Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[Mandalore]

Thesprucegoose 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.

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.

Yes, that is how I would expect it does happened, when the person is an SL.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Picking up on a comment from above, everyone should have a serious attitude problem to people in authority.

Depends what you mean by that because there are many many stories on PH of failing the attitude test coming back to bite you in the arse.

I'm all for an easy life me; if I have the chance to inflame a situation with an attitude, or calm it by being agreeable, I'll choose the latter every time.

Never mistake my compliance for weakness

[walm]

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.

Sure - but a. you know your rights (MoPs generally don't) and b. it really was a reasonable request, despite the way it was asked (which the OP admits).

[anonymous-user]

walm said:

Sure - but a. you know your rights (MoPs generally don't) and b. it really was a reasonable request, despite the way it was asked (which the OP admits).

I think he is trolling, because no intelligent person would give advise in this context. It really makes no sense in the real world over such a trivial matter.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 11th December 14:26

[Mandalore]

Thesprucegoose said:

walm said:

Sure - but a. you know your rights (MoPs generally don't) and b. it really was a reasonable request, despite the way it was asked (which the OP admits).

i think he is trolling, becuase no intelligent person would advise this to this context, as it really makes no sense in the real world over such a trivial matter.

Maybe he is more clever than we thought and that sort of thinking keeps him in business when people go seriously over the top??

[Craig W]

The title of this thread promised so much, but what a let down.

I got as far as 'civil liberties' and could guess what the next 160 pages would be.

[anonymous-user]

Mandalore, GFYS. I am not a criminal lawyer. It is possible to hold opinions that have no bearing on the job that you do, and in respect of which you have no financial interest. Many on PH struggle with these concepts.

[Red 4]

Thesprucegoose said:

walm said:

Sure - but a. you know your rights (MoPs generally don't) and b. it really was a reasonable request, despite the way it was asked (which the OP admits).

i think he is trolling, becuase no intelligent person would advise this to this context, as it really makes no sense in the real world over such a trivial matter.

I don't think Breadvan72 is trolling.
He is saying that you should not let those in a position of authority abuse your rights.
It is a very sensible approach. Everyone has rights. Everyone is subject to the law.
If you don't know your rights and are happy to be subject to an abuse of your rights then that is your choice.
It is unnecessary to accuse him of trolling though.

[anonymous-user]

As for trolling, I am quite serious when I say that citizens should be reasonably questioning of and reasonably resistant to those asserting authority. The pro authoritarian politics of many who post in PH go along with a readiness to cow tow to authority. The police concept of the attitude test is a troubling sign of the move from a police service to a police force. The OP was, however, still rather silly.

[anonymous-user]

This is topical beyond the thread when we have an election in which the two main leaders are anti democratic authoritarians. But that for NPE.

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

I don't think Breadvan72 is trolling.
He is saying that you should not let those in a position of authority abuse your rights.
It is a very sensible approach. Everyone has rights. Everyone is subject to the law.
If you don't know your rights and are happy to be subject to an abuse of your rights then that is your choice.
It is unnecessary to accuse him of trolling though.

yes, but where in this in the thread, you know the context that is relevant.

I could understand if the OP was a witness against the SG. But from what i've seen, the SG wasn't sacked, wasn't prosecuted for false imprisonment, using excessive force etc.

So in the context, the SG was an authoritarian because he asked the OP for a receipt, and that is a ridicoulous statement.

Also if he is so sure of the SG wrongful actions why not suggest suing in civil court?

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 11th December 14:42

[milkround]

Thesprucegoose said:

yes, but where in this in the thread, you know the context that is relevant.

I could understand if the OP was a witness against the SG. But from what i've seen, the SG wasn't sacked, wasn't prosecuted for false imprisonment, using excessive force etc.

So in the context, the SG was an authoritarian because he asked the OP for a receipt, and that is a ridicoulous statement.

The SG admitted under oath he never called the Police. He was not going to call the Police. They only found out because some officers came in to buy some food and were told about it from another member of staff. I'd imagine if he genuinely thought he'd done nothing wrong and was punched whilst trying to stop a shoplifter who then got away he might have called the Police... He said in his statement he never saw a receipt. Under oath he accepted he did see one but wasn't able to check what it said. So presumably he would think that I was not only a thug who attacked him but someone who got away.

Or... he realised he made a mistake. And did what he could to minimise that. He said under oath he never touched me. He then said he was trying to snatch things from my hands. Then said it might look like he pushed me as I walked into his hands (I'm not making this up). He also said he never kicked me. His own witness said he 'raised his leg towards me' and the CCTV shows him clearly kicking me.

My opinion after listening to the guy... Was that he isn't a bad person. I think he has made a mistake and was worried about losing his job. I think he knows he was wrong. I think he wasn't going to call the Police as he didn't want to draw attention to it. And I think he knows he would lose his job if he accepted what really happened. But that's just my opinion.

[Red 4]

Thesprucegoose said:

yes, but where in this in the thread, you know the context that is relevant.

I could understand if the OP was a witness against the SG. But from what i've seen, the SG wasn't sacked, wasn't prosecuted for false imprisonment, using excessive force etc.

So in the context, the SG was an authoritarian because he asked the OP for a receipt, and that is a ridicoulous statement.

The SG has no more powers than an ordinary citizen. In that context you are correct.
However, he was doing a job that, apparently, he thought enabled him to stop the op and ask for a receipt.
In the eyes of the law the SG has no more right to ask for a receipt than you or I.
In that context - he was acting as an authoritarian by "demanding" to see a receipt.

[milkround]

Breadvan72 said:

As for counsel, my friend Gurprit has now given up crime and is too expensive for the case anyway. I will ask a criminal silk whom I know to recommend a sprog from her Chambers. Jacob Gifford Head remains a good choice and is not too expensive.

Thanks BV.

I have tried emailing you but you don't accept messages. If your silk mate does have any names please do contact me and let me know. I'm not sure if I'll need a solicitor to go through these people - ideally I'd prefer to instruct directly as I was not so impressed with the representation I got. But that is a different story. Cheers for taking the time to try and help.

[Four Litre]

Breadvan72 said:

As for trolling, I am quite serious when I say that citizens should be reasonably questioning of and reasonably resistant to those asserting authority. The pro authoritarian politics of many who post in PH go along with a readiness to cow tow to authority. The police concept of the attitude test is a troubling sign of the move from a police service to a police force. The OP was, however, still rather silly.

Fully agree. Years back it was wrong to question somebody viewed in a position of "Authority" That approach hasn't always worked out well for everyone.

I would think it right to question anyone in a position or deemed position of any Authority. Number one being a doctor! My mum (very old school) actually gets anxious about speaking to a doctor, as "they know best" In my bitter experience only a small number do.

My old boss is a lawyer by trade and is very highly regarded in London. He explained to me his rule of thumb in that out of all the lawyers hes worked with only 10% were actually any good. the rest were total or near enough crap. His recommendation was to extend that rule across Teachers, Doctors, Police etc and you will be about right!!! Actually kind of works!

And as we know a security guard is certainly not a position of authority, most have basic grasp of language. I understand the OPs position but in retrospect was it worth it, when it could of taken 10 seconds to avoid all of this, maybe not!

Anyway - best of luck OP, fingers crossed you get a good result.

[vonhosen]

Four Litre said:

Breadvan72 said:

As for trolling, I am quite serious when I say that citizens should be reasonably questioning of and reasonably resistant to those asserting authority. The pro authoritarian politics of many who post in PH go along with a readiness to cow tow to authority. The police concept of the attitude test is a troubling sign of the move from a police service to a police force. The OP was, however, still rather silly.

Fully agree. Years back it was wrong to question somebody viewed in a position of "Authority" That approach hasn't always worked out well for everyone.

I would think it right to question anyone in a position or deemed position of any Authority. Number one being a doctor! My mum (very old school) actually gets anxious about speaking to a doctor, as "they know best" In my bitter experience only a small number do.

My old boss is a lawyer by trade and is very highly regarded in London. He explained to me his rule of thumb in that out of all the lawyers hes worked with only 10% were actually any good. the rest were total or near enough crap. His recommendation was to extend that rule across Teachers, Doctors, Police etc and you will be about right!!! Actually kind of works!

And as we know a security guard is certainly not a position of authority, most have basic grasp of language. I understand the OPs position but in retrospect was it worth it, when it could of taken 10 seconds to avoid all of this, maybe not!

Anyway - best of luck OP, fingers crossed you get a good result.

Of course you could always secure the best outcome in the moment & deal with over-stepping of authority post event in order to get a WIN WIN, rather than blow yourself up on a matter of principle.

Oh & it used to be a Police force, it's now a service.

[pavarotti1980]

Forgetting about the OP for one second. What is this utter st at the top of the page suddenly (I know not everyone will get the same pop-up banner) saying to vote Conservative?

[The Mad Monk]

Piginapoke said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

Except there's zero evidence he was assaulted or subjected to homophobic abuse.

Did we ever get to the bottom of the homophobic abuse?

The homophobic abuse is rather like the relationship between Uncle Bryn and the other bloke in 'Gavin and Stacey'. Look - we just don't talk about it. OK?

[anonymous-user]

Yet all this you are still found guilty, which means that its relevance isn't really that important to your conviction. Anyway I'm not going to kick a man whose down, i think you need advice off here and decide best outcome for you as this thread can end up fueling the fire, which is not always best.

[The Mad Monk]

milkround said:

Thanks BV.

I have tried emailing you but you don't accept messages. If your silk mate does have any names please do contact me and let me know. I'm not sure if I'll need a solicitor to go through these people - ideally I'd prefer to instruct directly as I was not so impressed with the representation I got. But that is a different story. Cheers for taking the time to try and help.

So, you are giving serious consideration to appealing against your conviction and sentence?

"Do you really think that is wise".