Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Mate just accept that:
1. Any reasonable human would go with the security guard, if he abused his power film/record and/or report his behaviour later.
2. Instead you flipped out and swung at him and resisted citizens arrest
3. Had your gf stand by the exit ready to swap bags (or something?) with you that looks totally suspicious
4. Your partner enjoyed seeing you get emasculated
1. Any reasonable human would go with the security guard, if he abused his power film/record and/or report his behaviour later.
2. Instead you flipped out and swung at him and resisted citizens arrest
3. Had your gf stand by the exit ready to swap bags (or something?) with you that looks totally suspicious
4. Your partner enjoyed seeing you get emasculated
milkround said:
So they have made a commercial decision to do all those things. Yet they expect members of the public to put up with being treated like criminals as a consequence?
no one forces anyone to shop in supermarkets, there are loads of options available, you can buy direct from farms to your door with a bit of planning. you seem to be very dramatic in your actions over something most people without a chip on their shoulder would have shrugged off.
The implications the policewomen is out to get you, like a personal vendetta is crazy, maybe you should reflect on all this and move on.
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.
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.
You're basing this all on the position that OP provoked the security guard in some way. He didn't.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.
He did the opposite. He walked away. That is literally the foundation of avoiding conflict. To walk away.
And yet the security gnome decided to create a physical conflict against someone that was clearly avoiding conflict. You can't reason with that.
On the other hand, submission is no guarantee of avoiding harm. That's then the decision of the antagonist. If the antagonist is prepared to pursue someone walking away from conflict, why on earth do you think they're unwilling to harm someone being submissive?
vonhosen said:
A reasonable pragmatic choice when asked to return to the store could have avoided any physical contact & quickly cleared the whole think up leaving him to then complain at his treatment & the security guard's actions.
A completely unfounded assumption when dealing with a security gnome that has already proven to have no sense of what is reasonable.Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th April 16:50
Evanivitch 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.
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.
You're basing this all on the position that OP provoked the security guard in some way. He didn't.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.
He did the opposite. He walked away. That is literally the foundation of avoiding conflict. To walk away.
And yet the security gnome decided to create a physical conflict against someone that was clearly avoiding conflict. You can't reason with that.
On the other hand, submission is no guarantee of avoiding harm. That's then the decision of the antagonist. If the antagonist is prepared to pursue someone walking away from conflict, why on earth do you think they're unwilling to harm someone being submissive?
Where the security is acting under a belief that you've not paid for items what do you think is the most likely reaction to you walking away when asked by them to return to the store?
What do you think is the most likely outcome from calmly complying with that request?
Most people in that situation what do what I suggested. Why? Because it's the most reasonable & pragmatic response if you want to avoid what can be expected by a refusal & walking off. They'd go with them but calmly register that displeasure at the security guard insisting they do that.
That doesn't mean the security guard is correct or without fault, it's just it's the most reasonable & pragmatic thing to do in order to avoid conflict & resolve it peacefully whilst still leaving your options open to complain & get redress for that. That's the optimal outcome for you in the circumstances.
Look at the situation the OP is in now.
He clearly regrets his choice now.
If he had gone with the security guard he'd have been in the right, had the moral upper hand & would be able to register his complaint & displeasure.
Contrast that with where he is now.
In motoring terms it's akin to driving down a busy motorway in lane 1 approaching an on slip. Somebody on the on slip has misjudged their entry & there is no space for them. The person on the slip road doesn't recognise that it's their duty to give way to traffic in lane 1. Do you adjust & accommodate their entry covering for their mistake/false belief in order to avoid conflict or do you say 'They're in the wrong, they have to give way to traffic established on the motorway so stuff them I can't be blamed if a collision occurs'. It's that type of mentality.
The OP knows the security guard has got it wrong, he knows the security guard is obviously operating on a false belief. Do you then accommodate that in a way to minimise risk to yourself & them, or do you continue on a path that it's pretty obvious is going to escalate? That's self destructive.
To what end?
Act in way that is likely to be destructive for you & likely result in a longer delay for you?
Madness.
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
A reasonable pragmatic choice when asked to return to the store could have avoided any physical contact & quickly cleared the whole think up leaving him to then complain at his treatment & the security guard's actions.
A completely unfounded assumption when dealing with a security gnome that has already proven to have no sense of what is reasonable.Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th April 16:50
The evidence stands in all those who are asked to produce a receipt, or return into the store & do, sorting it all out in minutes without any conflicting.
That's what happens in the vast majority of cases.
innocent people refusing & it all kicking off are a tiny minority.
vonhosen said:
Where the security is acting under a belief that you've not paid for items what do you think is the most likely reaction to you walking away when asked by them to return to the store?
Given that the remit of the security gnome's employment does not extend to physically apprehending anyone for failing to show a receipt, the most likely response should be that he does nothing.You're trying to apply a false logic to a situation that has been triggered by the security gnomes Illogical actions.
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
Where the security is acting under a belief that you've not paid for items what do you think is the most likely reaction to you walking away when asked by them to return to the store?
Given that the remit of the security gnome's employment does not extend to physically apprehending anyone for failing to show a receipt, the most likely response should be that he does nothing.You're trying to apply a false logic to a situation that has been triggered by the security gnomes Illogical actions.
Refusal & walking off?
Returning to the store?
vonhosen said:
It's not completely unfounded.
The evidence stands in all those who are asked to produce a receipt, or return into the store & do, sorting it all out in minutes without any conflicting.
That's what happens in the vast majority of cases.
innocent people refusing & it all kicking off are a tiny minority.
So if it's as widespread as you say it is (it's not), and everyone else is going along with it but "voicing their displeasure" why are the security guards continuing to act wrongfully? Are the supermarkets not acting on complaints? Are the security gnomes being empowered by people submitting to their false authority?The evidence stands in all those who are asked to produce a receipt, or return into the store & do, sorting it all out in minutes without any conflicting.
That's what happens in the vast majority of cases.
innocent people refusing & it all kicking off are a tiny minority.
vonhosen said:
It's sound logic, which action is more likely (irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it) to result in physical intervention?
Refusal & walking off?
Returning to the store?
Removing yourself from a situation is the number one way to avoid conflict. Fact. You would do it in any other scenario, so why is this one any different?Refusal & walking off?
Returning to the store?
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
It's sound logic, which action is more likely (irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it) to result in physical intervention?
Refusal & walking off?
Returning to the store?
Removing yourself from a situation is the number one way to avoid conflict. Fact. You would do it in any other scenario, so why is this one any different?Refusal & walking off?
Returning to the store?
Sa Calobra said:
Jonnny said:
ambuletz said:
report it as a hate crime for him calling you gay while attacking you.
This would definitely cause the most grief for the security guard/supermarket. The blokes doing his job and someone arrogantly refuses to return.
If I was stopped before leaving I'd come back, go to the till happily and say 'remember me' etc.
Why you think a security guard is below you?
Evanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
It's not completely unfounded.
The evidence stands in all those who are asked to produce a receipt, or return into the store & do, sorting it all out in minutes without any conflicting.
That's what happens in the vast majority of cases.
innocent people refusing & it all kicking off are a tiny minority.
So if it's as widespread as you say it is (it's not), and everyone else is going along with it but "voicing their displeasure" why are the security guards continuing to act wrongfully? Are the supermarkets not acting on complaints? Are the security gnomes being empowered by people submitting to their false authority?The evidence stands in all those who are asked to produce a receipt, or return into the store & do, sorting it all out in minutes without any conflicting.
That's what happens in the vast majority of cases.
innocent people refusing & it all kicking off are a tiny minority.
It's a simple case of numbers. The vast majority of visits to stores result in no interaction between security & customers on leaving.
The next largest number an interaction resulting in a calm receipt check or return into store, whether that be from alarms going off or suspicions of security etc.
The next largest number somebody who has actually been shoplifting etc & has been physically detained.
The smallest number innocent people who have refused & it's then resulted in physical contact.
Evanivitch said:
Removing yourself from a situation is the number one way to avoid conflict. Fact. You would do it in any other scenario, so why is this one any different?
But in this case it absolutely is not the way to avoid conflict not 'fact'. Doing the exact opposite of what the security guard asked and needed you to do to resolve the situation. So if you are suspected of shoplifting (and you didn't), what is the way to avoid conflict? Acquiesce to a conversation which would lead to showing your innocence or force the security guard to take action by departing the premises?The security guard's job is to look for suspicious behaviour and take action to determine if the suspicions are correct or not. By stopping the security guard from doing his job, you have provoked an escalation. Whether the security guard handled the escalation with the appropriate force and actions, we will probably never know.
Bert
By the way, the whole receipt thing is a complete red herring. It is merely the opening gambit when you are suspicious of possible shoplifting.
Have you got a receipt sir? Yes. Well please can I check that you only have the goods on you that the receipt showed you paid for.
Have you got a receipt sir? No. Well please can you come with me so we can check with the till system what you paid for. Then I can check that you only have those goods.
Bert
Have you got a receipt sir? Yes. Well please can I check that you only have the goods on you that the receipt showed you paid for.
Have you got a receipt sir? No. Well please can you come with me so we can check with the till system what you paid for. Then I can check that you only have those goods.
Bert
kers making up so much bEvanivitch said:
vonhosen said:
It's sound logic, which action is more likely (irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it) to result in physical intervention?
Refusal & walking off?
Returning to the store?
Removing yourself from a situation is the number one way to avoid conflict. Fact. You would do it in any other scenario, so why is this one any different?Refusal & walking off?
Returning to the store?
Thesprucegoose said:
Yes they are a business if they didn't they would be out of business, its called the free market . Do you believe what you've written because its twaddle, as it sounds more like Communism.
I think that's the loophole they're trying to close by employing visible security.Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 17th April 21:14
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff