Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
vonhosen said:
killerferret666 said:
All this for not showing a receipt...crazy.
It's not just that though is it?That bit is not an offence or unreasonable in the circumstances.
Hol said:
vonhosen said:
killerferret666 said:
All this for not showing a receipt...crazy.
It's not just that though is it?That bit is not an offence or unreasonable in the circumstances.
99.99% of people don't do that or end up with this aggro.
Each to their own.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 26th April 09:01
Thanks for the update OP. Good that you listened to your lawyer, especially re paraphrasing.
From what you've said, you've admitted that you "pushed back" at the SG; it could be common assault, or potentially self-defence. Either way, they now have you admitting to having physically interacted with the SG. If charged, you could claim self-defence, but I'd not back your chances in a Magistrate's Court. They have the CCTV and they have a witness, and they are generally supportive of security staff "just doing their job". You may think it stinks, but this is the way the system works.
If the police officer takes the view that this passes muster and you're charged, you'll end up at the Magistrates Court. If there, it's astonishingly likely that you'll be found guilty; the conviction rate was 85.1% in 2014/15. You don't ever want to be in court, but you really don't want to be in court and then found guilty. If charged and invited to attend the Magistrates, I suggest that you plead guilty at the first opportunity and mitigate as much as possible. Good character, no previous, felt threatened and scared? You'll probably end up with a conditional discharge, maybe a fine. If you plead NG and are found guilty, the penalties will clearly be higher.
Obviously I'm just a bloke on the internet, and your best advice is to talk to your lawyer and be guided on this. But don't waste your time and money getting video enhanced; the Magistrates really won't be interested.
From what you've said, you've admitted that you "pushed back" at the SG; it could be common assault, or potentially self-defence. Either way, they now have you admitting to having physically interacted with the SG. If charged, you could claim self-defence, but I'd not back your chances in a Magistrate's Court. They have the CCTV and they have a witness, and they are generally supportive of security staff "just doing their job". You may think it stinks, but this is the way the system works.
If the police officer takes the view that this passes muster and you're charged, you'll end up at the Magistrates Court. If there, it's astonishingly likely that you'll be found guilty; the conviction rate was 85.1% in 2014/15. You don't ever want to be in court, but you really don't want to be in court and then found guilty. If charged and invited to attend the Magistrates, I suggest that you plead guilty at the first opportunity and mitigate as much as possible. Good character, no previous, felt threatened and scared? You'll probably end up with a conditional discharge, maybe a fine. If you plead NG and are found guilty, the penalties will clearly be higher.
Obviously I'm just a bloke on the internet, and your best advice is to talk to your lawyer and be guided on this. But don't waste your time and money getting video enhanced; the Magistrates really won't be interested.
milkround said:
The solicitor started off by telling me what the Police had said. Then listened to my version. She said I had a defence of self-defence. And said I'd be best giving that side of the story. She said to give my side of the story and nothing more. At times in the interview, she did tell me firmly I'd said enough.
It was recorded on the officers body worn camera. Which was mounted on some form of tripod.
Yes I admitted that I pushed him after going to the ground. I said I did this because I was scared and he was still coming towards me even after I'd repeatedly tried to withdraw. A big bone of contention for them was if it was a push or a punch. You cannot see at all from the video.
I did say the words used. The officer asked if I was just saying that to get out of trouble. I explained this was ludicrous as if I didn't want to get into trouble I'd have simply written the letter if I felt I was in the wrong. What i couldn't do is say exactly how they were used. When I tried to paraphrase the solicitor stopped me. Sadly i just can't remember word for word what was said.
One Police officer was present.
Yes I was cautioned. I even had to say back in my own words what I thought it meant.
I wasn't arrested. He said I could leave - but if he felt he needed to question me still he could arrest me for a prompt and effective investigation.
I can't remember the address as I've not moved there yet. I've not actually been inside it (partner has). I gave the road name I just don't know the block of flats name. I don't see why this is relevent.
The only documentation given to my be the police was some yellow form beforehand which outlined my rights. It was not overly relevant. It included things like having the embassy called if I was a foreigner. Or having an appropriate adult with me if I was a child etc.
I'm not sure how any of that stuff helps tbh.
I think the ‘having an adult with you’ bit may well help. It would have helped from the start too.It was recorded on the officers body worn camera. Which was mounted on some form of tripod.
Yes I admitted that I pushed him after going to the ground. I said I did this because I was scared and he was still coming towards me even after I'd repeatedly tried to withdraw. A big bone of contention for them was if it was a push or a punch. You cannot see at all from the video.
I did say the words used. The officer asked if I was just saying that to get out of trouble. I explained this was ludicrous as if I didn't want to get into trouble I'd have simply written the letter if I felt I was in the wrong. What i couldn't do is say exactly how they were used. When I tried to paraphrase the solicitor stopped me. Sadly i just can't remember word for word what was said.
One Police officer was present.
Yes I was cautioned. I even had to say back in my own words what I thought it meant.
I wasn't arrested. He said I could leave - but if he felt he needed to question me still he could arrest me for a prompt and effective investigation.
I can't remember the address as I've not moved there yet. I've not actually been inside it (partner has). I gave the road name I just don't know the block of flats name. I don't see why this is relevent.
The only documentation given to my be the police was some yellow form beforehand which outlined my rights. It was not overly relevant. It included things like having the embassy called if I was a foreigner. Or having an appropriate adult with me if I was a child etc.
I'm not sure how any of that stuff helps tbh.
Lemming Train said:
Ah now it all becomes clear! No wonder the security guard stopped you and they're doing you for theft - and quite right too imo! If you'd bought it before you tried to walk out with it then none of this would have happened. You cannot just bring things out of shops without paying for them. 
vonhosen said:
The OP said he tried that & it didn't work.
99.99% of people don't do that or end up with this aggro.
Each to their own.
No99.99% of people don't do that or end up with this aggro.
Each to their own.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 26th April 09:01
The op said he didn't have a receipt.
But then his partner found it.
That alone is unusual. Even without a receipt most people would stand and chat a few seconds, even ask the store manager to attend too if they felt uncomfortable.
La Liga said:
richard sails said:
Ructions said:
kindai said:
Any defence barrister would rip the "evidence" to pieces.
If this ‘case’ does proceed, it will most likely do so in the magistrates court, would it be common practise to use a barrister in a magistrates case?Never heard, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client"?
My case was probably a little unusual as the police officer had made me look very stupid in his evidence, there was also a number of inconsistencies in his statement which he could not answer when I got to question him.
When we were sent outside for the magistrates to consider the evidence the CPS solicitor said to me "Have you done this before or have you been practising?", which made me smile because neither the officer or the CPS had come off well during the session.
It was a bit nerve racking but the magistrates gave me both a fair hearing and a great result, the CPS solicitor got what appeared to be a bit of a telling off by the nice old lady in the middle.
This was all a very time ago and things may have changed, take the advice of your solicitor is probably the best advice.
Coilspring said:
vonhosen said:
The OP said he tried that & it didn't work.
99.99% of people don't do that or end up with this aggro.
Each to their own.
No99.99% of people don't do that or end up with this aggro.
Each to their own.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 26th April 09:01
The op said he didn't have a receipt.
But then his partner found it.
That alone is unusual. Even without a receipt most people would stand and chat a few seconds, even ask the store manager to attend too if they felt uncomfortable.
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
He tried to walk away.
His partner found the receipt towards the end of the fracas.
It would have all been a non event if he hadn't tried to walk away & had been more helpful in sorting the matter out.
That has come with a price that even he says he wouldn't go through again should the situation arise in the future.
It's been a painful learning curve for the OP.
richard sails said:
That was the advice from my solicitor based on the details of the case, it worked for me as the case was dismissed very quickly.
My case was probably a little unusual as the police officer had made me look very stupid in his evidence, there was also a number of inconsistencies in his statement which he could not answer when I got to question him.
When we were sent outside for the magistrates to consider the evidence the CPS solicitor said to me "Have you done this before or have you been practising?", which made me smile because neither the officer or the CPS had come off well during the session.
It was a bit nerve racking but the magistrates gave me both a fair hearing and a great result, the CPS solicitor got what appeared to be a bit of a telling off by the nice old lady in the middle.
This was all a very time ago and things may have changed, take the advice of your solicitor is probably the best advice.
The Mags do tend to give a bit of leeway to people who represent themselves.My case was probably a little unusual as the police officer had made me look very stupid in his evidence, there was also a number of inconsistencies in his statement which he could not answer when I got to question him.
When we were sent outside for the magistrates to consider the evidence the CPS solicitor said to me "Have you done this before or have you been practising?", which made me smile because neither the officer or the CPS had come off well during the session.
It was a bit nerve racking but the magistrates gave me both a fair hearing and a great result, the CPS solicitor got what appeared to be a bit of a telling off by the nice old lady in the middle.
This was all a very time ago and things may have changed, take the advice of your solicitor is probably the best advice.
I didn’t didn’t ever end well for those who I saw represent themselves.
Yours sound a more exceptional case.
milkround said:
Umm a strange evening that is for sure.
When I got there I said I was there for an arranged interview with officers name. To my surprise a bloke popped around and said he was going to be dealing with it. He said he'd taken over it now. He didn't really go into why. But I think after my complaint they have changed the officer. He was alright actually.
Then on to chat with the solicitor. And they'd added stuff on including me hitting the bloke over the back of the head with a pan when he kicked me. I was amazed. Also made it clear that community resolution is off the table etc. It's either nothing or court.
Then he comes in. It was video'd on his body worn camera. Went through him asking if I was going to harm myself etc. Asked if I'd taken drugs. Then onto his first question - tell me what happened. I explained as I have on here. He then reads out bits and bobs from the two statements they have.
Both of them include things which are clearly shown not to be the case on the CCTV. Factual errors. Including the 'witness' who said the SG kicked me as I went to smack him with a pan. The problem is that the camera shows that at that point I didn't even have a pan in my hands. Officer waved this off as 'people can make mistakes'. It also doesn't show the alleged witness anywhere on the footage. But allegedly he was close enough to hear my thunderous attack.
SG claimed his reasons for stopping me were that I walked out from the wrong isle. Which again the footage shows to be untrue. He also states explicitly that he asked me for a receipt but I just ignored him and walked off. But the footage shows me standing and talking to him.
He claims he never touched me. He says he just stood in front of me to stop me leaving. But it does show me having to roll out of when he tried to twist my arm. At this point I asked the officer why he felt I did that and if in his experience it would be a reaction to grabbing someone arm and trying to twist it. He wouldn't comment. The footage is dark - SG was dressed all in black. But you can see me as I had light trousers. At all times i'm moving back. Officer didn't seem to think this was important - fair enough. It also shows me being forced back by him etc.
It does show me strike him. But only from behind showing my head. The officer claims that he can't see me being roughed up but he can definitely tell it was a punch. I have no idea how. It is what it is.
At the end he said he was cautioning me with respect for reporting me for prosecution. It's now in the hands of a supervisor. I'm not sure what it all means. I should get a call in a week letting me know. I think they will charge me. In the end, he shook my hand. I have to say that he seemed like a decent type. He needs to write it all up. The saga continues. Sod all I can do now.
In my 'bloke on the internet' opinion I think it's unlikely you'll be charged based on what you've said. You're not the aggressor if you're moving backwards the whole time and if the punch isn't on camera it's only a case of "he said, she said".When I got there I said I was there for an arranged interview with officers name. To my surprise a bloke popped around and said he was going to be dealing with it. He said he'd taken over it now. He didn't really go into why. But I think after my complaint they have changed the officer. He was alright actually.
Then on to chat with the solicitor. And they'd added stuff on including me hitting the bloke over the back of the head with a pan when he kicked me. I was amazed. Also made it clear that community resolution is off the table etc. It's either nothing or court.
Then he comes in. It was video'd on his body worn camera. Went through him asking if I was going to harm myself etc. Asked if I'd taken drugs. Then onto his first question - tell me what happened. I explained as I have on here. He then reads out bits and bobs from the two statements they have.
Both of them include things which are clearly shown not to be the case on the CCTV. Factual errors. Including the 'witness' who said the SG kicked me as I went to smack him with a pan. The problem is that the camera shows that at that point I didn't even have a pan in my hands. Officer waved this off as 'people can make mistakes'. It also doesn't show the alleged witness anywhere on the footage. But allegedly he was close enough to hear my thunderous attack.
SG claimed his reasons for stopping me were that I walked out from the wrong isle. Which again the footage shows to be untrue. He also states explicitly that he asked me for a receipt but I just ignored him and walked off. But the footage shows me standing and talking to him.
He claims he never touched me. He says he just stood in front of me to stop me leaving. But it does show me having to roll out of when he tried to twist my arm. At this point I asked the officer why he felt I did that and if in his experience it would be a reaction to grabbing someone arm and trying to twist it. He wouldn't comment. The footage is dark - SG was dressed all in black. But you can see me as I had light trousers. At all times i'm moving back. Officer didn't seem to think this was important - fair enough. It also shows me being forced back by him etc.
It does show me strike him. But only from behind showing my head. The officer claims that he can't see me being roughed up but he can definitely tell it was a punch. I have no idea how. It is what it is.
At the end he said he was cautioning me with respect for reporting me for prosecution. It's now in the hands of a supervisor. I'm not sure what it all means. I should get a call in a week letting me know. I think they will charge me. In the end, he shook my hand. I have to say that he seemed like a decent type. He needs to write it all up. The saga continues. Sod all I can do now.
The text you’ve quoted says it captures the strike the police office apparently can tell is a punch. If that’s corroborated by the statements then there could be a real risk of a summons depending on what account the OP actually provided.
OP you included irrelevant things like the risk assessment in your post, but omitted the most important part; what account / defence you actually provide? Did you raise self-defence? Did you say the things that needed to be said according the law?
OP you included irrelevant things like the risk assessment in your post, but omitted the most important part; what account / defence you actually provide? Did you raise self-defence? Did you say the things that needed to be said according the law?
janesmith1950 said:
What's the test on self defence here?
Reasonable belief you'd need to defend (subjective) and proportionate defence (objective)?
It's whether it was an honestly held belief rather than whether it was reasonable. This can help in cases like this since if a court accepts that the OP really believed he needed to defend themselves then it is a defence even if there was no need and if the security guard was acting lawfully. Reasonable belief you'd need to defend (subjective) and proportionate defence (objective)?
Then they can decide whether the response was reasonable in light of that honestly held belief.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff