Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
garyhun said:
This thread reminds me of something .... oh yes, now I remember.
Summary:The Op has a story to tell
The SG has a story to tell
The CCTV has a story to show.
The witnesses have a story to tell.
Everybody who wasn’t there has an opinion.
It’s called politics...
Edited by Hol on Friday 13th December 10:28
Wanchaiwarrior said:
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.
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 ...
At this point I get to my car - but he then grabs hold of my partner.
Cheers. That is an arrest.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 ...
At this point I get to my car - but he then grabs hold of my partner.
Oh Mr Graveworm, come out, come out wherever you are
Red 4 said:
Cheers. That is an arrest.
Oh Mr Graveworm, come out, come out wherever you are
If the OP had stayed it would have been. So by your reasoning, GBH at that point would not be an attempt to resist arrest and, if a justified arrest, the OP is guilty of escaping from lawful custody? If unjustified do you really think it would be unlawful imprisonment rather than assault against the SG? Would a police officer at that point be showing on a record that the suspect was arrested at that time? Oh Mr Graveworm, come out, come out wherever you are
Even on that account, without the CCTV, I still think its far more accurate to say The SG unsuccessfully attempted to arrest the OP.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 13th December 11:29
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
Cheers. That is an arrest.
Oh Mr Graveworm, come out, come out wherever you are
If the OP had stayed it would have been. So by your reasoning, GBH at that point would not be an attempt to resist arrest and, if a justified arrest, the OP is guilty of escaping from lawful custody? If unjustified do you really think it would be unlawful imprisonment rather than assault against the SG? Would a police officer at that point be showing on a record that the suspect was arrested at that time? Oh Mr Graveworm, come out, come out wherever you are
Even on that account, without the CCTV, I still think its far more accurate to say The SG unsuccessfully attempted to arrest the op.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 13th December 11:29
Stop going off on a tangent. Stick to what we know and what the op has said.
GBH ? Escaping lawful custody ? Really ?
You are struggling and it shows. Sorry if what the op has said ( that is the only account we have ) doesn't support your view.
The offence is false imprisonment BTW. Not unlawful imprisonment.
Additionally, police are subject to different rules concerning arrest.
I'm sure you know that. Stop making stuff up. It is irrelevant here.
Red 4 said:
Oh, there you are
Stop going off on a tangent. Stick to what we know and what the op has said.
GBH ? Escaping lawful custody ? Really ?
You are struggling and it shows. Sorry if what the op has said ( that is the only account we have ) doesn't support your view.
The offence is false imprisonment BTW. Not unlawful imprisonment.
Additionally, police are subject to different rules concerning arrest.
I'm sure you know that. Stop making stuff up. It is irrelevant here.
OK I still am confident, it was far more an attempt at arrest than a substantive arrest, based solely on what the OP said. Which isn't all we have to go on. Stop going off on a tangent. Stick to what we know and what the op has said.
GBH ? Escaping lawful custody ? Really ?
You are struggling and it shows. Sorry if what the op has said ( that is the only account we have ) doesn't support your view.
The offence is false imprisonment BTW. Not unlawful imprisonment.
Additionally, police are subject to different rules concerning arrest.
I'm sure you know that. Stop making stuff up. It is irrelevant here.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 13th December 12:03
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
Oh, there you are
Stop going off on a tangent. Stick to what we know and what the op has said.
GBH ? Escaping lawful custody ? Really ?
You are struggling and it shows. Sorry if what the op has said ( that is the only account we have ) doesn't support your view.
The offence is false imprisonment BTW. Not unlawful imprisonment.
Additionally, police are subject to different rules concerning arrest.
I'm sure you know that. Stop making stuff up. It is irrelevant here.
OK I still am confident, it was far more an attempt at arrest than arrest based solely on what the OP said. Which isn't all we have to go on. Stop going off on a tangent. Stick to what we know and what the op has said.
GBH ? Escaping lawful custody ? Really ?
You are struggling and it shows. Sorry if what the op has said ( that is the only account we have ) doesn't support your view.
The offence is false imprisonment BTW. Not unlawful imprisonment.
Additionally, police are subject to different rules concerning arrest.
I'm sure you know that. Stop making stuff up. It is irrelevant here.
PS I didn't say the op's account is all we have to go on.
I said the op's account of events is the only account we have.
There is a difference.
Red 4 said:
We will have to agree to disagree. No problem with that.
PS I didn't say the op's account is all we have to go on.
I said the op's account of events is the only account we have.
There is a difference.
But despite saying constantly you're only hearing one side, you persist to stick your flag to the OP and give your facts of the matter. PS I didn't say the op's account is all we have to go on.
I said the op's account of events is the only account we have.
There is a difference.
MYOB said:
Red 4 said:
We will have to agree to disagree. No problem with that.
PS I didn't say the op's account is all we have to go on.
I said the op's account of events is the only account we have.
There is a difference.
But despite saying constantly you're only hearing one side, you persist to stick your flag to the OP and give your facts of the matter. PS I didn't say the op's account is all we have to go on.
I said the op's account of events is the only account we have.
There is a difference.
2. The security guard has not made an appearance on here.
3. I'm well aware that there are always ( at least ) 2 sides to a story but it is impossible to comment on the other side's version of events. See point 2.
4. What are my "facts of the matter" ? Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact ?
Terzo123 said:
His heads gone! 
Greendubber said:
Terzo123 said:
His heads gone! Or for the guy who was very calm to simply knock him out.
It's always the quiet ones you need to watch ...
kING RECEIPT THIS TIME. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff