How far can shop staff go?

[Sparks_]

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2015-06-10/i-feared-for-my-life-says-vulnerable-man-detained-by-supermarket-workers/

[unclebulgaria67]

And they say " Every little helps"

 

There does appear to be a problem in regard to Supermarkets and staff not knowing how to handle these situations. My local 24 hour Tesco is the biggest crime hotspot in the county according to the Police. There is a problem late at night when they get a few yobs trying to steal or consume food/drink in the shop without paying.

[SabreSheep]

Well done on that worker for whistle blowing.

 

I hope he is a union member and makes use of their services.

[silverfox1961]

This is the perfect example of people knowing their rights. No one has to go with the pseudo cops into any back room. So long as they peacefully stand their ground, any forceful action by security is assault.

 

The best method is to use your own phone to call the police, moreso if you have done nothing wrong. That way you KNOW the police will get a call. You never know, the security may pretend to call the police.

 

These two men should be sacked immediately or at the very least suspended while investigations continue.

 

It is likely the security guards were subbies to Tesco so it is down to Tesco to cancel the contract

[Sparks_]

No where in that report does it say they were security guards just.........two supermarket workers or Two male workers manhandling him and dragging him to the floor. One was supposedly the store manager......."I did ask one of them, 'Why are you doing this?' and the manager said, 'It's my natural instinct.'

[silverfox1961]

No where in that report does it say they were security guards just.........two supermarket workers or Two male workers manhandling him and dragging him to the floor. One was supposedly the store manager......."I did ask one of them, 'Why are you doing this?' and the manager said, 'It's my natural instinct.'

 

That is a fair point but if that was the case, where was security?

 

If it was a manager, he should know better.

[Ganymede]

Shocking video footage.

 

The two men should be dismissed immediately and prosecuted by the Police.

[caledfwlch]

Seems unlikely to me that they can hide behind "Citizen's Arrest" legislation on this one.

 

Throwing water on him - I would argue it's technically assault, the smoking is a civil not a criminal matter afaik

 

Then the forced restraint - he was not violent to the men, he made no attempt to escape, he threw a chair and table in an empty room, so it's not like they can rely on claiming he was resisting arrest, or attempting to escape, and I don't recall Citizen's Arrest Protocol allowing the forced searching of a detainee's body!!

 

I hope the 2 men get prosecuted for assault as a warning to others what happens if you abuse the rights of CA.

 

This is a different kettle of fish to the more usual CA issue, where the Arrestor has breached the name of the law, like carried out the arrest but hadnt seen the crime actually taking place - Judges tend to be leniant on stuff like that, but this is a lot different, he was no threat to them, they specifically entered the room to assault and forcibly search the poor guy.

 

The Police Constables involved also need a good bit of disciplinary over it - why did they not view the footage? If they did, why did they not take action?

[mikeymack2002]

There are no if ands or butts here (pardon the pun) this is deemed assault and the alleged shoplifter has a case to report. Not only that the use of any headlock is illegal. Its far to dangerous a method to use.

[caledfwlch]

There are no if ands or butts here (pardon the pun) this is deemed assault and the alleged shoplifter has a case to report. Not only that the use of any headlock is illegal. Its far to dangerous a method to use. Bouncers were prosecuted in my town for using this method and were jailed for it.....

 

It's an absolute disgrace that it took the Whistleblower 4 calls before the Police even showed any interest!

 

I am wondering if any other victims will emerge from the woodwork - things like this just don't happen spur of the moment, as the whistleblower says, and the Camera shows, at no point was "Simon" aggressive to any members of staff, I suspect they had forgotten about or didnt know about the CCTV.

 

Wasn't it an illegal headlock that killed some poor chap in Swansea a couple years ago when Security arrested him?

[maxxer]

There are no if ands or butts here (pardon the pun) this is deemed assault and the alleged shoplifter has a case to report. Not only that the use of any headlock is illegal. Its far to dangerous a method to use.

 

 

 

 

 

Show me the legislation that says a headlock is 'illegal' .

[ericsbrother]

I think you will find it is covered by the Coroners Act 1988 supplemental powers. Any person who uses a headlock on another person in just about any country in the western world will find themselves charged with a very serious offence. This means that the act of restraint using this method is unlawful per se and the offence will be according to the intent so will in any case be illegal.

[BazzaS]

I think you will find it is covered by the Coroners Act 1988 supplemental powers. Any person who uses a headlock on another person in just about any country in the western world will find themselves charged with a very serious offence. This means that the act of restraint using this method is unlawful per se and the offence will be according to the intent so will in any case be illegal.

 

I'm not trained in martial arts.

I probably couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag.

If I was to be attacked, and in desperation grabbed at my attacker, and by sheer fluke (good luck? Bad luck?!) and in my panic I got them in a headlock .... What offence are you saying I have committed?

 

Or is it only an offence if they die as a result?, since you mention the Coroner's Act. If in my panic I got them in a headlock, and they collapsed and died .... what offence have I committed (are you saying that it wouldn't be "reasonable use of force, in self defence" if

A) I wasn't trained in martial arts or trained not to use headlocks

B) I was in fear of my life & panicking

C) I performed one action (& one only) to defend myself (the headlock)

D) I released it as soon as I knew I was no longer in danger

 

For someone not trained, and panicking : what would be the difference between that and lashing out once, knocking the attacker off balance, they fall over, hitting their head, and die of a head injury. An awful outcome but not (I contend) manslaughter or any other offence ....

[maxxer]

Indeed Bazza.

 

 

= there is no law that says you cant do it.

 

 

Scaremongering again.

 

 

As you have put, this sort of message that gets sent out that 'its illegal' will stop someone assisting or from defending themselves when attacked.

 

 

You use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. That's what the law says (sec 3 criminal law act).

 

 

They up the level of violence, you up the level of violence to restrain them.

 

 

Indeed, there are risks with headlocks. Massive ones. I would rather risk an attacker having damage from my restraint methods, than see them stab the victim to death if I did nothing.

[Ganymede]

I think you will find it is covered by the Coroners Act 1988 supplemental powers. Any person who uses a headlock on another person in just about any country in the western world will find themselves charged with a very serious offence. This means that the act of restraint using this method is unlawful per se and the offence will be according to the intent so will in any case be illegal.

 

What?!

[Guest]

cant see anything in that act re chokeholds?

afaik though, chokes are generally no longer regarded as 'reasonable' re restraint by the police, let alone by a civilian. depending on the circs.

[ericsbrother]

like all common law, once a judge or in this case coroner has made a determination then it becomes the law until it is superceded by another decision or statute. A chokehold is not a defensive action and a shop employee would never be in a position wher they can rely on a self defence argument if they are trying to restrain someone who doesnt want to be there. It is assault and nothing else, the severity of that assault would depend upon circumstances and intent. Theoretical arguments about attackers causing fear are specious as the obvious thing to do is run away and if you are facing an immediate threat to your life you may use necessary force, which is not the same as reasonable force. The difference was decided in parliament when they introduced the Prevention of Crime Act 1951. You will have to read Hansard rather than the act.

[Guest]

l....You will have to read Hansard rather than the act.

 

what does it say, save me reading hansard seeing as you know.

first though i've heard hansard as being law over an act. hansard being useful re statutory interpretation.

reasonableness is mostly the case.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/