Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Monkeylegend said:
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.
I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
Thesprucegoose said:
Just reread the opening post and it is clear that the SG did nothing wrong.
milkround said:
I say lets call the police - he says no and that he is security and I'll do what he says. After I'm knocked to the floor I allegedly get up and punch him in the face. I remember pushing him back but can't remember punching. I'd also been kicked by him. The man totally lost his control. He kept calling me homophobic names so I presume he thought I was gay. I genuinely think he was attacking me because he thought I was homosexual thinking about it.
At this point I get to my car - but he then grabs hold of my partner. She actually sees a receipt which in the commotion is half ripped. I drive up and he lets her go.
Yeah - nothing wrong there. At this point I get to my car - but he then grabs hold of my partner. She actually sees a receipt which in the commotion is half ripped. I drive up and he lets her go.
garyhun said:
Agreed Monkeylegend.
I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
I'm not second-guessing anything. The op said the security guard demanded to see his receipt and demanded that the op "came with him". See the opening post.I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
In the absence of anything to the contrary that is not second-guessing. It is an observation based on the op's account and how he felt at the time.
Things went pear shaped from there.
Ask yourself who is the professional here ? There are ways of dealing with people.
It is good practice and common sense to speak softly to begin with.
If that doesn't work you can revert to other methods - IF you have grounds and powers to deal with the matter.
If not - back down. Walk away. Let it go. Don't push it. It (usually) does not end well if you don't.
pavarotti1980 said:
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
The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
Red 4 said:
garyhun said:
Agreed Monkeylegend.
I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
I'm not second-guessing anything. The op said the security guard demanded to see his receipt and demanded that the op "came with him". See the opening post.I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
In the absence of anything to the contrary that is not second-guessing. It is an observation based on the op's account and how he felt at the time.
Things went pear shaped from there.
Ask yourself who is the professional here ? There are ways of dealing with people.
It is good practice and common sense to speak softly to begin with.
If that doesn't work you can revert to other methods - IF you have grounds and powers to deal with the matter.
If not - back down. Walk away. Let it go. Don't push it. It (usually) does not end well if you don't.
OP has admitted he handled it badly, he mentions "red mist" for example and now has a conviction for his troubles.
I know I'll never get into such a situation because I always act calm when I know I've nothing to hide, irrespective of whether the other person requests or demands something.
Red 4 said:
I'm not second-guessing anything. The op said the security guard demanded to see his receipt and demanded that the op "came with him". See the opening post.
In the absence of anything to the contrary that is not second-guessing. It is an observation based on the op's account and how he felt at the time.
Things went pear shaped from there.
Ask yourself who is the professional here ? There are ways of dealing with people.
It is good practice and common sense to speak softly to begin with.
If that doesn't work you can revert to other methods - IF you have grounds and powers to deal with the matter.
If not - back down. Walk away. Let it go. Don't push it. It (usually) does not end well if you don't.
Maybe if something had been developed to help in such circumstancesIn the absence of anything to the contrary that is not second-guessing. It is an observation based on the op's account and how he felt at the time.
Things went pear shaped from there.
Ask yourself who is the professional here ? There are ways of dealing with people.
It is good practice and common sense to speak softly to begin with.
If that doesn't work you can revert to other methods - IF you have grounds and powers to deal with the matter.
If not - back down. Walk away. Let it go. Don't push it. It (usually) does not end well if you don't.
garyhun said:
Monkeylegend said:
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.
I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
The whole thing was avoidable, and the OP himself has agreed that in hindsight he wouldn't do the same thing.
I actually also feel sorry for the Op, not simply because he lost, but because soo many people egged him on for their own gratification.
Mandalore said:
Spruce is right.
The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
So he knows what one looks like? He didnt do a very good here did he The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
i think what you have just described is concious prejudice & discrimination
pavarotti1980 said:
Mandalore said:
Spruce is right.
The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
So he knows what one looks like? He didnt do a very good here did he The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
i think what you have just described is concious prejudice & discrimination
That must have really hurt.
pavarotti1980 said:
Mandalore said:
Spruce is right.
The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
So he knows what one looks like? He didnt do a very good here did he The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
i think what you have just described is concious prejudice & discrimination
Picking up on a comment from above, everyone should have a serious attitude problem to people in authority. We are citizens, not subjects. A supermarket security guard has no authority. The OP mishandled the situation, but I have some sympathy for his adverse reaction to the original challenge. Being assertive of genuine civil liberties is not the same as being a FOTL t
t.
t.Mandalore said:
Clearly the only reason you are here is because the Op had the word car park.
That must have really hurt.
Eh?That must have really hurt.
garyhun said:
OP won't answer questions, does a runner .... if it looks like a shoplifter
Doesnt have to.Isnt a shoplifter and it would have been obvious if the SG had done his job. he would have observed the OP at self checkout and not made assumptions
garyhun said:
I know I'll never get into such a situation because I always act calm when I know I've nothing to hide, irrespective of whether the other person requests or demands something.
It's good to remain calm. However, how would you react to someone laying hands on you/ trying to twist your arm up your back if you had committed no offence ?garyhun said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Mandalore said:
Spruce is right.
The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
So he knows what one looks like? He didnt do a very good here did he The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
i think what you have just described is concious prejudice & discrimination
Like that makes sense.
Red 4 said:
garyhun said:
Agreed Monkeylegend.
I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
I'm not second-guessing anything. The op said the security guard demanded to see his receipt and demanded that the op "came with him". See the opening post.I cannot understand why a poster would try to second guess the difference between a request and a demand (none of us were there) and then blame that as the reason for all the issues when the OP has admitted he made a mistake in the way he dealt with all this.
In the absence of anything to the contrary that is not second-guessing. It is an observation based on the op's account and how he felt at the time.
Things went pear shaped from there.
Ask yourself who is the professional here ? There are ways of dealing with people.
It is good practice and common sense to speak softly to begin with.
If that doesn't work you can revert to other methods - IF you have grounds and powers to deal with the matter.
If not - back down. Walk away. Let it go. Don't push it. It (usually) does not end well if you don't.
When you have a rebellious/ pig headed approach to simple issues like, "Can I see your receipt " you can sometimes expect the issue to suddenly be blown out of all proportion as MR has found to his cost.
Maybe at least he will see the futility of his actions and use this experience to adjust the way he approaches similar situations in the future.
Some say though that leopards never change their spots so I would not be surprised if he goes to appeal, buoyed by posters on here who have nothing at stake but want to challenge the system using MR as their mouthpiece.
There are plenty on here who are very good at loading the gun and then commiserating when it all goes belly up.
Breadvan72 said:
Picking up on a comment from above, everyone should have a serious attitude problem to people in authority. We are citizens, not subjects. A supermarket security guard has no authority. The OP mishandled the situation, but I have some sympathy for his adverse reaction to the original challenge. Being assertive of genuine civil liberties is not the same as being a FOTL tt.
Aren't there three sides to every story though?t.Mandalore said:
Spruce is right.
The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
You missed the point, he asked for receipt. He didn't just grab the op, he performed his duties by saying have you a receipt, the op then did what he did. The SG job is then to work out if he is a shoplifter and he does that by arresting the op to ascertain, I don't understand how this can be seen any other way. The SG is employed to look for shoplifters and he does that through experience of knowing what a potential shoplifter looks like.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff