Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
BertBert said:
It wasn't like that though was it? You missed the bit where the OP departed the scene (exercising his civil liberties), leaving the security guard no choice but to do something. Again not saying the security guard acted well, but the OP gave him no choice but to act.
Bert
How did he have no choice? Bert
He had many choices. As did I. We both are adults and could chose what we did. We both have to reflect on them. And perhaps we could both learn a bit from this. I know I certainly will.
No choice is someone trying to kill you and you not being able to get away. So having to fight to defend yourself. Following someone outside is a choice. Grabbing them is a choice. Me not going with him was a choice. Me not engaging with him was a choice.
What matters now is if the choices we took were lawful or not. I feel very confident that I didn't break any laws. And I also feel confident that the evidence will show this.
BertBert said:
It wasn't like that though was it? You missed the bit where the OP departed the scene (exercising his civil liberties), leaving the security guard no choice but to do something. Again not saying the security guard acted well, but the OP gave him no choice but to act.
Bert
When that "do something" becomes physical contact, that's kind of a problem. The security guard is not a copper and has no right to get physical.Bert
So the security guard made a bad decision, and you suggest that the guard making a bad decision is at least in-part the fault of OP for "giving him no choice but to do something". That is the very definition of victim blaming.
Disclaimer: Taking OP at their word. If the circumstances are different, obvs all bets are off.
BertBert said:
It wasn't like that though was it? You missed the bit where the OP departed the scene (exercising his civil liberties), leaving the security guard no choice but to do something. Again not saying the security guard acted well, but the OP gave him no choice but to act.
Bert
Nope.Bert
Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
markyb_lcy said:
When that "do something" becomes physical contact, that's kind of a problem. The security guard is not a copper and has no right to get physical.
So the security guard made a bad decision, and you suggest that the guard making a bad decision is at least in-part the fault of OP for "giving him no choice but to do something". That is the very definition of victim blaming.
Disclaimer: Taking OP at their word. If the circumstances are different, obvs all bets are off.
He has exactly the same rights as a copper to get physical when trying to lawfully arrest someone. The only question is whether he was trying to do that and if it was reasonable. It's entirely possible he was or at least he will be saying he was or him reporting this to the police would be asking for trouble. Since the OP made off before it was resolved there will be less proof that there was no theft, even less that the security guard didn't believe there was. So the security guard made a bad decision, and you suggest that the guard making a bad decision is at least in-part the fault of OP for "giving him no choice but to do something". That is the very definition of victim blaming.
Disclaimer: Taking OP at their word. If the circumstances are different, obvs all bets are off.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 18th April 12:31
0a said:
The OP must have a very busy and frustrating life if he makes minor everyday inconveniences into massive issues like this.
The whole thing puts me in mind of my neighbour who is lovely if you're on the right side of her, but seems to default to confrontation as soon as she's faced with a minor inconvenience or what she (almost always wrongly) perceives to be an affront. As a result mention virtually any local shop/pub/person and it'll turn out she doesn't deal with them any more as she's had a fall out - always over something trivial. So while she's convinced she's in the right and pats herself on the back for having stuck up for herself in all these little battles, now her life is much more limited than it needs to be for no good reason. Credit where it's due OP you seem to have learned from this so won't end up like my neighbour.
funkyrobot said:
Could be worse OP. My local Sainsbury's security guards detained a shoplifter a few months ago and he died.
The two blokes in question are very big meatheads. I haven't seen them in there since. I guess they won't be there until the court case they are now embroiled in has finished.
How did he die? The two blokes in question are very big meatheads. I haven't seen them in there since. I guess they won't be there until the court case they are now embroiled in has finished.
Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 18th April 10:16
Short Grain said:
funkyrobot said:
Could be worse OP. My local Sainsbury's security guards detained a shoplifter a few months ago and he died.
The two blokes in question are very big meatheads. I haven't seen them in there since. I guess they won't be there until the court case they are now embroiled in has finished.
How did he die? The two blokes in question are very big meatheads. I haven't seen them in there since. I guess they won't be there until the court case they are now embroiled in has finished.
Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 18th April 10:16
Graveworm said:
He has exactly the same rights as a copper to get physical when trying to lawfully arrest someone. The only question is whether he was trying to do that and if it was reasonable. It's entirely possible he was or at least he will be saying he was or him reporting this to the police would be asking for trouble. Since the OP made off before it was resolved there will be less proof that there was no theft, even less that the security guard didn't believe there was.
If only the Police/SIA did training on this and gave guidance... SCONE. The O is important. Observed at all times. My suspicion is that CCTV will show he did not leave the doors. So how he saw me do anything is amazing. If he claims he saw me on CCTV lifting something that will be great for him. But it never happened. Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 18th April 12:31
There is a really really good reason the Police have made it clear I'm not being accused of shoplifting. And that's because there is not even reasonable grounds for them to talk to me about this. There is no allegation of shoplifting. I've explicitly asked this.
You are conflating what you think should be the law/rules with what they really are. As things stand the Police are saying that there is CCTV footage which shows me strike him. They originally said it showed him not touching me. Then said it showed him grabbing at items I was carrying. The police lady did say it showed him chase me out of the shop. She said it looked like a natural action after falling over (the strike) rather than something premeditated. I've not seen it so can't comment yet.
The reality is that I never stole anything. There is no evidence that I did. And he also grabbed my partner so he'd have to have grounds that we both stole. But he let her go AFTER seeing the receipt. He needs to explain why he changed his mind. I don't need to prove my innocence.
Sounds like mega aggro but I'd take that as far as possible.
I'm still confused by the freedom bouncers and security guards are given to use such violence. I work in Canary Wharf where there are fake private coppers who protect the estate but aren't allowed to touch you so it seems disproportionate that someone could rugby tackle you in a supermarket car park.
I'm still confused by the freedom bouncers and security guards are given to use such violence. I work in Canary Wharf where there are fake private coppers who protect the estate but aren't allowed to touch you so it seems disproportionate that someone could rugby tackle you in a supermarket car park.
milkround said:
If only the Police/SIA did training on this and gave guidance... SCONE. The O is important. Observed at all times. My suspicion is that CCTV will show he did not leave the doors. So how he saw me do anything is amazing. If he claims he saw me on CCTV lifting something that will be great for him. But it never happened.
There is a really really good reason the Police have made it clear I'm not being accused of shoplifting. And that's because there is not even reasonable grounds for them to talk to me about this. There is no allegation of shoplifting. I've explicitly asked this.
You are conflating what you think should be the law/rules with what they really are. As things stand the Police are saying that there is CCTV footage which shows me strike him. They originally said it showed him not touching me. Then said it showed him grabbing at items I was carrying. The police lady did say it showed him chase me out of the shop. She said it looked like a natural action after falling over (the strike) rather than something premeditated. I've not seen it so can't comment yet.
The reality is that I never stole anything. There is no evidence that I did. And he also grabbed my partner so he'd have to have grounds that we both stole. But he let her go. He needs to explain why he changed his mind. I don't need to prove my innocence.
You don't have to prove your innocence but, even if innocent of the theft, the security guard could still lawfully arrest you, and him being wrong doesn't automatically mean that he is guilty of an assault. As I said it's really hard to say now no theft took place and harder that he didn't believe one had. To prove him guilty of assault it may well be important to prove that, and to prove that your alleged use of force was reasonable you may well need to establish that no theft took place and that the security guard didn't reasonable suspect that one had. There is a really really good reason the Police have made it clear I'm not being accused of shoplifting. And that's because there is not even reasonable grounds for them to talk to me about this. There is no allegation of shoplifting. I've explicitly asked this.
You are conflating what you think should be the law/rules with what they really are. As things stand the Police are saying that there is CCTV footage which shows me strike him. They originally said it showed him not touching me. Then said it showed him grabbing at items I was carrying. The police lady did say it showed him chase me out of the shop. She said it looked like a natural action after falling over (the strike) rather than something premeditated. I've not seen it so can't comment yet.
The reality is that I never stole anything. There is no evidence that I did. And he also grabbed my partner so he'd have to have grounds that we both stole. But he let her go. He needs to explain why he changed his mind. I don't need to prove my innocence.
SCONE is not the law and couldn't be prescriptive. The law says that if he reasonably suspects that you are stealing then he can arrest you, if you are with someone who he reasonably suspects is part of the theft he can arrest them as well.
If a theft has occurred, after the event he can arrest anyone he suspects to be guilty of the theft. Now if at that point no theft has occurred then that is a different matter but, even if mistaken as to fact, he has a defence in law to an assault if it would have been lawful were the circumstances as he believed it to be.
The same defence you might also be able to rely on even if the security guard was acting lawfully.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 18th April 13:25
milkround said:
You are conflating what you think should be the law/rules with what they really are...
The reality is that I never stole anything. There is no evidence that I did.
Graveworm is saying that we don't know what the security guard has said to the police.The reality is that I never stole anything. There is no evidence that I did.
If the security guard had reasonable grounds to suspect you were committing/ had committed an indictable offence then he could use reasonable force to effect arrest. ( There is no difference in the level of force that can be used by Security, Police, members of the public in that situation).
Everything must flow from what the security guard had reasonable grounds to suspect ...
If there were no grounds to suspect you of anything then his actions are unlawful ( which appears to be the case from what you have said ).
milkround said:
BertBert said:
It wasn't like that though was it? You missed the bit where the OP departed the scene (exercising his civil liberties), leaving the security guard no choice but to do something. Again not saying the security guard acted well, but the OP gave him no choice but to act.
Bert
How did he have no choice? Bert
He had many choices. As did I. We both are adults and could chose what we did. We both have to reflect on them. And perhaps we could both learn a bit from this. I know I certainly will.
No choice is someone trying to kill you and you not being able to get away. So having to fight to defend yourself. Following someone outside is a choice. Grabbing them is a choice. Me not going with him was a choice. Me not engaging with him was a choice.
What matters now is if the choices we took were lawful or not. I feel very confident that I didn't break any laws. And I also feel confident that the evidence will show this.
The missing bit is that he asked you to go with him and you didn't. That is the point where you gave the security guard no choice other than to act further. He couldn't just shrug his shoulders and say that's all right then. That's the point I am making. I'm not saying what he did was the right thing (by your account it certainly wasn't), but he had to follow the SoP set out for him when faced with a possible shoplifter who is refusing to stop and go with him to sort it out. I don't know what that says, it probably doesn't say, beat the crap out of the suspected shoplifter.
And to you last point, I suggest again that you re-think your objective. You are set on a course of proving who was right and who was wrong which I really understand. However, the risk is that it doesn't go in your favour. The downside is also that it takes over your life. You are clearly working at it, researching on the web, doing SARs, communicating with muppets like me on the internet. That will get much much worse if this thing goes on.
My suggestion is that a better objective is to cut your losses and find a way out of this process. May be not very palatable.
But perhaps try a thought experiment, imagine in 3 months time. The video did look like you hit the security guard in the face and it shows that the security guard's actions whilst perhaps were a little excessive, overall he was just doing his job in the circumstances. The judge finds against you. Will you be looking back and thinking, bugger I wish I'd signed that apology?
I wouldn't want to either in your shoes and there's loads of reasons why you need to prove you were the aggrieved party, but I'm not convinced it's the right course.
Cheers
Bert
markyb_lcy said:
So the security guard made a bad decision, and you suggest that the guard making a bad decision is at least in-part the fault of OP for "giving him no choice but to do something". That is the very definition of victim blaming.
I don't think I am victim blaming as you put it. As I am not attributing fault to either party and certainly I have a lot of sympathy with the OP's plight as he has described it. I've re-explained the point I was making and the context in which I was making it just up a bit.Bert
WestyCarl said:
This thread is the definition of how to be a dick and "I know my rights guv" 
and despite the OP admitting he'd maybe take a different path next time he continues to peruse the "I know my rights" path...........
Yes it's quite funny how he knows his rights, knows he did nothing wrong, nothing illegal and won't apologise but on the other hand he wouldn't do the same again.and despite the OP admitting he'd maybe take a different path next time he continues to peruse the "I know my rights" path...........
Red 4 said:
Nope.
Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
That's if you are going on the OPs word and his perspective. As far as the security guard is concerned he has likely seen OP and his Mrs acting shifty and suspects shoplifting so wants to check them out and when he has the OP has acted like 99% of criminals rather than an innocent would have, further entrenching the security guards idea that OP probably has nicked something and then the fun begins.Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
Red 4 said:
Nope.
Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
If you're an awkward "I know my rights" dick you can do this, however most people would not put the Security Guard in an impossible position.Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
A quick "sorry no receipt but I just purchased at that till, do you want to check" would have meant both had a better day for the sake of 5 mins.......
WestyCarl said:
Red 4 said:
Nope.
Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
If you're an awkward "I know my rights" dick you can do this, however most people would not put the Security Guard in an impossible position.Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
A quick "sorry no receipt but I just purchased at that till, do you want to check" would have meant both had a better day for the sake of 5 mins.......
However, "dick" security guards also exist.
If you were challenged by one who was going in all guns blazing how would you react ?
Red 4 said:
WestyCarl said:
Red 4 said:
Nope.
Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
If you're an awkward "I know my rights" dick you can do this, however most people would not put the Security Guard in an impossible position.Other than asking to see the op's receipt, the security guard cannot do anything unless an indictable offence has been committed.
No offence had been committed (no receipt is not an offence) and the op was free to go about his business.
The security guard should have left it at that but he chose not to and acted unlawfully.
A quick "sorry no receipt but I just purchased at that till, do you want to check" would have meant both had a better day for the sake of 5 mins.......
However, "dick" security guards also exist.
If you were challenged by one who was going in all guns blazing how would you react ?
The answer is not getting into a physical altercation. Hardly rocket science is it?
Red 4 said:
Yep, I take your point.
However, "dick" security guards also exist.
If you were challenged by one who was going in all guns blazing how would you react ?
Absolutely they exist, however when challenged by anyone in that manor it's never going to end well by acting like a dick in return.However, "dick" security guards also exist.
If you were challenged by one who was going in all guns blazing how would you react ?
99% of the time if your calm, polite, friendly, helpful and smile back at someone they pretty much immediately clam down and stuff gets resolved easily. Act a dick back and you end up in a situation like the OP.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff