Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
MYOB said:
He was free to walk away after the scuffle.
So at the time of the scuffle he was not free to walk away. So as the law stands he was falsely imprisoned (loss of liberty without lawfull authority for any amount of time). An unlawful arrest is not a tort (civil wrong) it is in fact a false imprisonment that is the tort of what is called unlawful arrest.I think this term arrest is causing problems.
Graveworm said:
Yes and if I shout after someone who is running away, you are under arrest they have not escaped from lawful custody, despite me taking the decision they are not free to leave. There also has to be some element of removal of their right to liberty. Come with me in many circumstances, could easily be an attempt to arrest, if they do, they could easily argue wrongful arrest, but if they wonder off not so much. Also if the arrest really happens as soon as the decision is taken, there could almost never be an assault with intent to resist arrest as they would all already have been arrested.
You are making a hypothetical scenario up that has no bearing on the facts of this case. You need to look at the facts of this case not hypos that cause matters to go off at a tangent.Edited by kestral on Thursday 12th December 18:16
kestral said:
So at the time of the scuffle he was not free to walk away. So as the law stands he was falsely imprisoned (loss of liberty without lawfull authority for any amount of time). An unlawful arrest is not a tort (civil wrong) it is in fact a false imprisonment that is the tort of what is called unlawful arrest.
I think this term arrest is causing problems.
All this waffling is causing the problems. I think this term arrest is causing problems.
If the OP wanted to raise a defence based upon unlawful imprisoned or arrest and it was relevant to the facts of the case, he could have done. Did he?
Bear in mind he was professionally advised prior to trial.
It's obviously difficult for some people to accept, that people who've had access to all the evidence and have the requisite knowledge, experience and qualifications, have come to a different view than themselves.
janesmith1950 said:
ll this waffling is causing the problems.
If the OP wanted to raise a defence based upon unlawful imprisoned or arrest and it was relevant to the facts of the case, he could have done. Did he?
Bear in mind he was professionally advised prior to trial.
It's obviously difficult for some people to accept, that people who've had access to all the evidence and have the requisite knowledge, experience and qualifications, have come to a different view than themselves.
Except the solicitor who actually represented him was given the case file the night before, and was 2 hours late to court due to being stuck in traffic, so he was not very professionally represented.If the OP wanted to raise a defence based upon unlawful imprisoned or arrest and it was relevant to the facts of the case, he could have done. Did he?
Bear in mind he was professionally advised prior to trial.
It's obviously difficult for some people to accept, that people who've had access to all the evidence and have the requisite knowledge, experience and qualifications, have come to a different view than themselves.
Red 4 said:
MYOB said:
In the eyes of the law, he wasn't arrested.
Fact.
I'm done too.
You're welcome, bye bye.
The op was not charged with assault with intent to resist arrest.Fact.
I'm done too.
You're welcome, bye bye.
From what the op has said the arrest was not tested or challenged in court.
You're wrong. Again.
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
Nope. See post 1. Page 1.
Try again and try not to make assumptions this time.
Yes OP said that, CCTV doesn't show that or how did OP get away.,, Try again and try not to make assumptions this time.
Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
Red 4 said:
The CCTV does not show lots of things but you are happy to make assumptions when that is to the detriment of the op - suspicious behaviour inside the store ( which the op denies ) etc etc.
Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
Not really, more like he said the Security guard tried to arrest him. Which is a much closer fit to what he said. I made no assumptions about what happened in the store. All I pointed out is the Security guard could easily have reasonable grounds even if the OPs account is correct.Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
If forced to go yes or no No.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 12th December 18:56
ging84 said:
Except the solicitor who actually represented him was given the case file the night before, and was 2 hours late to court due to being stuck in traffic, so he was not very professionally represented.
He was advised of available defences well in advance of trial. The somewhat shambolic sounding trial representation is a separate issue.Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
The CCTV does not show lots of things but you are happy to make assumptions when that is to the detriment of the op - suspicious behaviour inside the store ( which the op denies ) etc etc.
Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
Not really, more like he said the Security guard tried to arrest him. Which is a much closer fit to what he said. I made no assumptions about what happened in the store. All I pointed out is the Security guard could easily have reasonable grounds even if the OPs account is correct.Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
If forced to go yes or no No.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 12th December 18:56
Red 4 said:
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
The CCTV does not show lots of things but you are happy to make assumptions when that is to the detriment of the op - suspicious behaviour inside the store ( which the op denies ) etc etc.
Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
Not really, more like he said the Security guard tried to arrest him. Which is a much closer fit to what he said. I made no assumptions about what happened in the store. All I pointed out is the Security guard could easily have reasonable grounds even if the OPs account is correct.Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
If forced to go yes or no No.
After all everybody else involved in his case & who has seen the prosecution evidence, hasn't found what he says of much use in exonerating him (given that even the solicitor who was meant to be dealing with his case in the first place gave him at best a 50/50 chance, with everybody else along the way seemingly rating his odds of innocence as far worse than that).
They don't seem very satisfied with his particular recollection of events.
Red 4 said:
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
The CCTV does not show lots of things but you are happy to make assumptions when that is to the detriment of the op - suspicious behaviour inside the store ( which the op denies ) etc etc.
Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
Not really, more like he said the Security guard tried to arrest him. Which is a much closer fit to what he said. I made no assumptions about what happened in the store. All I pointed out is the Security guard could easily have reasonable grounds even if the OPs account is correct.Based on what the op has said was he arrested ?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Cheers.
If forced to go yes or no No.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 12th December 18:56
"Went to a supermarket. Paid for my shopping on one of those self-service machines. One of them that don't give you receipts all the time and always ask if you want a receipt.
As I'm leaving security guard demands to see my receipt. Explain I don't have one - so am told very firmly come with me. At this point, I have no inclination to come with anyone so walk out. I'd paid for my shopping. I'd done nothing wrong. If he'd asked nicely it might have been different - but I take my civil liberties very seriously.
Next thing I know this security guard is grabbing me in the car park. Pushing me. Even attempts to twist my arm behind my back. Tells me I can't go anywhere. 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. I drove home and call the police and tell them what happened. There was a receipt I just didn't know about it at the time. Police say no one to come out etc...
All this was a good few days ago. But yesterday I got a call from a Police lady. Saying she'd tried coming to my house on Friday. I explained I worked etc. She wants me to sign something saying I apologise and I was in the wrong! I ask why he grabbed me - but she says I should have just gone with him and done what he wanted. I ask why he attacked me. She claims as a security gaurd he can do that. I ask why he didn't just call the police like I asked - and she claims that they are to busy to come out.
Now here is the stinker. She wanted me to 'apologise' and agree to not go to that store. I'm happy to not go to that store but will never apologise. She said if I didn't do a 'community resolution' she'd have to give me a caution that goes on my record. I said I'm happy to come and give a statement (with a solicitor) but she didn't want me to do this. Said she'd need to 'think about it then'. Which tells me that she knows I've done nothing wrong and is just trying to cover it up. Why else would she not want me to have a solicitor??? It's all on CCTV.
The real stinker is that I do a bit of HGV driving for that supermarket. And my partner who is a pharmacist does some locum work for them. I'm minded to sue them tbh for the assault.
So what's the best way to deal with this now? Should I call up some solicitors? Should I call up the Police and ask to speak to someone who isn't an idiot who can look at the CCTV and not jump to conclusions that security guard = right to attack? I've found out how to request all CCTV footage from the supermarket and will be doing that today."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff