Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
So you think the OP hasn't had more hassle than if he had chosen a different strategy?
I don't think he'd (let alone me) would agree with you.
I'm not saying that the security guard is blameless.
I'm saying even if the security guard is wrong the OP has blame in events transpiring as they did because of his chosen response/actions. If he wanted to point out the security guard was wrong & get that addressed, there was a better way to address that & achieve a more favourable outcome.
It takes two to tango
Both parties have responsibility in a negative spiral.
Doesn't matter.I don't think he'd (let alone me) would agree with you.
I'm not saying that the security guard is blameless.
I'm saying even if the security guard is wrong the OP has blame in events transpiring as they did because of his chosen response/actions. If he wanted to point out the security guard was wrong & get that addressed, there was a better way to address that & achieve a more favourable outcome.
It takes two to tango
Both parties have responsibility in a negative spiral.
The security guard cannot lay a finger on the op in the circs as described.
PS provocation is not a defence to assault.
The op's defence would obviously be self defence.
How many times do I have to say it's not about the end result?
It's about achieving the least pain/damage/delay for yourself immediately & you can then still get a satisfactory result for your grievance in the end.
If the security guard was in the wrong, he was in the wrong.
What that doesn't alter is the OP can have a less painful way of coping with that wrong or a painful way of coping with that wrong. That's what he gets to choose & his responses/actions will influence that.
There are times that the issues at hand are so important that it's worth going a painful route & making yourself a martyr (thank heavens for those in the past that have for our freedoms today), but this really wasn't one of those occasions. The OP could have had satisfactory redress without experiencing the pain/discomfort he has if he had chosen a reasonable/pragmatic path. That doesn't mean he is to blame for the whole episode, but he is responsible for the choices he made & his choices will be a part in that it played out the way it did. If different choices had been made it would have played out differently. That goes for both parties.
the tribester said:
BrabusMog said:
You're full of s
t. A quick Google search shows that this isn't a police led initiative. What is the point in making up a fantasy thread like this? Congratulations for managing to string it along for as long as you have, though.
You might have to Google again. t. A quick Google search shows that this isn't a police led initiative. What is the point in making up a fantasy thread like this? Congratulations for managing to string it along for as long as you have, though.RJ is used daily as a 'Positive Outcome' for Police Forces around the country.
If the OP were a powerfully built company director, but in the interest of a peaceful resolution agreed to go back to the store rather than dominate the car park, would the security guard or the shop be expected to pay the £500 per hour (or part therof) that the company director is now down, assuming the mistake the security guard has made is cleared up? Time is money and all that.
vonhosen said:
How many times do I have to say I'm not defending the security guard?
How many times do I have to say it's not about the end result?
It's about achieving the least pain/damage/delay for yourself immediately & you can then still get a satisfactory result for your grievance in the end.
If the security guard was in the wrong, he was in the wrong.
What that doesn't alter is the OP can have a less painful way of coping with that wrong or a painful way of coping with that wrong. That's what he gets to choose & his responses/actions will influence that.
It doesn't always work like that though.How many times do I have to say it's not about the end result?
It's about achieving the least pain/damage/delay for yourself immediately & you can then still get a satisfactory result for your grievance in the end.
If the security guard was in the wrong, he was in the wrong.
What that doesn't alter is the OP can have a less painful way of coping with that wrong or a painful way of coping with that wrong. That's what he gets to choose & his responses/actions will influence that.
Some people cannot be reasoned with - no matter how nice you are to them - so your flow chart of "my behaviour affects your behaviour" is not entirely accurate.
I've got the scars and injuries to prove that one
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 17th April 13:42
Red 4 said:
Restorative justice ... You would need to admit you were guilty.
Usually involves a meeting between parties ...
Security guard is the victim ... Are you happy with that ?
Alternative would be prosecution IF the evidence warrants it and the CPS believe it is in the public interest and there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
What, exactly, are the police threatening to potentially charge you with ?
There are many forms of assault. Was anybody injured ?
If the video shows what the police lady says it does I'd not only be happy with that but I'd feel like an injustice has happened to the gaurd. Usually involves a meeting between parties ...
Security guard is the victim ... Are you happy with that ?
Alternative would be prosecution IF the evidence warrants it and the CPS believe it is in the public interest and there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
What, exactly, are the police threatening to potentially charge you with ?
There are many forms of assault. Was anybody injured ?
If it shows what I'd remember it would be a great injusmctise and a shameful action on everyone involved with it.
With how busy police are these days i'm surprised you even got a phone call, my force don't even have the man power to attend when I've stopped someone and have them sitting in the office for shoplifting, we're talking over £100 worth of stock! (been working in the security industry for 10 years) Has been an interesting read, I'm not going to comment as without CCTV it's a one sided story.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
How many times do I have to say I'm not defending the security guard?
How many times do I have to say it's not about the end result?
It's about achieving the least pain/damage/delay for yourself immediately & you can then still get a satisfactory result for your grievance in the end.
If the security guard was in the wrong, he was in the wrong.
What that doesn't alter is the OP can have a less painful way of coping with that wrong or a painful way of coping with that wrong. That's what he gets to choose & his responses/actions will influence that.
It doesn't always work like that though.How many times do I have to say it's not about the end result?
It's about achieving the least pain/damage/delay for yourself immediately & you can then still get a satisfactory result for your grievance in the end.
If the security guard was in the wrong, he was in the wrong.
What that doesn't alter is the OP can have a less painful way of coping with that wrong or a painful way of coping with that wrong. That's what he gets to choose & his responses/actions will influence that.
Some people cannot be reasoned with - no matter how nice you are to them - so your flow chart of "my behaviour affects your behaviour" is not entirely accurate.
I've got the scars and injuries to prove that one
The odds are heavily in favour though in situations like the OPs, where the starting point is at a low level (that's a request for a receipt as opposed to the OP alleging as he was walking out that an unseen security guard crept up & hit him over the head with a baseball bat as a starting point), that it plays a huge part.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th April 14:26
syl said:
If the OP were a powerfully built company director, but in the interest of a peaceful resolution agreed to go back to the store rather than dominate the car park, would the security guard or the shop be expected to pay the £500 per hour (or part therof) that the company director is now down, assuming the mistake the security guard has made is cleared up? Time is money and all that.
Returning peacefully at the insistence of the company/representative, doesn't negate any demonstrative civil claim you might have as a result of the encounter.TNTom said:
With how busy police are these days i'm surprised you even got a phone call, my force don't even have the man power to attend when I've stopped someone and have them sitting in the office for shoplifting, we're talking over £100 worth of stock! (been working in the security industry for 10 years) Has been an interesting read, I'm not going to comment as without CCTV it's a one sided story.
Needs to be over £200!! 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/01/shopli...
mgtony said:
Not too sure if that's implemented with TVP, they do turn up on occasion just depends how busy the are. mgtony said:
TNTom said:
With how busy police are these days i'm surprised you even got a phone call, my force don't even have the man power to attend when I've stopped someone and have them sitting in the office for shoplifting, we're talking over £100 worth of stock! (been working in the security industry for 10 years) Has been an interesting read, I'm not going to comment as without CCTV it's a one sided story.
Needs to be over £200!! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/01/shopli...
vonhosen said:
He has responsibility for his part/actions, the security for his.
That's personal responsibility for you.
When someone acts in a certain way you have a choice over how to respond. You can respond in a way that tends to escalate or in a way that tends to de-escalate.
In a training environment, maybe. That's personal responsibility for you.
When someone acts in a certain way you have a choice over how to respond. You can respond in a way that tends to escalate or in a way that tends to de-escalate.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th April 12:10
IRL I take your flowchart and raise you fight or flight.
That IS applicable to the situation described and choice will often not come into it. Touching people is one if those situations where you can expect compliance or a violent reaction more than "please don't touch me. I'd rather we had a polite discussion in the interests of finding an amicable solution".
Having said all that, we'll never see the CCTV.
milkround said:
By the officers own words the 'punch' looked like an instinctive reaction after I'd gotten up from being knocked down. This was after I'd been trying to retreat. How can I say I'm sorry and I'd never do it again when I never set out to do it in the first place?
How on earth do they think you're the agressor in this situation then? By their own words, they're saying you were knocked down which puts you punching the twit squarely in self defence territory. Knocking someone down is not the guard using reasonable force either!EazyDuz said:
garyhun said:
Having had a quick look at the OP’s posting history he does seem to have a lot of bad luck in life.
I’ll say no more.
Sounds like one of those, 'You're on CAMERA, you'll be on youtube later!' typesI’ll say no more.
Taylor James said:
In a training environment, maybe.
IRL I take your flowchart and raise you fight or flight.
That IS applicable to the situation described and choice will often not come into it. Touching people is one if those situations where you can expect compliance or a violent reaction more than "please don't touch me. I'd rather we had a polite discussion in the interests of finding an amicable solution".
Having said all that, we'll never see the CCTV.
Someone asking you for a receipt is not a fight or flight situation, neither is being asked to return to the store. IRL I take your flowchart and raise you fight or flight.
That IS applicable to the situation described and choice will often not come into it. Touching people is one if those situations where you can expect compliance or a violent reaction more than "please don't touch me. I'd rather we had a polite discussion in the interests of finding an amicable solution".
Having said all that, we'll never see the CCTV.
Cat
Taylor James said:
vonhosen said:
He has responsibility for his part/actions, the security for his.
That's personal responsibility for you.
When someone acts in a certain way you have a choice over how to respond. You can respond in a way that tends to escalate or in a way that tends to de-escalate.
In a training environment, maybe. That's personal responsibility for you.
When someone acts in a certain way you have a choice over how to respond. You can respond in a way that tends to escalate or in a way that tends to de-escalate.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th April 12:10
Taylor James said:
IRL I take your flowchart and raise you fight or flight.
That IS applicable to the situation described and choice will often not come into it. Touching people is one if those situations where you can expect compliance or a violent reaction more than "please don't touch me. I'd rather we had a polite discussion in the interests of finding an amicable solution".
Having said all that, we'll never see the CCTV.
Asking to see a receipt = fight or flight?That IS applicable to the situation described and choice will often not come into it. Touching people is one if those situations where you can expect compliance or a violent reaction more than "please don't touch me. I'd rather we had a polite discussion in the interests of finding an amicable solution".
Having said all that, we'll never see the CCTV.
Getting hit over the head with a baseball bat = fight or flight yes, but 'can you show me your receipt?'
Cat said:
Taylor James said:
In a training environment, maybe.
IRL I take your flowchart and raise you fight or flight.
That IS applicable to the situation described and choice will often not come into it. Touching people is one if those situations where you can expect compliance or a violent reaction more than "please don't touch me. I'd rather we had a polite discussion in the interests of finding an amicable solution".
Having said all that, we'll never see the CCTV.
Someone asking you for a receipt is not a fight or flight situation, neither is being asked to return to the store. IRL I take your flowchart and raise you fight or flight.
That IS applicable to the situation described and choice will often not come into it. Touching people is one if those situations where you can expect compliance or a violent reaction more than "please don't touch me. I'd rather we had a polite discussion in the interests of finding an amicable solution".
Having said all that, we'll never see the CCTV.
Cat
Being grabbed almost always is.
vonhosen said:
Asking to see a receipt = fight or flight?
Getting hit over the head with a baseball bat = fight or flight yes, but 'can you show me your receipt?'
Not really though, is it...Getting hit over the head with a baseball bat = fight or flight yes, but 'can you show me your receipt?'
Asking to see a receipt = saying I don't have a receipt."
Issuing a request to another member of the public to "follow me" = declining that request
Pushing another member of the public to the floor = fight or flight.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff