Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
La Liga said:
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?
Short version. 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?
Went. Left. Spoke to him. Found him aggressive so left. Came out hyper agressive so tried to remove myself. He assaulted me I tried to retreat. Incredly scared. No intent to harm anyone. Reacted because i was in fear. Was withdrawing at all times. Removed myself from the situation as soon as possible.
Not sure if that is the right things according to the law.
wjb said:
Remember when the 'female police officer' tried to brush it under the carpet with a community resolution?
Great times...
We can all look back at those moments in our live when we think "if only" and this is one of them, but for some, as in this case, their civil liberties obviously take precedent.Great times...
Sometimes a little bit of humble pie when you look at the bigger picture is not that bad after all.
Edited by Monkeylegend on Friday 26th April 12:58
wjb said:
Remember when the 'female police officer' tried to brush it under the carpet with a community resolution?
Great times...
... Which would require an admission of guilt from the op.Great times...
In view of the fact that the security guard's version of events do not appear to tally with the CCTV evidence I'd be surprised if the op was charged.
FredericRobinson said:
If a security guard is trying to apprehend a suspected shoplifter the suspect continuing to move away is only going to increase suspicion, I don't see that as being in your favour.
Suspected shoplifter ?The security guard's version of events are contradicted by the CCTV.
Graveworm said:
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.
Then they can decide whether the response was reasonable in light of that honestly held belief.
Yup, so the OP honestly believes he is being (or imminently about to be) assaulted by the security guard. He defends himself by pushing/punching him.Then they can decide whether the response was reasonable in light of that honestly held belief.
Does that mean the Mags have to determine, was the belief honestly held and was the push/punch a reasonable response to that belief?
OP - Did you discuss with the solicitor whether the justification for your use of force was to defend yourself - or to prevent the SG detaining you against your will ?
See attached (Barrister Written) guide to Citizen's Arrest.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/09/guide-...
It states that "Such an arrest can only be made if it does not appear reasonably practicable for a police constable to make the arrest instead". Numerous other references say the same thing.
OP says he asked the SG to call the Police but the SG declined and insisted on dealing with it himself.
On the basis of the above admittedly simplified guide to a complex area of the law - this would appear that this was an illegal attempt to detain you against your will and you would have been entitled to use reasonable force to free yourself.
Shame about the (alleged) punch though. But if you couldn't tell the difference between a punch and a push from the video - then nor will the magistrate.
See attached (Barrister Written) guide to Citizen's Arrest.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/09/guide-...
It states that "Such an arrest can only be made if it does not appear reasonably practicable for a police constable to make the arrest instead". Numerous other references say the same thing.
OP says he asked the SG to call the Police but the SG declined and insisted on dealing with it himself.
On the basis of the above admittedly simplified guide to a complex area of the law - this would appear that this was an illegal attempt to detain you against your will and you would have been entitled to use reasonable force to free yourself.
Shame about the (alleged) punch though. But if you couldn't tell the difference between a punch and a push from the video - then nor will the magistrate.
Edited by Seight_Returns on Friday 26th April 13:06
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.
milkround said:
Short version.
Went. Left. Spoke to him. Found him aggressive so left. Came out hyper agressive so tried to remove myself. He assaulted me I tried to retreat. Incredly scared. No intent to harm anyone. Reacted because i was in fear. Was withdrawing at all times. Removed myself from the situation as soon as possible.
Not sure if that is the right things according to the law.
Ok, so looks like you've been guided to push all the 'self-defence' buttons needed to successfully raise the defence. Went. Left. Spoke to him. Found him aggressive so left. Came out hyper agressive so tried to remove myself. He assaulted me I tried to retreat. Incredly scared. No intent to harm anyone. Reacted because i was in fear. Was withdrawing at all times. Removed myself from the situation as soon as possible.
Not sure if that is the right things according to the law.
janesmith1950 said:
Graveworm said:
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.
Then they can decide whether the response was reasonable in light of that honestly held belief.
Yup, so the OP honestly believes he is being (or imminently about to be) assaulted by the security guard. He defends himself by pushing/punching him.Then they can decide whether the response was reasonable in light of that honestly held belief.
Does that mean the Mags have to determine, was the belief honestly held and was the push/punch a reasonable response to that belief?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence...
CPS said:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).
To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.
It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);
"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."
The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable: (R v Clegg 1995 1 AC 482 HL). Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).
To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.
It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);
"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."
The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable: (R v Clegg 1995 1 AC 482 HL). Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.
Monkeylegend said:
Red 4 said:
Suspected shoplifter ?
The security guard's version of events are contradicted by the CCTV.
OP's own words were that the CCTV shows him striking the security guard which is what the security guard has claimed so maybe not so much of a contradiction. The security guard's version of events are contradicted by the CCTV.
As above - the op's defence is self defence to an unlawful arrest ( as it always has been ).
vonhosen said:
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.
I guess It must be hard for you keeping up with all the people you are deliberately arguing with on any given day?
vonhosen said:
killerferret666 said:
All this for not showing a receipt...crazy.
It's not just that though is it?.Monkeylegend said:
OP's own words were that the CCTV shows him striking the security guard which is what the security guard has claimed so maybe not so much of a contradiction.
The police will instinctively be on the security guards side, the ‘shoplifter’ continuing to try to leave will only increase that, as for the cctv, I may well have lost it somewhere in the monster thread, but do we know what it shows of the initial suspicions act or just the car park contretemps?Red 4 said:
Monkeylegend said:
Red 4 said:
Suspected shoplifter ?
The security guard's version of events are contradicted by the CCTV.
OP's own words were that the CCTV shows him striking the security guard which is what the security guard has claimed so maybe not so much of a contradiction. The security guard's version of events are contradicted by the CCTV.
/quote]
And so does the OP in his defence, but again a lot that hasn't been verified.
In fact the more the OP writes on here the muddier the waters seem to get.
Hol said:
vonhosen said:
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.
I guess It must be hard for you keeping up with all the people you are deliberately arguing with on any given day?
vonhosen said:
killerferret666 said:
All this for not showing a receipt...crazy.
It's not just that though is it?.It could have been cleared up even in the absence of him having a receipt.
He didn't have a receipt to show them when asked, so couldn't. His partner did however have a receipt (unknown to him), but she didn't show it until much later in the fracas.
Red 4 said:
Monkeylegend said:
Red 4 said:
Suspected shoplifter ?
The security guard's version of events are contradicted by the CCTV.
OP's own words were that the CCTV shows him striking the security guard which is what the security guard has claimed so maybe not so much of a contradiction. The security guard's version of events are contradicted by the CCTV.
As above - the op's defence is self defence to an unlawful arrest ( as it always has been ).
vonhosen said:
Hol said:
vonhosen said:
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.
I guess It must be hard for you keeping up with all the people you are deliberately arguing with on any given day?
vonhosen said:
killerferret666 said:
All this for not showing a receipt...crazy.
It's not just that though is it?.It could have been cleared up even in the absence of him having a receipt.
He didn't have a receipt to show them when asked, so couldn't. His partner did however have a receipt (unknown to him), but she didn't show it until much later in the fracas.
Lots of people on here, including the Op themselves have noted that showing the receipt would just have resulted in a total non-event.
Apart from you, that is.
Are you actually arguing against the flow that the security guard had no intention of looking at the receipt anyway and that even if that the Op had shown it, it would make zero difference to the outcome?
On what proof do you base your insistence?
.
Red 4 said:
Kuji said:
Are you watching a different film to everyone else?
Nope.Did the security guard have reasonable grounds to suspect the op of shoplifting ?
Or did the security guard act unlawfully ?
Everything that follows rests on that.
I have never been questioned for shoplifting myself, so I will leave that question for the 'professionals' to answer (security guards and shoplifters alike).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff