicalities of the situation the op now finds himself in ?
The theoretical nonsense is you talking about the legalities of his situation now. Offering advice on what the Police should/shouldn't be doing & what he should/shouldn't be doing when you only have heard one side of the argument is daft, whether you are capable fo seeing that or not.
Where as I'm dealing with the reality of the situation he got himself in, a situation that I don't need to have to have heard the other side because it can be based on the OP's account alone.
This is where being aware at all times and knowing what is threat and non-threat is vital.
You can then deploy relevant actions, that can incapacitate the attacker, maybe a punch to the throat, kabutan or knuckle duster, when your civil liabilities are threatened.
No jumped up minimum wage Stasi should put you in that position in the first place.
Unagi teaches you this.
You can then deploy relevant actions, that can incapacitate the attacker, maybe a punch to the throat, kabutan or knuckle duster, when your civil liabilities are threatened.
No jumped up minimum wage Stasi should put you in that position in the first place.
Unagi teaches you this.
vonhosen said:
The theoretical nonsense is you talking about the legalities of his situation now. Offering advice on what the Police should/shouldn't be doing & what he should/shouldn't be doing when you only have heard one side of the argument is daft, whether you are capable fo seeing that or not.
Where as I'm dealing with the reality of the situation he got himself in, a situation that I don't need to have to have heard the other side because it can be based on the OP's account alone.
I've made it abundantly clear throughout the thread that any advice/ comments I've made are with the caveat that is based solely on what the op has said.
If the op is telling the truth (which I think he is in the main) then my advice/ comments stand.
If he isn't then he will know which advice/ comments to ignore.
It's not difficult really.
You're not actually dealing with anything, von.
ETA
Play nicely now.
Edited by Big Al. on Saturday 23 November 22:35
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff