Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Red 4 said:
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.
janesmith1950 said:
have read them. The point remains. If the OP wishes to use a defence of self defence he has to overcome the prosecution allegation that the use of force was either unnecessary and/ or excessive.
The security guard is a witness (I presume) and not on trial. He does not have to justify why he was doing what he was doing.
Put it another way.
The SG could have been acting maliciously and have attempted to apprehend the OP because he knows him and doesn't like him. Totally outwith any employed or civilian 'powers'. If the OP then assaults the SG because he's annoyed by his actions, it's still perfectly possible he could be found guilty of assault, should the court find it was a disproportionate response.
My understanding of the law and this thread is that the OP relies on self defence. To paraphrase, the court must be persuaded the he believed in that moment he was in immediate danger and then that his response to that belief was proportionate.
You said the SG does not have to justify himself. I think you are wrong.The security guard is a witness (I presume) and not on trial. He does not have to justify why he was doing what he was doing.
Put it another way.
The SG could have been acting maliciously and have attempted to apprehend the OP because he knows him and doesn't like him. Totally outwith any employed or civilian 'powers'. If the OP then assaults the SG because he's annoyed by his actions, it's still perfectly possible he could be found guilty of assault, should the court find it was a disproportionate response.
My understanding of the law and this thread is that the OP relies on self defence. To paraphrase, the court must be persuaded the he believed in that moment he was in immediate danger and then that his response to that belief was proportionate.
Edited by janesmith1950 on Friday 22 November 18:18
The OP will go to court and pead not guilty.
The prosecution then have to prove their case.The OP need say nothing.
The prosecution go first.
So the prosecution will call the SG to give his evidence in chief. The SG will have to explain without being led what happened.
The SG will then be cross examined by the OP's solicitor. During that cross examination the SG will have to justify his behaviour and explain why he arrested the OP and satisfy the criteria as per PACE 1984 sec 24b.
The SG will also have to satisfy the court that he carried out the correct process of carrying out the arrest. The court will have to decide if "Come with Me" satisfies the legal requirements of properly informing the OP he was being placed under arrest. Again the SG his having to justify is behaviour AND if it is found not to be satifactory, the court could very well dismiss the case as 'No case to answer' As the arrest was unlawful.
End of case and the OP has only said two words.
In which case the defendant does not have to justify himself in any way.
The SG DOES have to jusify his behaviour in order for there to be a properly founded case to answer.
In the above the OP's solicitor will put to the court that there is no case to answer as the SG carried out an unlawful arrest because he was unable to jusify his behaviour as per PACE84 sec 24b. The OP's solicitor can Quote R v Self as case law to demonstrate that there must be a lawfull arrest for there to be any case to answer.
Edited by kestral on Sunday 24th November 00:00
Just a random thought on this.
I know the supermarket will be taking the line they won't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, and that it's with the police now.
But what if he made clear intentions to take out a civil suit, a notice before action type thing. That would presumably land on the desk of some real solicitors for the supermarket who potentially could look into all the evidence and might say oh god a terrible mistake has been made here, we should try and minimise the damage being done and try and get the police / CPS to drop it asap.
Are there rules that say you shouldn't do that or that it would be bad to?
Is it really 100% down to police, I'm sure I probably is by now but what about earlier on.
I know the supermarket will be taking the line they won't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, and that it's with the police now.
But what if he made clear intentions to take out a civil suit, a notice before action type thing. That would presumably land on the desk of some real solicitors for the supermarket who potentially could look into all the evidence and might say oh god a terrible mistake has been made here, we should try and minimise the damage being done and try and get the police / CPS to drop it asap.
Are there rules that say you shouldn't do that or that it would be bad to?
Is it really 100% down to police, I'm sure I probably is by now but what about earlier on.
kestral said:
You said the SG does not have to justify himself. I think you are wrong.
The OP will go to court and pead not guilty.
The prosecution then have to prove their case.The OP need say nothing.
The prosecution go first.
So the prosecution will call the SG to give his evidence in chief. The SG will have to explain without being led what happened.
The SG will then be cross examined by the OP's solicitor. During that cross examination the SG will have to justify his behaviour and explain why he arrested the OP and satisfy the criteria as per PACE 1984 sec 24b.
The SG will also have to satisfy the court that he carried out the correct process of carrying out the arrest. The court will have to decide if "Come with Me" satisfies the legal requirements of properly informing the OP he was being placed under arrest. Again the SG his having to justify is behaviour AND if it is found not to be satifactory, the court could very well dismiss the case as 'No case to answer' As the arrest was unlawful.
End of case and the OP has only said two words.
In which case the defendant does not have to justify himself in any way.
The SG DOES have to jusify his behaviour in order for there to be a properly founded case to answer.
In the above the OP's solicitor will put to the court that there is no case to answer as the SG carried out an unlawful arrest because he was unable to jusify his behaviour as per PACE84 sec 24b. The OP's solicitor can Quote R v Self as case law to demonstrate that there must be a lawfull arrest for there to be any case to answer.
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. The OP will go to court and pead not guilty.
The prosecution then have to prove their case.The OP need say nothing.
The prosecution go first.
So the prosecution will call the SG to give his evidence in chief. The SG will have to explain without being led what happened.
The SG will then be cross examined by the OP's solicitor. During that cross examination the SG will have to justify his behaviour and explain why he arrested the OP and satisfy the criteria as per PACE 1984 sec 24b.
The SG will also have to satisfy the court that he carried out the correct process of carrying out the arrest. The court will have to decide if "Come with Me" satisfies the legal requirements of properly informing the OP he was being placed under arrest. Again the SG his having to justify is behaviour AND if it is found not to be satifactory, the court could very well dismiss the case as 'No case to answer' As the arrest was unlawful.
End of case and the OP has only said two words.
In which case the defendant does not have to justify himself in any way.
The SG DOES have to jusify his behaviour in order for there to be a properly founded case to answer.
In the above the OP's solicitor will put to the court that there is no case to answer as the SG carried out an unlawful arrest because he was unable to jusify his behaviour as per PACE84 sec 24b. The OP's solicitor can Quote R v Self as case law to demonstrate that there must be a lawfull arrest for there to be any case to answer.
Edited by kestral on Sunday 24th November 00:00
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".
Red 4 said:
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.
You seem obsessive about the whole incident and have long lost all touch with reality!
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.
Roman Rhodes said:
Red 4 said:
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.
You seem obsessive about the whole incident and have long lost all touch with reality!
I'm not the one who is obsessed with the homophobic insults/ attack angle.
It isn't me who has lost all touch with reality.
My point still stands. You need your head testing.
The op has a good understanding of the law/ his available defences.
Why constantly bring up homophobia ? Very odd.
flashbang said:
My money is on CPS dropping the case due to lack of evidence.
Place your bets now! Bonzaiiiiiiiii!
Place your bets now! Bonzaiiiiiiiii!
V1nce Fox said:
Butter Face said:
V1nce Fox said:
fiver on OP to walk free.
I'll take the bet 
for charidee of course, some kind of community order/public service I reckon.pavarotti1980 said:
Greendubber said:
Or the fully unedited evidential version of the CCTV.
of courseGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff