Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
milkround said:
I'd wager not a single police officer on here would admit that if they'd only give a shoplifter who attacked someone making a citizens arrest and the made off a community resolution to say he is sorry.
If you meet the eligibility criteria for a caution/ community resolution then you'd be offered one.Shoplifting and minor assaults (Section 39, Common Assault) fit the criteria.
Other criteria are previous convictions and the fact that you must admit to the offence.
If you've done nothing wrong and are happy to defend your actions then, obviously, a community resolution cannot be offered.
In the grand scheme of things these are low level offences.
That doesn't mean that a caution/ community resolution would not have an impact on you personally/ professionally.
If it was me, based on what you've said, I would not be accepting what is currently being offered by the police.
Red 4 said:
milkround said:
I'd wager not a single police officer on here would admit that if they'd only give a shoplifter who attacked someone making a citizens arrest and the made off a community resolution to say he is sorry.
If you meet the eligibility criteria for a caution/ community resolution then you'd be offered one.Shoplifting and minor assaults (Section 39, Common Assault) fit the criteria.
Other criteria are previous convictions and the fact that you must admit to the offence.
If you've done nothing wrong and are happy to defend your actions then, obviously, a community resolution cannot be offered.
In the grand scheme of things these are low level offences.
That doesn't mean that a caution/ community resolution would not have an impact on you personally/ professionally.
If it was me, based on what you've said, I would not be accepting what is currently being offered by the police.
Bigends said:
The officer shouldnt even be offering or even mentioning potential resolutions to the OP until investigations are complete. Theyre clearly looking for a quick, easy resolution to the job.
The trouble is, we don't know how the 'case' looks from plod's pov. The security guard's account plus the video might make a compelling story.She made the offer, the OP said no way, so there's the next phase of investigation to go
Bert
BertBert said:
Bigends said:
The officer shouldnt even be offering or even mentioning potential resolutions to the OP until investigations are complete. Theyre clearly looking for a quick, easy resolution to the job.
The trouble is, we don't know how the 'case' looks from plod's pov. The security guard's account plus the video might make a compelling story.She made the offer, the OP said no way, so there's the next phase of investigation to go
Bert
The op has not been interviewed yet.
She's jumping the gun. You can't provide an outcome prior to investigating.
It's poor policing and just smacks of laziness.
BertBert said:
Bigends said:
The officer shouldnt even be offering or even mentioning potential resolutions to the OP until investigations are complete. Theyre clearly looking for a quick, easy resolution to the job.
The trouble is, we don't know how the 'case' looks from plod's pov. The security guard's account plus the video might make a compelling story.She made the offer, the OP said no way, so there's the next phase of investigation to go
Bert
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 20th April 13:13
Bigends said:
BertBert said:
Bigends said:
The officer shouldnt even be offering or even mentioning potential resolutions to the OP until investigations are complete. Theyre clearly looking for a quick, easy resolution to the job.
The trouble is, we don't know how the 'case' looks from plod's pov. The security guard's account plus the video might make a compelling story.She made the offer, the OP said no way, so there's the next phase of investigation to go
Bert
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 20th April 13:13
OP, can you go back to the store today with your other half and, after checking that the same security guy is on duty, buy some stuff in a cack-handed manner and report back?
If he kicks off again then the fact he hasn't been retrained may help your case. If we don't hear back for a couple of days we can assume the car park Kung Fu got out of hand and you MAY be discovered protruding feet first from the paper recycling bin - make sure you're holding tight to the receipt.
Worth a try?
If he kicks off again then the fact he hasn't been retrained may help your case. If we don't hear back for a couple of days we can assume the car park Kung Fu got out of hand and you MAY be discovered protruding feet first from the paper recycling bin - make sure you're holding tight to the receipt.
Worth a try?
FiF said:
Bigends said:
BertBert said:
Bigends said:
The officer shouldnt even be offering or even mentioning potential resolutions to the OP until investigations are complete. Theyre clearly looking for a quick, easy resolution to the job.
The trouble is, we don't know how the 'case' looks from plod's pov. The security guard's account plus the video might make a compelling story.She made the offer, the OP said no way, so there's the next phase of investigation to go
Bert
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 20th April 13:13
Bert
Bigends said:
The officer shouldnt even be offering or even mentioning potential resolutions to the OP until investigations are complete. Theyre clearly looking for a quick, easy resolution to the job.
First sentence - we don't know that. Second sentence - we only have the OP's word for that, and he is already on record as preferring to roll on the ground in the car park with a security officer than produce a receipt.
Red 4 said:
The op has not been interviewed yet.
And if I was the OP I wouldn't even talk to the police.You cannot talk your way out of anything, the Police will use anything you say against you.
They are not on your side.
Talking could lead to charges.
No talking also means no solicitor costs.
caziques said:
Red 4 said:
The op has not been interviewed yet.
And if I was the OP I wouldn't even talk to the police.You cannot talk your way out of anything, the Police will use anything you say against you.
They are not on your side.
Talking could lead to charges.
No talking also means no solicitor costs.
I disagree you cannot talk your way out of anything - it is case specific and of course whether the suspect did it or not
Solicitors costs are free for Police interviews.
caziques said:
Red 4 said:
The op has not been interviewed yet.
And if I was the OP I wouldn't even talk to the police.You cannot talk your way out of anything, the Police will use anything you say against you.
They are not on your side.
Talking could lead to charges.
No talking also means no solicitor costs.
There are times when it’s appropriate to talk, and others when it’s not. It depends on the circumstances.
The Mad Monk said:
You don't know that.
Actually... And I don't want to engage with you if it's going to be arguing. You can know that. Simply because if an investigation is completed the officer has neither the need nor the right to interview.
Once they have the evidence to charge they can do. There is no need for an interview. As I have not been charged then she is still investigating.
Also... PACE Code C states:
[i] No interviewer may try to obtain answers or elicit a statement by the use of oppression.
Except as in paragraph 10.9, no interviewer shall indicate, except to answer a direct
question, what action will be taken by the police if the person being questioned answers
questions, makes a statement or refuses to do either. If the person asks directly what
action will be taken if they answer questions, make a statement or refuse to do either, the
interviewer may inform them what action the police propose to take provided that action is
itself proper and warranted. [/i]
Now I do accept on the phone that I was not being interviewed with regards to PACE. But it seems rather suspect to continually badger me into admitting it and even say 'you will definitely be going to court if you don't admit it'.
Maybe totally irrelevant. And as always it's just my side of things. But I do wonder how I'd even know about any of this stuff if she hasn't said it. I'm not exactly an expert in Police procedures as some will have worked out.
I'm all for rules is rules is rules etc... But the person applying those rules should also subject themselves to the rules they are meant to follow. And not try and bully people into admitting they are guilty of a crime.
Add to this from Code C:
[i] 11.6 The interview or further interview of a person about an offence with which that person has
not been charged or for which they have not been informed they may be prosecuted, must
cease when:
(c) the officer in charge of the investigation, or in the case of a detained suspect, the
custody officer, see paragraph 16.1, reasonably believes there is sufficient evidence
to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for that offence. See Note 11B. [/i]
So on one hand she is saying I'll definately go to court. But on the other hand she is demanding/inviting me to go for an interview. Which is breaching their own rules.
I'm not after causing trouble. But I think I've been treated atrociously so far. I didn't set out to hurt anyone. I didn't steal anything. I was a bit difficult (my own admission) and ended up being attacked both verbally with homophobic abuse and physically. I then tried to get away and defended myself (I say a push but lets see the CCTV). And since then the police have been breaking the basic rules they are meant to follow. It's a disgrace really.
Before anyone states - yeah you have only heard what I've said. And I could be a total liar or mentally ill person. Or I could be telling the truth and just be a bit shocked by this. Make your own mind up. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on pretending to be a fool in this position.
[i] No interviewer may try to obtain answers or elicit a statement by the use of oppression.
Except as in paragraph 10.9, no interviewer shall indicate, except to answer a direct
question, what action will be taken by the police if the person being questioned answers
questions, makes a statement or refuses to do either. If the person asks directly what
action will be taken if they answer questions, make a statement or refuse to do either, the
interviewer may inform them what action the police propose to take provided that action is
itself proper and warranted. [/i]
Now I do accept on the phone that I was not being interviewed with regards to PACE. But it seems rather suspect to continually badger me into admitting it and even say 'you will definitely be going to court if you don't admit it'.
Maybe totally irrelevant. And as always it's just my side of things. But I do wonder how I'd even know about any of this stuff if she hasn't said it. I'm not exactly an expert in Police procedures as some will have worked out.
I'm all for rules is rules is rules etc... But the person applying those rules should also subject themselves to the rules they are meant to follow. And not try and bully people into admitting they are guilty of a crime.
Add to this from Code C:
[i] 11.6 The interview or further interview of a person about an offence with which that person has
not been charged or for which they have not been informed they may be prosecuted, must
cease when:
(c) the officer in charge of the investigation, or in the case of a detained suspect, the
custody officer, see paragraph 16.1, reasonably believes there is sufficient evidence
to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for that offence. See Note 11B. [/i]
So on one hand she is saying I'll definately go to court. But on the other hand she is demanding/inviting me to go for an interview. Which is breaching their own rules.
I'm not after causing trouble. But I think I've been treated atrociously so far. I didn't set out to hurt anyone. I didn't steal anything. I was a bit difficult (my own admission) and ended up being attacked both verbally with homophobic abuse and physically. I then tried to get away and defended myself (I say a push but lets see the CCTV). And since then the police have been breaking the basic rules they are meant to follow. It's a disgrace really.
Before anyone states - yeah you have only heard what I've said. And I could be a total liar or mentally ill person. Or I could be telling the truth and just be a bit shocked by this. Make your own mind up. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on pretending to be a fool in this position.
And yet another gem from CODE C of PACE:
[i]11B The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice, paragraph 3.5 states
‘In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of
enquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. What is reasonable will
depend on the particular circumstances.’ Interviewers should keep this in mind when
deciding what questions to ask in an interview. [/i]
How you'd determine that interviewing 1 of the 3 people at the scene as a waste of time as in your opinion they are 'not a witness as they were assaulted' beggars belief to me.
Especially as that person has already given a statement as a victim saying they were assaulted and said what happened. But obviously, that would point away from 'the suspect'. So in this PC's eyes would be a waste of time.
I got some grief before for emailing professional standards. And that was before I'd even read this stuff. I'm even more shocked and appalled now. They have not got back to me yet - but I'd hope they do the right thing and compel this officer to take the statements as she's meant to.
[i]11B The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice, paragraph 3.5 states
‘In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of
enquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. What is reasonable will
depend on the particular circumstances.’ Interviewers should keep this in mind when
deciding what questions to ask in an interview. [/i]
How you'd determine that interviewing 1 of the 3 people at the scene as a waste of time as in your opinion they are 'not a witness as they were assaulted' beggars belief to me.
Especially as that person has already given a statement as a victim saying they were assaulted and said what happened. But obviously, that would point away from 'the suspect'. So in this PC's eyes would be a waste of time.
I got some grief before for emailing professional standards. And that was before I'd even read this stuff. I'm even more shocked and appalled now. They have not got back to me yet - but I'd hope they do the right thing and compel this officer to take the statements as she's meant to.
You'd probably be better to just let it play out rather than going down the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' route.
If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
The PC shouldnt really be saying you WILL go to court because obviously until such time the investigation has reached a point where the Police/CPS feel they have enough evidence then it it obviously is NOT going to court.
What she could say in perhaps a more roundabout way is that I feel the evidence is strong and if you don't cough to it then its highly likely you will go to court. I do feel though once you denied the offence she should just shut up and investigate it formally rather than threaten you (if that is what she did).
What she could say in perhaps a more roundabout way is that I feel the evidence is strong and if you don't cough to it then its highly likely you will go to court. I do feel though once you denied the offence she should just shut up and investigate it formally rather than threaten you (if that is what she did).
The best fights / arguments are the ones that you don't have, which is why I would have done things differently from the OP right at the outset.
Having said that, based on the information from the OP only caveat, no offence intended OP, then there is no way I would be accepting the disposition proposed by the officer without proper disclosure. That may or indeed may not be an argument well worth having but with proper professional legal opinion, paid for advice probably. Yes it sucks but you shouldn't just roll over if you genuinely think done nothing wrong, or were not the instigator, eg acting in self defence.
Having said that, based on the information from the OP only caveat, no offence intended OP, then there is no way I would be accepting the disposition proposed by the officer without proper disclosure. That may or indeed may not be an argument well worth having but with proper professional legal opinion, paid for advice probably. Yes it sucks but you shouldn't just roll over if you genuinely think done nothing wrong, or were not the instigator, eg acting in self defence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff