Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[768]

WestyCarl said:

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.

I thought this was a Tesco or something? Sounds more posh than Waitrose!

[vonhosen]

The best position for complaining about the dickish behaviour of another is from where you've been anything but a dick yourself.

[funkyrobot]

Flumpo said:

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.

Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 18th April 10:16

How did he die?

The details are sketchy as it’s still being investigated. But officially they seem to be saying the man became ill AFTER the police took over rather than the security people and it was the police who called the ambulance for a heart attack.

Thing is, I haven't seen the two guards working there since.

I heard different stories about what actually happened. However, I'm not repeating them on here as I don't know if they are true.

[Cyberprog]

sparkythecat said:

I haven't seen the OPs shopping list, but suspect its more likely to have been raw meat, whey protein and red bull, rather than a scone.

The SCONE Theory

S – Selection Of Goods – Have items been selected?

C – Concealment – Have the items been concealed to avoid being detected?***

O – Observation – Has someone witnessed the selection and concealment? This can be in person or on CCTV? Statements will need to be secured so without this you have no offence.

N – No Attempt To Pay – Has the person made any attempt to pay for the items? Did they walk past the till points?****

E – Exit – Did the person leave the store? **

From here: https://ukconstable.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/theft...

The Surveyor said:

Is that the official 'shoplifters charter'? Just pick up what you want, lie about paying for it, hold your head up high because you know your rights, and just walk straight, you'll be fine

Most of the time, you will probably get away with that, unless they've fulfilled the above they are bound by procedures that have been put in place by companies that are risk averse to mistakes being made and people being unlawfully (and expensively) detained.

[Flumpo]

funkyrobot said:

Flumpo said:

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.

Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 18th April 10:16

How did he die?

The details are sketchy as it’s still being investigated. But officially they seem to be saying the man became ill AFTER the police took over rather than the security people and it was the police who called the ambulance for a heart attack.

Thing is, I haven't seen the two guards working there since.

I heard different stories about what actually happened. However, I'm not repeating them on here as I don't know if they are true.

First rule of ph - post all anecdotal knowledge as fact, then if challenged mis quote case law you’ve cut and paste from google. Bonus points if vonhoosen stays up all night giving irrelevant scenarios to prove you are wrong.

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

The best position for complaining about the dickish behaviour of another is from where you've been anything but a dick yourself.

Maybe it is.

Unfortunately many people are Dicks.

The fact that they are Dicks does not give security carte Blanche to up the ante.

The ones who are not necessarily Dicks may feel threatened, embarrassed, humiliated, etc etc when confronted by security in front of a shop full of people ( having done nothing wrong) and may not react in a way that they usually would.

I'm a pretty level headed bloke ( believe it or not ) but I've still had my run-ins with people in positions of authority who have behaved badly/ unprofessionally and made things difficult for themselves.

If I was challenged by an uppity security guard ( having done nothing wrong ) I'd be very tempted to tell him to sling his hook if his behaviour continued.

[NGee]

There are laws.
There are 'rights'.
There is common sense.

Very rarely do the three go together well.

[Dibble]

That “SCONE” thing is guidance, not law. You commit theft at the time you dishonestly take the item with the intention of depriving the other of it. So if you’re shoplifting, the moment you slide the packet of bacon into your jacket at the the chiller, knowing that you’re going to walk out without paying for it, is when the theft actually occurs, not once you’re past the till points or outside in the car park.

[Centurion07]

Dibble said:

That “SCONE” thing is guidance, not law. You commit theft at the time you dishonestly take the item with the intention of depriving the other of it. So if you’re shoplifting, the moment you slide the packet of bacon into your jacket at the the chiller, knowing that you’re going to walk out without paying for it, is when the theft actually occurs, not once you’re past the till points or outside in the car park.

Since you mention that "SCONE" is only a guide, surely "theft", as defined by the law, only occurs once you leave the shop? Granted normal people put stuff in their basket rather than their jacket so your average shoplifter has already made the decision, but the law can't possibly say 100% that the intent is there, hence the "leaving the premises" part.

[milkround]

Centurion07 said:

Since you mention that "SCONE" is only a guide, surely "theft", as defined by the law, only occurs once you leave the shop? Granted normal people put stuff in their basket rather than their jacket so your average shoplifter has already made the decision, but the law can't possibly say 100% that the intent is there, hence the "leaving the premises" part.

Nope. I've been researching this.

`As soon as you pick it up with the intention of taking it without paying you have commited theft. Proving it at that point is more tricky so they wait.

[Dibble]

Centurion07 said:

Dibble said:

That “SCONE” thing is guidance, not law. You commit theft at the time you dishonestly take the item with the intention of depriving the other of it. So if you’re shoplifting, the moment you slide the packet of bacon into your jacket at the the chiller, knowing that you’re going to walk out without paying for it, is when the theft actually occurs, not once you’re past the till points or outside in the car park.

Since you mention that "SCONE" is only a guide, surely "theft", as defined by the law, only occurs once you leave the shop? Granted normal people put stuff in their basket rather than their jacket so your average shoplifter has already made the decision, but the law can't possibly say 100% that the intent is there, hence the "leaving the premises" part.

Nope. As above, as soon as you have the [i]mens rea[/] (guilty mind/intent) and you take the item, that is when the theft occurs. Walking past the till points/having no money or means of payment just strengthens the evidence. The actual theft occurs at the time the item is selected with the intention of not paying for it.

It’s similar with burglary: A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2), which are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.

You don’t have to do any of the things in subsection (2) to commit burglary, it’s enough you’re in there with the intention of doing so.

Proving intent is difficult without an admission, but most courts would convict someone who’d selected the item AND then gone through/past the till points and outside, as it demonstrates more strongly the intent. If someone says “Yes, I took the bacon and wasn’t going to pay for it” and they’re detained at the chiller, they’d in all likelihood be convicted.

[milkround]

Dibble said:

Nope. As above, as soon as you have the [i]mens rea[/] (guilty mind/intent) and you take the item, that is when the theft occurs. Walking past the till points/having no money or means of payment just strengthens the evidence. The actual theft occurs at the time the item is selected with the intention of not paying for it.

I'm going to assume you are a Criminal Solicitor or a Police Officer. Either way you know your stuff.

But there is a difference in my mind between an offence being committed. And you being able to demonstrate you have reasonable grounds to believe someone has committed an offence. I'm not saying you have to use SCONE. But I'm well interested at hearing in this interview/meeting why he felt the need to lay his hands on me.

Short of saying he saw me put something in my pocket he is left with 'he looked dodgy' which I'm not convinced would cut it. Especially once it's pointed out that he both ignored the guidance but also let us go after he'd seen a receipt. If he saw me conceal something he'd have focussed on that. Not let us go after viewing the receipt.

FYI not only did I pay for my stuff. But I didn't have any bag or baggy clothing. I had been servicing my car so was in some jeans an a fleece top with next to no pockets.

People make mistakes. I get that. People do things in the heat of the moment. But a Police officer should be able to scratch their head and ask if a thief would steal from a shop with cameras and security - or from a truck with no cameras and no security. Not least when the driver of said truck is legally required to stop in random places for 45 mins after so many hours.

What's more they should ask themselves how they'd react if someone grabbed them and strarting trying to twist their arm behind their back etc. I reckon the copper would feel well entitled to get the CS out. Or a few smacks with a truncheon. But the normal member of the public is dragged in for far less.

[vonhosen]

Centurion07 said:

Dibble said:

That “SCONE” thing is guidance, not law. You commit theft at the time you dishonestly take the item with the intention of depriving the other of it. So if you’re shoplifting, the moment you slide the packet of bacon into your jacket at the the chiller, knowing that you’re going to walk out without paying for it, is when the theft actually occurs, not once you’re past the till points or outside in the car park.

Since you mention that "SCONE" is only a guide, surely "theft", as defined by the law, only occurs once you leave the shop? Granted normal people put stuff in their basket rather than their jacket so your average shoplifter has already made the decision, but the law can't possibly say 100% that the intent is there, hence the "leaving the premises" part.

Nope. If you have the intent there is no need to leave the shop the offence is complete in the shop.
It's just that proving intent in court is easier once they've walked past the tills without paying & left the shop.

[TonyRPH]

milkround said:

<snip>

People make mistakes. I get that. People do things in the heat of the moment. But a Police officer should be able to scratch their head and ask if a thief would steal from a shop with cameras and security - or from a truck with no cameras and no security.

Thieves do steal, even when they're aware of CCTV presence etc. I presume some of them think they can conceal items without detection by slight of hand or similar method.

milkround said:

Not least when the driver of said truck is legally required to stop in random places for 45 mins after so many hours.

I suspect that nobody knew what you do for a living, or even the circumstances around this - so the above is largely irrelevant surely?

[milkround]

TonyRPH said:

milkround said:

<snip>

People make mistakes. I get that. People do things in the heat of the moment. But a Police officer should be able to scratch their head and ask if a thief would steal from a shop with cameras and security - or from a truck with no cameras and no security.

Thieves do steal, even when they're aware of CCTV presence etc. I presume some of them think they can conceal items without detection by slight of hand or similar method.

milkround said:

Not least when the driver of said truck is legally required to stop in random places for 45 mins after so many hours.

I suspect that nobody knew what you do for a living, or even the circumstances around this - so the above is largely irrelevant surely?

No mate it's not irrelevant. Because about 2 mins after getting home that night I called the Police on 101 and explained what had gone on. I told em my name my address, my job, my phone number and my email address. Totally normal behaviour for your average shoplifter I am sure.

I even told the female copper on the phone when she called me trying to say I should write a nice litter saying I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to big myself up I just had to explain that I had no problems chatting to her as she'd called me whilst I was sat there with a broken down taillift so I had loads of time to chat.

Thieves may steal. But I'd wager they are far more likely to rob when they are exclusively carrying 20+tonnes of the stuff than when they can fit it in their jeans pocket. About 3 days previously I'd been to that same shop! If I was inclined to steal I'd not be doing it inside the shop that's for sure. People look for the easiest route to getting stuff. For me that would not (and still is not) the shop floor. It's ludicrous.

Edit - if you mean sucurity bloke at the time. I made it clear he was being daft as I drove an artic for the firm.This lead to some back and forth with him saying 'are you f'ing kidding me, you should not mess with me job''. But he knew full well. If he'd calmed down rather than putting his hands on people I could have shown him my site access pass in my wallet. Or my colleague canteen card to get free coffee.

Edited by milkround on Thursday 18th April 19:15

[pc.iow]

milkround said:

TonyRPH said:

milkround said:

<snip>

People make mistakes. I get that. People do things in the heat of the moment. But a Police officer should be able to scratch their head and ask if a thief would steal from a shop with cameras and security - or from a truck with no cameras and no security.

Thieves do steal, even when they're aware of CCTV presence etc. I presume some of them think they can conceal items without detection by slight of hand or similar method.

milkround said:

Not least when the driver of said truck is legally required to stop in random places for 45 mins after so many hours.

I suspect that nobody knew what you do for a living, or even the circumstances around this - so the above is largely irrelevant surely?

No mate it's not irrelevant. Because about 2 mins after getting home that night I called the Police on 101 and explained what had gone on. I told em my name my address, my job, my phone number and my email address. Totally normal behaviour for your average shoplifter I am sure.

I even told the female copper on the phone when she called me trying to say I should write a nice litter saying I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to big myself up I just had to explain that I had no problems chatting to her as she'd called me whilst I was sat there with a broken down taillift so I had loads of time to chat.

Thieves may steal. But I'd wager they are far more likely to rob when they are exclusively carrying 20+tonnes of the stuff than when they can fit it in their jeans pocket. About 3 days previously I'd been to that same shop! If I was inclined to steal I'd not be doing it inside the shop that's for sure. People look for the easiest route to getting stuff. For me that would not (and still is not) the shop floor. It's ludicrous.

Edit - if you mean sucurity bloke at the time. I made it clear he was being daft as I drove an artic for the firm.This lead to some back and forth with him saying 'are you f'ing kidding me, you should not mess with me job''. But he knew full well. If he'd calmed down rather than putting his hands on people I could have shown him my site access pass in my wallet. Or my colleague canteen card to get free coffee.

Edited by milkround on Thursday 18th April 19:15

Without reading anything else in this thread apart from your post here, I'd say you're guilty as charged.

When people say
' If I was inclined to steal I'd not be doing it inside the shop that's for sure.'
and
' I made it clear he was being daft as I drove an artic for the firm'
and,
' I could have shown him my site access pass in my wallet'
and,
'my colleague canteen card to get free coffee'

they're normally telling porkies.

[br d]

If this did happen as the OP states I think he's getting a very rough ride here, the SG sounds like a nasty bd who was looking for confrontation, if the account is correct.

If you are confident in the events OP then don't roll over, doesn't mean you'll come out of it a winner but there's way too much "You should have shut up and done what you were told" here.

[Seight_Returns]

There's no allegation of theft. Which is one of the factors the OP is relying on to protest his innocence.

[shake n bake]

Wow, did a pistonheads topic turn in to a bh fight?&#128558;
have we seen the video yet?

[Red 4]

I asked this many pages ago;

What, exactly, are the police threatening to charge you with, op ?

Section 39 Assault ? Section 47 Assault ? Public order offence ?