Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
I've found out that I'm guilty of shoplifting! What should I do?
I went to a store called Decathlon. I "bought" several items. Some rather fetching Lycra tights for winter cycling, a gear cassette for my mountain bike, and some brake pads for my "gravel bike". The store operates entirely by RFID price stickers, not bar codes. The instruction at the (unmanned) tills is to put your items into a great big basket thing, which evidently "reads" the RFID chip in the price label. It may also "wipe" the label to allow goods to be taken out of the door without the alarm going off, I'm not sure how clever the tech is.
Anyway. That was a week and a half ago. Fast forward to today and I find that I've bought one-piece brake pads when what I needed were slide-in "refills" for the pad carriers already fitted to the bike. They're all still packaged and fit for re-sale so I dig out the receipt and I've found that the till system has only "read" and charged me for one item, not it's identical twin. It's not much in monetary terms, just £2.99. I'd spend more on bus fare to go back and pay for them (like an honest chap should). But it shows how easy it is to accidentally take away an item without paying for it. And it also demonstrates why it is folly for stores to automate the check-out process entirely, as I was using the system as instructed, and in good faith.
I also wonder if I've inadvertently done this before, too. Many things for bicycles are bought in pairs. Brake pads, tyres, tubes, etc. Have I done this before without knowing it? I could be a serial shoplifter and not know it. I'm afraid to answer the door now, for fear of being arrested!
Oh, and this is my first visit to this thread in ages, so I'm not aware of how things turned out for the OP. It was like wading through treacle trying to read this thread at times, so I abandoned it, and only came back today because I saw Breadvan72 as the "last poster" and thought there might be something sensible to read for a change.
I'm really struggling to understand all the love and sympathy being shown to the OP now he's lost his case.
This entire drama and prosecution was originally started by his complete over-reaction to a request to verify that he had paid for his shopping, and a serious attitude problem towards people in authority.
Rather than calmly dealing with the situation, and not taking it as a personal attack, he flew off the handle (in his first post he admitted that the "red mist" had come down, and that he was no longer thinking straight at the time), raced out of the shop despite being asked/told/ordered not to leave (making himself look guilty in the process), got into a altercation in the car park with the security guard, and then started throwing all manner of accusations around about what actually happened (in regards to how he ended up on the floor and what the security guard had said).
Had he simply stayed calm, gone with the security guard to the office, and sorted the whole situation in a relaxed manner, knowing he had done nothing wrong, chances are the shop would have apologised to him, and he wouldn't now have a criminal record.
He handled the whole situation in a ridiculous manner, and was the creator of his own downfall (literally, in the car park!) - I for one can't feel any sympathy for him.
This entire drama and prosecution was originally started by his complete over-reaction to a request to verify that he had paid for his shopping, and a serious attitude problem towards people in authority.
Rather than calmly dealing with the situation, and not taking it as a personal attack, he flew off the handle (in his first post he admitted that the "red mist" had come down, and that he was no longer thinking straight at the time), raced out of the shop despite being asked/told/ordered not to leave (making himself look guilty in the process), got into a altercation in the car park with the security guard, and then started throwing all manner of accusations around about what actually happened (in regards to how he ended up on the floor and what the security guard had said).
Had he simply stayed calm, gone with the security guard to the office, and sorted the whole situation in a relaxed manner, knowing he had done nothing wrong, chances are the shop would have apologised to him, and he wouldn't now have a criminal record.
He handled the whole situation in a ridiculous manner, and was the creator of his own downfall (literally, in the car park!) - I for one can't feel any sympathy for him.
Red 4 said:
I think the issue, from the op's perspective, was the way in which he was asked to provide proof of purchase.
A demand rather than a request followed by a demand to accompany the SG elsewhere in the store ( presumably to the security room).
I think the issue is more MR's reaction to being asked, regarding it as an affront to his civil liberties and not wanting to be seen to be backing down.A demand rather than a request followed by a demand to accompany the SG elsewhere in the store ( presumably to the security room).
Madness when all it would have taken was a 2 minute conversation and the showing of a receipt.
This thread is a testament to a triumph of people thinking they "know my rights" over plain common sense.
4rephill said:
I'm really struggling to understand all the love and sympathy being shown to the OP now he's lost his case.
This entire drama and prosecution was originally started by his complete over-reaction to a request to verify that he had paid for his shopping, and a serious attitude problem towards people in authority.
Rather than calmly dealing with the situation, and not taking it as a personal attack, he flew off the handle (in his first post he admitted that the "red mist" had come down, and that he was no longer thinking straight at the time), raced out of the shop despite being asked/told/ordered not to leave (making himself look guilty in the process), got into a altercation in the car park with the security guard, and then started throwing all manner of accusations around about what actually happened (in regards to how he ended up on the floor and what the security guard had said).
Had he simply stayed calm, gone with the security guard to the office, and sorted the whole situation in a relaxed manner, knowing he had done nothing wrong, chances are the shop would have apologised to him, and he wouldn't now have a criminal record.
He handled the whole situation in a ridiculous manner, and was the creator of his own downfall (literally, in the car park!) - I for one can't feel any sympathy for him.
This entire drama and prosecution was originally started by his complete over-reaction to a request to verify that he had paid for his shopping, and a serious attitude problem towards people in authority.
Rather than calmly dealing with the situation, and not taking it as a personal attack, he flew off the handle (in his first post he admitted that the "red mist" had come down, and that he was no longer thinking straight at the time), raced out of the shop despite being asked/told/ordered not to leave (making himself look guilty in the process), got into a altercation in the car park with the security guard, and then started throwing all manner of accusations around about what actually happened (in regards to how he ended up on the floor and what the security guard had said).
Had he simply stayed calm, gone with the security guard to the office, and sorted the whole situation in a relaxed manner, knowing he had done nothing wrong, chances are the shop would have apologised to him, and he wouldn't now have a criminal record.
He handled the whole situation in a ridiculous manner, and was the creator of his own downfall (literally, in the car park!) - I for one can't feel any sympathy for him.
To be fair the OP has been quite contrite in that he would not repeat his actions. It says more about someone if they can reflect on their actions as he has than to stand on a soapbox condemning him
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Wednesday 11th December 12:20
If you get a billy big b
ks SG then roll your eyes, still handle it the same way and call him a tt under your breath on the way back out. Maybe complain to the supermarket if you still feel aggrieved by the time you’ve reached your car.
The OP seems like a genuine, articulate person with some humility, but his initial reaction was so disproportionate and more importantly unhelpful and suspicious (when there was already suspicion) that I’m incredulous that he took it all the way to court. I really don’t understand it. Litigation is not enjoyable even if you think your case is watertight.
ks SG then roll your eyes, still handle it the same way and call him a tt under your breath on the way back out. Maybe complain to the supermarket if you still feel aggrieved by the time you’ve reached your car.The OP seems like a genuine, articulate person with some humility, but his initial reaction was so disproportionate and more importantly unhelpful and suspicious (when there was already suspicion) that I’m incredulous that he took it all the way to court. I really don’t understand it. Litigation is not enjoyable even if you think your case is watertight.
4rephill said:
This entire drama and prosecution was originally started by his complete over-reaction to a request to verify that he had paid for his shopping, and a serious attitude problem towards people in authority.
To be honest - I agree with you and I think 100% posting here do too, including the OP.The sympathy for me starts immediately after that point.
Sure he failed the attitude test.
BUT that doesn't mean a SG can assault you while throwing homophobic slurs at you.
Even when faced with a freeman-of-the-land type, SGs should be behaving like civilised members of society. That's where the OP garners sympathy.
walm said:
To be honest - I agree with you and I think 100% posting here do too, including the OP.
The sympathy for me starts immediately after that point.
Sure he failed the attitude test.
BUT that doesn't mean a SG can assault you while throwing homophobic slurs at you.
Even when faced with a freeman-of-the-land type, SGs should be behaving like civilised members of society. That's where the OP garners sympathy.
Except there's zero evidence he was assaulted or subjected to homophobic abuse. The CCTV shows a scuffle breaking out after a customer suspected of stealing goods fled the supermarket. Madness I know, these days you can't even run away from security guards without them trying to stop you! The ease with which people in this thread have bought into Milkround's story without question is quite shocking to me.The sympathy for me starts immediately after that point.
Sure he failed the attitude test.
BUT that doesn't mean a SG can assault you while throwing homophobic slurs at you.
Even when faced with a freeman-of-the-land type, SGs should be behaving like civilised members of society. That's where the OP garners sympathy.
I think the op has zero chance of winning an appeal.
Just reread the opening post and it is clear that the SG did nothing wrong. Was the SG sacked, prosecuted, no.
Did the independent witness back up the SG. Yes.
Does the CCTV show the op resisting an arrest. Yes.
Did the op punch the SG. Yes. Was he offered a simple resolution that would have resolved this, yes.
But did he decided he was innocent of what, I don't know, so went ahead with the court case because he thought he was right, when in law he has now been proved guilty.
The SG did his duties, probably knows the police by name as I'm sure this isn't the first dealings with them, did he have a an attitude, maybe, but that is not a criminal matter.
If really is a car crash of a thread, and I've said if before the Op really needs to assess how he interacts with people.
Just reread the opening post and it is clear that the SG did nothing wrong. Was the SG sacked, prosecuted, no.
Did the independent witness back up the SG. Yes.
Does the CCTV show the op resisting an arrest. Yes.
Did the op punch the SG. Yes. Was he offered a simple resolution that would have resolved this, yes.
But did he decided he was innocent of what, I don't know, so went ahead with the court case because he thought he was right, when in law he has now been proved guilty.
The SG did his duties, probably knows the police by name as I'm sure this isn't the first dealings with them, did he have a an attitude, maybe, but that is not a criminal matter.
If really is a car crash of a thread, and I've said if before the Op really needs to assess how he interacts with people.
I don’t think the SG is 100% blameless, but faced with someone walking off and being evasive when you already suspect them of shoplifting, it’s somewhat understandable that he thought he was dealing with a shoplifter at that point, and his alert level was elevated so to speak. SGs don’t chase people around car parks unless they think that person is a thief.
OP clearly felt (and explicitly says) that for him it was about his civil rights (?), but neglects to understand that the SG doesn’t know he paid until he sees the receipt. The only person that knew he’d paid was the OP. You can’t take offence at someone not having mind reading powers.
It’s a very strange escalation with no positive outcome.
I was stopped by the Police in the past whilst jogging home at night simply because they thought I looked suspicious. I spoke to them and it was resolved in about a minute. What I didn’t do scream “I haven’t been burgling but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let anyone insinuate that I have, even though I look suspicious af running around at 2am, and as a bonus I’m going to act just like a burglar would do by running off immediately”
OP clearly felt (and explicitly says) that for him it was about his civil rights (?), but neglects to understand that the SG doesn’t know he paid until he sees the receipt. The only person that knew he’d paid was the OP. You can’t take offence at someone not having mind reading powers.
It’s a very strange escalation with no positive outcome.
I was stopped by the Police in the past whilst jogging home at night simply because they thought I looked suspicious. I spoke to them and it was resolved in about a minute. What I didn’t do scream “I haven’t been burgling but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let anyone insinuate that I have, even though I look suspicious af running around at 2am, and as a bonus I’m going to act just like a burglar would do by running off immediately”
Thesprucegoose said:
I think the op has zero chance of winning an appeal.
Just reread the opening post and it is clear that the SG did nothing wrong. Was the SG sacked, prosecuted, no.
Did the independent witness back up the SG. Yes.
Does the CCTV show the op resisting an arrest. Yes.
Did the op punch the SG. Yes. Was he offered a simple resolution that would have resolved this, yes.
But did he decided he was innocent of what, I don't know, so went ahead with the court case because he thought he was right, when in law he has now been proved guilty.
The SG did his duties, probably knows the police by name as I'm sure this isn't the first dealings with them, did he have a an attitude, maybe, but that is not a criminal matter.
If really is a car crash of a thread, and I've said if before the Op really needs to assess how he interacts with people.
What was he being arrested for? Just reread the opening post and it is clear that the SG did nothing wrong. Was the SG sacked, prosecuted, no.
Did the independent witness back up the SG. Yes.
Does the CCTV show the op resisting an arrest. Yes.
Did the op punch the SG. Yes. Was he offered a simple resolution that would have resolved this, yes.
But did he decided he was innocent of what, I don't know, so went ahead with the court case because he thought he was right, when in law he has now been proved guilty.
The SG did his duties, probably knows the police by name as I'm sure this isn't the first dealings with them, did he have a an attitude, maybe, but that is not a criminal matter.
If really is a car crash of a thread, and I've said if before the Op really needs to assess how he interacts with people.
Thesprucegoose said:
An arrest to ascertain if he was a theif. Isn't that obvious or else what is the point of SGs?
Try again. SG who detain/arrest using PACE s.24a have to have reasonable grounds. Saw someone put something in bag, walk through till without paying etc.What grounds did the SG have? OP didnt have a receipt. Remember the shop give choice of not having receipt therefore absence of a receipt does not provide any reasonable grounds
RumbleOfThunder said:
Except there's zero evidence he was assaulted or subjected to homophobic abuse. The CCTV shows a scuffle breaking out after a customer suspected of stealing goods fled the supermarket. Madness I know, these days you can't even run away from security guards without them trying to stop you! The ease with which people in this thread have bought into Milkround's story without question is quite shocking to me.
It's called giving people the benefit of the doubt.Or taking their word.
Something that comes naturally in society and more specifically in a community of like-minded individuals, willing to offer advice and support for free on a range of subjects, sometimes known as a forum.
If you think he is making it up then why bother contributing to the thread?
Scepticism can be healthy but shouldn't be the default position.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff