Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Kuji said:
ill bite. 
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?
.
From the start I've said he'd have been better de-escalating rather than escalating.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?
.
Of course the first part of that would have been showing a receipt when challenged, if he could.
He can't do that if he doesn't have one though & he said he didn't have one (his partner did unbeknown to him).
Not having a receipt isn't itself a problem if he returns to the store with the SG to clear up any misunderstanding.
However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
Kuji said:
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 ).
I would suggest the police who have the CCTV footage are in a better position to say what happened than anyone on here, including the OP by his continually evolving posts.
Kuji said:
ill bite.
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?
.
I read it as, even without a receipt, the matter could have been resolved by staying and discussing rather than trying to walk off...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?
.
Chris
Kuji said:
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).
The security guard also said the op ignored him and kept walking when asked for a receipt.
The CCTV shows the op stopping and talking with the security guard.
Where has the security guard got his reasonable grounds to suspect the op of shoplifting from ?
vonhosen said:
Not having a receipt isn't itself a problem if he returns to the store with the SG to clear up any misunderstanding.
However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
According to the first post on this thread, the op stopped and told the security guard that he did not have a receipt.However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
This would appear to be supported by the CCTV evidence (rather than the security guard saying the op ignored him and walked off).
Matters appear to have got out of hand when the security guard said "Come with me".
Making an (unlawful) demand of someone is not the same as someone walking off.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Not having a receipt isn't itself a problem if he returns to the store with the SG to clear up any misunderstanding.
However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
According to the first post on this thread, the op stopped and told the security guard that he did not have a receipt.However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
This would appear to be supported by the CCTV evidence (rather than the security guard saying the op ignored him and walked off).
Matters appear to have got out of hand when the security guard said "Come with me".
Making an (unlawful) demand of someone is not the same as someone walking off.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
vonhosen said:
The rights & wrongs of which doesn't help the OP if he wanted to avoid all of what he is experiencing now.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Given his propensity for violence, how do I know if I'd gone with him he wouldn't have just attacked me when there were no cameras? Or made other allegations which are total lies against me? Ones I could not so easily disprove (using his words and the footage?). If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Your primary assumption was that he was a normal person peacefully doing his job. He was not. He is a thug that likes to feel important and throw his weight around.
milkround said:
vonhosen said:
The rights & wrongs of which doesn't help the OP if he wanted to avoid all of what he is experiencing now.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Given his propensity for violence, how do I know if I'd gone with him he wouldn't have just attacked me when there were no cameras? Or made other allegations which are total lies against me? Ones I could not so easily disprove (using his words and the footage?). If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Your primary assumption was that he was a normal person peacefully doing his job. He was not. He is a thug that likes to feel important and throw his weight around.
have a f
king day off, mate I have enjoyed this thread, kudos OP.
milkround said:
vonhosen said:
The rights & wrongs of which doesn't help the OP if he wanted to avoid all of what he is experiencing now.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Given his propensity for violence, how do I know if I'd gone with him he wouldn't have just attacked me when there were no cameras? Or made other allegations which are total lies against me? Ones I could not so easily disprove (using his words and the footage?). If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Your primary assumption was that he was a normal person peacefully doing his job. He was not. He is a thug that likes to feel important and throw his weight around.
You think it likely he hasn't stopped anyone else in his career?
You think it likely that all (or even just the majority) of those have resulted in what you suggest?
Yeah of course the odds favour your assumption.
Forrest Gump said:
Stupid is as stupid does.
Hol 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.
The guy could argue with himself. Although I suspect he sometime is... more than one account...
Still, he’s entertaining if you don’t get involved.
didelydoo said:
OP nicked a frying pan, got caught, hit the guard with it, drove off, then reported himself to the police? Is that the gist of it all?
That's about the size of it, plus other bits and bobs that he doesn't remember. And a load of boring st where people are arguing about technical stuff.milkround said:
vonhosen said:
The rights & wrongs of which doesn't help the OP if he wanted to avoid all of what he is experiencing now.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Given his propensity for violence, how do I know if I'd gone with him he wouldn't have just attacked me when there were no cameras? Or made other allegations which are total lies against me? Ones I could not so easily disprove (using his words and the footage?). If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Your primary assumption was that he was a normal person peacefully doing his job. He was not. He is a thug that likes to feel important and throw his weight around.
Also, what were these “homophobic names” the SG was calling you and did you highlight in your statement to police that “I genuinely think he was attacking me because he thought I was homosexual thinking about it.”? That seems a particularly important facet of the incident about which you’ve not said much.
Either this tale is a complete fabrication or you got all mouthy and aggressive when legitimately stopped by a guy simply doing his job. IMHO of course.
My guess is NFA as far as Op is concerned, usual caveats.
Unrelated, I've only had one interaction, sort of, with store security, and they were extremely threatening. Didn't get to hands on but body language and verbals were unpleasant. The situation was in a branch of a well known motorparts store, I bought some screen wash additive for 5.99, paid with a £20 note, and I knew I'd definitely paid with that, and got change as if paid with a tenner.
Questioned this, politely asked what was procedure now? Suggested leaving contact details and they could review when cashing up, but manager arrived, plus two other staff who physically kettled me up against the counter. While manager was cashing the till they made sure they kept me there, whilst issuing all sorts of threats what would happen if they found I was scamming them.
Manager counted up the till three times, I'm still effectively pinned up against the counter and getting verbal to which I was not commenting, then without a word of apology manager handed me the missing tenner change. Security melted away but during the incident it could have been very easy for an individual to lose it and escalate into a physical confrontation. Keep calm being order of day.
Since then not spent a penny with that outfit.
Unrelated, I've only had one interaction, sort of, with store security, and they were extremely threatening. Didn't get to hands on but body language and verbals were unpleasant. The situation was in a branch of a well known motorparts store, I bought some screen wash additive for 5.99, paid with a £20 note, and I knew I'd definitely paid with that, and got change as if paid with a tenner.
Questioned this, politely asked what was procedure now? Suggested leaving contact details and they could review when cashing up, but manager arrived, plus two other staff who physically kettled me up against the counter. While manager was cashing the till they made sure they kept me there, whilst issuing all sorts of threats what would happen if they found I was scamming them.
Manager counted up the till three times, I'm still effectively pinned up against the counter and getting verbal to which I was not commenting, then without a word of apology manager handed me the missing tenner change. Security melted away but during the incident it could have been very easy for an individual to lose it and escalate into a physical confrontation. Keep calm being order of day.
Since then not spent a penny with that outfit.
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Not having a receipt isn't itself a problem if he returns to the store with the SG to clear up any misunderstanding.
However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
According to the first post on this thread, the op stopped and told the security guard that he did not have a receipt.However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
This would appear to be supported by the CCTV evidence (rather than the security guard saying the op ignored him and walked off).
Matters appear to have got out of hand when the security guard said "Come with me".
Making an (unlawful) demand of someone is not the same as someone walking off.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Than.
Thou.
But the op didn't do any of that and was under no obligation to do so.
He is where he is.
The thread is about what happens now and how the police deal with the matter.
Do you think the op should face an assault charge on the basis of the information he has provided ?
I'm sure he'll thank you for your smug, sanctimonious, self righteous, morally superior posts though.
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 26th April 15:28
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Not having a receipt isn't itself a problem if he returns to the store with the SG to clear up any misunderstanding.
However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
According to the first post on this thread, the op stopped and told the security guard that he did not have a receipt.However then trying to walk off instead of returning to the store causes a potential problem/escalation, as he found out.
The lack of a receipt didn't result in the fracas, the trying to walk off did.
This would appear to be supported by the CCTV evidence (rather than the security guard saying the op ignored him and walked off).
Matters appear to have got out of hand when the security guard said "Come with me".
Making an (unlawful) demand of someone is not the same as someone walking off.
If he wanted to avoid all of this, but still seek redress for the actions of the SG, he would have been better 'going with him', sorting it out & then seeking redress.
Instead of all this for his troubles he would probably have got a fistful of vouchers instead. Which is the better return for his time ?
He has now wasted far more time on this, not to mention increased stress (& it's not over yet), than if he had just returned to the store to sort it out.
Than.
Thou.
But the op didn't do any of that and was under no obligation to do so.
He is where he is.
The thread is about what happens now and how the police deal with the matter.
Do you think the op should face an assault charge on the basis of the information he has provided ?
I'm sure he'll thank you for your smug, sanctimonious, self righteous, morally superior post though.
I've no informed idea what's going to happen in the end Re assault or anything else, just as you don't.
Because we haven't seen or aren't privy to enough information.
That's why I haven't been addressing that aspect, because that's pointless for the reasons I've said. I've only been addressing the aspect of how best to avoid all this aggro in the first place, assuming aggro is not your goal (& irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it all).
vonhosen said:
Frankly I couldn't care what he does or thinks, this thread exists for the benefit of others who find themselves in such situations in the future, it's too late for him his choices were made before the thread started.
I've no informed idea what's going to happen in the end Re assault or anything else, just as you don't.
Because we haven't seen or aren't privy to enough information.
That's why I haven't been addressing that aspect, because that's pointless for the reasons I've said. I've only been addressing the aspect of how best to avoid all this aggro in the first place, assuming aggro is not your goal (& irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it all).
... Which is why I asked for your opinion based on what the op has said.I've no informed idea what's going to happen in the end Re assault or anything else, just as you don't.
Because we haven't seen or aren't privy to enough information.
That's why I haven't been addressing that aspect, because that's pointless for the reasons I've said. I've only been addressing the aspect of how best to avoid all this aggro in the first place, assuming aggro is not your goal (& irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it all).
Do you think the security guard's evidence is credible given that the CCTV footage appears to contradict his version of events ?
This should be taken into account when any charging decision is made.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff