Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
768 said:
The Mad Monk said:
768 said:
I wonder what the hit rate, err, as in success rate, of these security guards is.
I guess people aren't likely to admit being caught but at the moment it doesn't sound like they do much other than delay or wind up customers.
Have you considered the deterrent effect?I guess people aren't likely to admit being caught but at the moment it doesn't sound like they do much other than delay or wind up customers.
Monkeylegend said:
768 said:
The Mad Monk said:
768 said:
I wonder what the hit rate, err, as in success rate, of these security guards is.
I guess people aren't likely to admit being caught but at the moment it doesn't sound like they do much other than delay or wind up customers.
Have you considered the deterrent effect?I guess people aren't likely to admit being caught but at the moment it doesn't sound like they do much other than delay or wind up customers.
Monkeylegend said:
768 said:
The Mad Monk said:
768 said:
I wonder what the hit rate, err, as in success rate, of these security guards is.
I guess people aren't likely to admit being caught but at the moment it doesn't sound like they do much other than delay or wind up customers.
Have you considered the deterrent effect?I guess people aren't likely to admit being caught but at the moment it doesn't sound like they do much other than delay or wind up customers.
I'd still be interested in what the success rate is.
hutchst said:
Let me try one last time. The law may be black and white, but it needs to be interpreted by people with years of training and experience of how to interpret it properly. You can't do it with a couple of folders full of googletrash.
You haven't been warned of a theft charge, you've been forewarned that you might be charged with assault. The two are completely different, and you are still conflating them. If you find yourself in court on an assault charge, that court will not be interested in whether you committed a theft (although a different court at a different time might be) or not. It will be interested in whether there were reasonable grounds for the security guard to believe that you were committing an indictable offence. (Note: the critical fact is what the guard reasonably believed, not what you had or had not done). If the court finds that he did have reasonable grounds, then he had a lawful right to detain you, and to use reasonable force to do so. If the court finds that the force used by the guard to detain you was reasonable in the circumstances, then your attack on him was likely to be an assault.
Keep it in your mind that Mr. Sowande (referred earlier) was not convicted of theft. He was convicted of assault, because he assaulted two security guards that tried to use reasonable force to detain him while he was attempting to get away from the scene through a shopping centre. He, like you, had already left the shop when the fracas took place.
One last time from me - go and get proper legal advice. We get it that your job is on the line. You need somebody experienced enough to help you find a solution that doesn't involve having to inform your de facto employers that you've been banned from one of their stores that you need to visit in the course of your duties, or worse still, been convicted of assaulting one of their employees.
Bear in mind however, that the guard knocked the OP to the floor, was kicking him and was not willing to call the police. I'd say that on the balance of probability the guard was not carrying out an arrest based on this, as he didn't have the evidence to back this up. He was just trying to literally strong-arm the OP back into the store.You haven't been warned of a theft charge, you've been forewarned that you might be charged with assault. The two are completely different, and you are still conflating them. If you find yourself in court on an assault charge, that court will not be interested in whether you committed a theft (although a different court at a different time might be) or not. It will be interested in whether there were reasonable grounds for the security guard to believe that you were committing an indictable offence. (Note: the critical fact is what the guard reasonably believed, not what you had or had not done). If the court finds that he did have reasonable grounds, then he had a lawful right to detain you, and to use reasonable force to do so. If the court finds that the force used by the guard to detain you was reasonable in the circumstances, then your attack on him was likely to be an assault.
Keep it in your mind that Mr. Sowande (referred earlier) was not convicted of theft. He was convicted of assault, because he assaulted two security guards that tried to use reasonable force to detain him while he was attempting to get away from the scene through a shopping centre. He, like you, had already left the shop when the fracas took place.
One last time from me - go and get proper legal advice. We get it that your job is on the line. You need somebody experienced enough to help you find a solution that doesn't involve having to inform your de facto employers that you've been banned from one of their stores that you need to visit in the course of your duties, or worse still, been convicted of assaulting one of their employees.
For him to carry out an arrest he needs to be very clear about what's going on. His use of force does not sound proportional or correct, and will be a million miles from his own companies guidelines and procedures on how he should act.
Cyberprog said:
hutchst said:
Let me try one last time. The law may be black and white, but it needs to be interpreted by people with years of training and experience of how to interpret it properly. You can't do it with a couple of folders full of googletrash.
You haven't been warned of a theft charge, you've been forewarned that you might be charged with assault. The two are completely different, and you are still conflating them. If you find yourself in court on an assault charge, that court will not be interested in whether you committed a theft (although a different court at a different time might be) or not. It will be interested in whether there were reasonable grounds for the security guard to believe that you were committing an indictable offence. (Note: the critical fact is what the guard reasonably believed, not what you had or had not done). If the court finds that he did have reasonable grounds, then he had a lawful right to detain you, and to use reasonable force to do so. If the court finds that the force used by the guard to detain you was reasonable in the circumstances, then your attack on him was likely to be an assault.
Keep it in your mind that Mr. Sowande (referred earlier) was not convicted of theft. He was convicted of assault, because he assaulted two security guards that tried to use reasonable force to detain him while he was attempting to get away from the scene through a shopping centre. He, like you, had already left the shop when the fracas took place.
One last time from me - go and get proper legal advice. We get it that your job is on the line. You need somebody experienced enough to help you find a solution that doesn't involve having to inform your de facto employers that you've been banned from one of their stores that you need to visit in the course of your duties, or worse still, been convicted of assaulting one of their employees.
Bear in mind however, that the guard knocked the OP to the floor, was kicking him and was not willing to call the police. I'd say that on the balance of probability the guard was not carrying out an arrest based on this, as he didn't have the evidence to back this up. He was just trying to literally strong-arm the OP back into the store.You haven't been warned of a theft charge, you've been forewarned that you might be charged with assault. The two are completely different, and you are still conflating them. If you find yourself in court on an assault charge, that court will not be interested in whether you committed a theft (although a different court at a different time might be) or not. It will be interested in whether there were reasonable grounds for the security guard to believe that you were committing an indictable offence. (Note: the critical fact is what the guard reasonably believed, not what you had or had not done). If the court finds that he did have reasonable grounds, then he had a lawful right to detain you, and to use reasonable force to do so. If the court finds that the force used by the guard to detain you was reasonable in the circumstances, then your attack on him was likely to be an assault.
Keep it in your mind that Mr. Sowande (referred earlier) was not convicted of theft. He was convicted of assault, because he assaulted two security guards that tried to use reasonable force to detain him while he was attempting to get away from the scene through a shopping centre. He, like you, had already left the shop when the fracas took place.
One last time from me - go and get proper legal advice. We get it that your job is on the line. You need somebody experienced enough to help you find a solution that doesn't involve having to inform your de facto employers that you've been banned from one of their stores that you need to visit in the course of your duties, or worse still, been convicted of assaulting one of their employees.
For him to carry out an arrest he needs to be very clear about what's going on. His use of force does not sound proportional or correct, and will be a million miles from his own companies guidelines and procedures on how he should act.
We'll just have to wait & see how the whole things pans out.
All that said, the point still stands that if the OP wanted as little fuss & aggro as possible there was a better approach in the circumstances he outlined than the one he took & he to his credit has accepted that.
Cyberprog said:
For him to carry out an arrest he needs to be very clear about what's going on. His use of force does not sound proportional or correct, and will be a million miles from his own companies guidelines and procedures on how he should act.
...and a million miles of what actually happened.Other staff members would have likely appeared and a member of the public would probably have caught the action on their phone and it would be doing the rounds on social media.
Three years or so ago we went into a shopping center on the outskirts of Lille. They had security guards doing bag checks on the doors.
Wife marches through without stopping and I pulled her back for the check. Her initial response was "He isn't checking my bag"
Maybe we should have just marched through and protested our rights although she wouldn't have enjoyed the confrontation with the CRS that the security guard was about to call.
Wife marches through without stopping and I pulled her back for the check. Her initial response was "He isn't checking my bag"
Maybe we should have just marched through and protested our rights although she wouldn't have enjoyed the confrontation with the CRS that the security guard was about to call.
vonhosen said:
Bear in mind there is video which the Police have apparently told the OP shows a different picture to that painted by him.
We'll just have to wait & see how the whole things pans out.
All that said, the point still stands that if the OP wanted as little fuss & aggro as possible there was a better approach in the circumstances he outlined than the one he took & he to his credit has accepted that.
Absolutely. We'll just have to wait & see how the whole things pans out.
All that said, the point still stands that if the OP wanted as little fuss & aggro as possible there was a better approach in the circumstances he outlined than the one he took & he to his credit has accepted that.
If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
milkround said:
Absolutely.
If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
If they had evidence of assault then wouldn't they just arrest you, no need for an interview to incriminate yourself?If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
ellingtj said:
milkround said:
Absolutely.
If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
If they had evidence of assault then wouldn't they just arrest you, no need for an interview to incriminate yourself?If what the Police lady says is correct - and that it doesn't showing him assaulting me. And shows me punching him. Then I'll be mortified and of course admit I was wrong. No it's, buts or maybes. She has made it clear that the apology is off the table now. Which I'm fine with. If I behaved like that I deserve to be punished.
Before anyone chimes in saying even if he did assault you he is allowed to use reasonable force etc - I'm not disputing that now. I'm saying what the Police lady said. This will be an incredibly simple interview for her if that is the case. I'll apologise - make a full admission and face my shame at the magistrates.
If it doesn't show that I'll be asking why she said that. She said it multiple times on the first phone call. And on the second said it showed him trying to grab things out of my hands. She said her sergeant also agreed with her.
What I find troubling is that it's not just my memory that would be totally wrong. But my partners as well. I'm not perfect and am looking forward to clearing this up and forgetting about it if I'm honest. I can live with a conviction for assault if I'm guilty of it. But what I couldn't live with is saying I was wrong when I truly don't think I am. That's just me. Maybe foolish but I am what I am.
I'd guess they want/need to interview so i can give an account.
Like I've said - if it shows me in the wrong I'll admit that. If not I will not. The officers was explicit what it showed. But then changed her mind. She also said that her Sargent agrees with her. My suspicion is the reality is it's 50/50 in terms of what it actually shows otherwise why would she be asking for a second opinion from her boss. But it might be totally normal to ask your boss to look over it in the Police. I don't know how it works.
OP just skimming the latest replies no formal investigation has taken place.
Unfortunately some PSCO, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE STAFF will say and threaten all sorts when in reality they just gather evidence for the CPS to make a decision.
Since you haven't even attended the station (I may of missed that but don';t think you have) or have been arrested they haven't interviewed you under caution so the chances of them bringing an assault charge are pretty slim. In order to caution you they would need an admission from you.
I would make a FORMAL complaint to the Police about the conduct of the guard for assault as it sounds like he jumped the gun and exceeded his limited authority. Then to tescos and his company as he needs words of advice about his conduct. Can't go jumping on people without reasonable cause and there are ways of dealing with such an incident without violence.
One of the reasons despite having trained and worked as a door supervisor I choose not too as £13 a hour is not worth the risk level and I also I always wanted to deescalate and avoid conflict rather than get into it. Which 5 out of 10 people with SIA badge seem to not understand!
Unfortunately some PSCO, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE STAFF will say and threaten all sorts when in reality they just gather evidence for the CPS to make a decision.
- Sounds like the guard is on another planet and might be pushing the police with his storied version of events. When you say the police, is it an officer or a member of staff as you will be surprised, I knew a lady who used to gob off about being police and threaten all sorts to neighbours and she was a temp administrator for CPS!
Since you haven't even attended the station (I may of missed that but don';t think you have) or have been arrested they haven't interviewed you under caution so the chances of them bringing an assault charge are pretty slim. In order to caution you they would need an admission from you.
I would make a FORMAL complaint to the Police about the conduct of the guard for assault as it sounds like he jumped the gun and exceeded his limited authority. Then to tescos and his company as he needs words of advice about his conduct. Can't go jumping on people without reasonable cause and there are ways of dealing with such an incident without violence.
One of the reasons despite having trained and worked as a door supervisor I choose not too as £13 a hour is not worth the risk level and I also I always wanted to deescalate and avoid conflict rather than get into it. Which 5 out of 10 people with SIA badge seem to not understand!
Thesprucegoose said:
steveo3002 said:
shouldnt get kicked round the car park for it though should he?
No but we have only heard one side of the story, op admits punching security guard in the face.That’s not ‘admitting it’ to me, but I’ve only seen one page of this, and intend to read no further.
surveyor_101 said:
OP just skimming the latest replies no formal investigation has taken place.
Unfortunately some PSCO, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE STAFF will say and threaten all sorts when in reality they just gather evidence for the CPS to make a decision.
Since you haven't even attended the station (I may of missed that but don';t think you have) or have been arrested they haven't interviewed you under caution so the chances of them bringing an assault charge are pretty slim. In order to caution you they would need an admission from you.
I would make a FORMAL complaint to the Police about the conduct of the guard for assault as it sounds like he jumped the gun and exceeded his limited authority. Then to tescos and his company as he needs words of advice about his conduct. Can't go jumping on people without reasonable cause and there are ways of dealing with such an incident without violence.
One of the reasons despite having trained and worked as a door supervisor I choose not too as £13 a hour is not worth the risk level and I also I always wanted to deescalate and avoid conflict rather than get into it. Which 5 out of 10 people with SIA badge seem to not understand!
Aye mate. Not been to the Police station yet. Wil be doing in 48 hours near enough exactly. Unfortunately some PSCO, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE STAFF will say and threaten all sorts when in reality they just gather evidence for the CPS to make a decision.
- Sounds like the guard is on another planet and might be pushing the police with his storied version of events. When you say the police, is it an officer or a member of staff as you will be surprised, I knew a lady who used to gob off about being police and threaten all sorts to neighbours and she was a temp administrator for CPS!
Since you haven't even attended the station (I may of missed that but don';t think you have) or have been arrested they haven't interviewed you under caution so the chances of them bringing an assault charge are pretty slim. In order to caution you they would need an admission from you.
I would make a FORMAL complaint to the Police about the conduct of the guard for assault as it sounds like he jumped the gun and exceeded his limited authority. Then to tescos and his company as he needs words of advice about his conduct. Can't go jumping on people without reasonable cause and there are ways of dealing with such an incident without violence.
One of the reasons despite having trained and worked as a door supervisor I choose not too as £13 a hour is not worth the risk level and I also I always wanted to deescalate and avoid conflict rather than get into it. Which 5 out of 10 people with SIA badge seem to not understand!
I shall tell em what I truly remember and see what the CCTV footage shows. If it's anything like my memory there is not a hope in hell I'll be admitting anything. If is shows what she says I'll be scarlet red and pleading guilty pronto. It's probably going to be somewhere in the middle I reckon.
I need to be careful as I'm not sure how it all works. But none of it makes sense to me. She reckons she went the same night and viewed the CCTV. Now if she thought I was a shoplifter who'd taken to battering security guards you'd have thought she'd have come around to my address the same night. Which they'd know as I also called police and my car is registered there.
Instead she waits a few days and calls me on my mobile. She did say she'd tried knocking on the door the day previous (but my girl was in and she heard nothing). After me telling her I wouldn't be apologising as I didn't think I was one in the wrong she said she needed to 'have a think'. Have a think about what exactly... Acording to her she has evidence of me smacking people for no reason. I'd have thought that the only thinking would be is when she was going to lock me up.
Then she calls back still badgering me to accept I'm at fault and write a letter. Literally wouldn't let it go. In the end I told her I was having none of it (in a polite way) and she says she will let me know when is a good time to come in. She then goes on about how her Sargeant has seen footage and agrees with her. Well, I'd hope so if it shows what she is saying... But she changes her tune from he never laid a finger on me or my partner to he was trying to snatch stuff from me. Total rubbish.
Once/when this is all over I want to forget about it. I reckon I'd have a good claim for some compo if I had the patience. But I just want to let it go. The truth is this has/is gotten me down. Those 48 hours cannot come quick enough. One way or the other I want it done with.
MDMA . said:
Been reading this on/off over the last week. If you believe that you've done nothing wrong, just sit at home and wait to be arrested. I'm sure if you were guilty of any offences, you would have been arrested by now.
Not for nearly 13 years now. If he refuses to come in for the interview then maybe. wow. what a thread.
here my pointless 2p, and in no particular order. please feel free to ignore.
For all those that have been stopped by a security guard and complied, was the security guard polite or aggressive? I would assume polite, as how you are approached and spoken to directly influences the situation.
On the one occasion I have had similar challenge, the guard was very polite so no issue to comply and on my way. I dare say if aggressively confronted (and no actual crime committed), I would suggest the natural reaction is not polite compliance to an aggresor, but either fear/runaway, defensive responsive, aggressive response, or challenge response.
One thing I don't get is why a security guard on minimum wage or certainly low paid, would be putting their safety on the line and engaging in aggressive or violent physical contact. I'm sure there was thread on here last year outlining why security guards cannot/don't engage in physical contact in such situations, that they instructed not to, and to involve the police instead. I pretty sure there was a poster who was a security guard who painted a rather bleak picture of no thanks for putting personal safety at risk, unpaid sick leave to recover from injuries sustained, and a dressing down after being challenging and assaulted by a shoplifter. Caveat - I cant find the thread, so could be talking pish.
If the security guard was indeed aggressive in challenging the OP, and the OP chose to avoid the confrontation be trying to remove himself, that seems understandable. If being called homophobic names, and the guard engaged in violent conduct towards the OP, I find it hard to see how any of this is deemed as "reasonable" or part of a citizens arrest. If the OP did push the guard back, in defence after being attacked, that is understandable, although not sure how that's viewed legally.
OP - have you lodged a complaint either with the Police or supermarket with regards to homophobic verbal abuse? Such things are deemed as unacceptable in society these days, and cannot be justified by suspicion of theft or any other suspected crime.
CCTV & the police officer: OP, if you are were captured on CCTV clearly assaulting the guard, I would have expected police action sooner, and you to be at least cautioned or even charged accordingly. I would also assume the supermarket (or security contractor to) to be pushing the police to press charges.
You need to see the CCTV and what it actually shows. If what you have said is 100% true, and it only shows you pushing the guard, I would be somewhat suspicious. You should not admit to anything without proper legal advice and ignore fannies on the internet (like me).
Interested to see the outcome of this.
here my pointless 2p, and in no particular order. please feel free to ignore.
For all those that have been stopped by a security guard and complied, was the security guard polite or aggressive? I would assume polite, as how you are approached and spoken to directly influences the situation.
On the one occasion I have had similar challenge, the guard was very polite so no issue to comply and on my way. I dare say if aggressively confronted (and no actual crime committed), I would suggest the natural reaction is not polite compliance to an aggresor, but either fear/runaway, defensive responsive, aggressive response, or challenge response.
One thing I don't get is why a security guard on minimum wage or certainly low paid, would be putting their safety on the line and engaging in aggressive or violent physical contact. I'm sure there was thread on here last year outlining why security guards cannot/don't engage in physical contact in such situations, that they instructed not to, and to involve the police instead. I pretty sure there was a poster who was a security guard who painted a rather bleak picture of no thanks for putting personal safety at risk, unpaid sick leave to recover from injuries sustained, and a dressing down after being challenging and assaulted by a shoplifter. Caveat - I cant find the thread, so could be talking pish.
If the security guard was indeed aggressive in challenging the OP, and the OP chose to avoid the confrontation be trying to remove himself, that seems understandable. If being called homophobic names, and the guard engaged in violent conduct towards the OP, I find it hard to see how any of this is deemed as "reasonable" or part of a citizens arrest. If the OP did push the guard back, in defence after being attacked, that is understandable, although not sure how that's viewed legally.
OP - have you lodged a complaint either with the Police or supermarket with regards to homophobic verbal abuse? Such things are deemed as unacceptable in society these days, and cannot be justified by suspicion of theft or any other suspected crime.
CCTV & the police officer: OP, if you are were captured on CCTV clearly assaulting the guard, I would have expected police action sooner, and you to be at least cautioned or even charged accordingly. I would also assume the supermarket (or security contractor to) to be pushing the police to press charges.
You need to see the CCTV and what it actually shows. If what you have said is 100% true, and it only shows you pushing the guard, I would be somewhat suspicious. You should not admit to anything without proper legal advice and ignore fannies on the internet (like me).
Interested to see the outcome of this.
ritch said:
OP - have you lodged a complaint either with the Police or supermarket with regards to homophobic verbal abuse? Such things are deemed as unacceptable in society these days, and cannot be justified by suspicion of theft or any other suspected crime.
CCTV & the police officer: OP, if you are were captured on CCTV clearly assaulting the guard, I would have expected police action sooner, and you to be at least cautioned or even charged accordingly. I would also assume the supermarket (or security contractor to) to be pushing the police to press charges.
You need to see the CCTV and what it actually shows. If what you have said is 100% true, and it only shows you pushing the guard, I would be somewhat suspicious. You should not admit to anything without proper legal advice and ignore fannies on the internet (like me).
Interested to see the outcome of this.
Yes to the first question. As soon as I got home I called 101 and told them everything. At the time I just wanted to know in case it was alleged I'd been robbing and made off! The officer(I assume) on the phone said I'd been assaulted and I was given a crime reference number. CCTV & the police officer: OP, if you are were captured on CCTV clearly assaulting the guard, I would have expected police action sooner, and you to be at least cautioned or even charged accordingly. I would also assume the supermarket (or security contractor to) to be pushing the police to press charges.
You need to see the CCTV and what it actually shows. If what you have said is 100% true, and it only shows you pushing the guard, I would be somewhat suspicious. You should not admit to anything without proper legal advice and ignore fannies on the internet (like me).
Interested to see the outcome of this.
The next day I emailed the CEO of the company. A day or so later I got an email saying they asked the manager to look into it. The same day I got the call from the police. I reckon it's a coincidence but hey ho.
The police might have been busy. If there was something really serious or someone really needed help I can see that taking priority. And rightly so. They might have been run off their feet for a few days. Who knows.
I'm not here to lie or wind folk up. I don't like/want the attention. My memory of the event is 100% of what I've written on here. My partner also has the same memory. If CCTV shows something totally different I'd be flabbergasted. I had physical marks on my body and my top was ripped. How this happened if he never touched me is beyond me. It would be some serious Darren Brown stuff.
I have a solicitor going with me on thursday afternoon. I'll see what they say. I can't do anything other than wait and see now.
milkround said:
Yes to the first question. As soon as I got home I called 101 and told them everything. At the time I just wanted to know in case it was alleged I'd been robbing and made off! The officer(I assume) on the phone said I'd been assaulted and I was given a crime reference number.
The next day I emailed the CEO of the company. A day or so later I got an email saying they asked the manager to look into it. The same day I got the call from the police. I reckon it's a coincidence but hey ho.
The police might have been busy. If there was something really serious or someone really needed help I can see that taking priority. And rightly so. They might have been run off their feet for a few days. Who knows.
I'm not here to lie or wind folk up. I don't like/want the attention. My memory of the event is 100% of what I've written on here. My partner also has the same memory. If CCTV shows something totally different I'd be flabbergasted. I had physical marks on my body and my top was ripped. How this happened if he never touched me is beyond me. It would be some serious Darren Brown stuff.
I have a solicitor going with me on thursday afternoon. I'll see what they say. I can't do anything other than wait and see now.
Have the Police asked you to attend?The next day I emailed the CEO of the company. A day or so later I got an email saying they asked the manager to look into it. The same day I got the call from the police. I reckon it's a coincidence but hey ho.
The police might have been busy. If there was something really serious or someone really needed help I can see that taking priority. And rightly so. They might have been run off their feet for a few days. Who knows.
I'm not here to lie or wind folk up. I don't like/want the attention. My memory of the event is 100% of what I've written on here. My partner also has the same memory. If CCTV shows something totally different I'd be flabbergasted. I had physical marks on my body and my top was ripped. How this happened if he never touched me is beyond me. It would be some serious Darren Brown stuff.
I have a solicitor going with me on thursday afternoon. I'll see what they say. I can't do anything other than wait and see now.
Without commenting on the specifics of the OP’s situation, a few other posters seem to think he’d have been arrested straight away if there was any substance to an allegation of assault. That’s simply wrong. Under PACE code G, unless any of the “necessity criteria” are met, people don’t get arrested. It makes much more sense, where appropriate, to gather the evidence first, then interview, ideally by appointment that’s mutually convenient to all parties.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff