wrongly accused of shoplifting by un-uniformed security guard-help?

MarkBargain

suited-aces wrote: »

I do enjoy laughing at the people who refuse to stop for a store alarm out of principle. The same idiots who'll then come on here huffing and puffing about compensation for being accosted outside the store by a guard who clearly had reasonable suspicion, since a normal person's reaction to an alarm is to turn round and ask someone to the bloody tag off like they should have!

Why, walking on seems a perfectly sensible thing to do especially when several people are going in/out of a shop at the same time. Why be inconvenienced and have time wasted, plus have to explain yourself to some shop staff when you've done nothing wrong? The alarms can be embarrassing however, there was a period of time where many of these seemed to trigger when I left shops. I didn't react at all and walked on normally.

George_Michael

MarkBargain wrote: »

there was a period of time where many of these seemed to trigger when I left shops. I didn't react at all and walked on normally.

Why not try this instead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUMhauUDeWQ

suited-aces

Also, have any of you ever seen who someone set off an alarm, then turned and went back to get the tag removed and thought "oohh, they must be a shop lifter..."? If not, why would it ever be embarrassing when stopping to get the tag sorted makes it obvious you've done nothing wrong?

wesleyad

Well on a small legality, the security must always have the SIA license clearly on display, so if he didn't then you can ping the store for this.

As for the rest:

"tap me on the shoulder and asked me if i had taken anything and not paid for it [...] so just said no wand walked off"

It doesn't really sound like he did anything wrong. Of course you can be wrongly accused. Everyone makes mistakes, just like this guy did. Maybe he handled it wrong by not apologizing, but by the sounds of it he made no attempt to stop you leaving the premises (as you walked to another shop).

They didn't make you go back in the store, you agreed by your own will.

And although they may have not handled their side very well, I'm pretty sure comments like

" I was going to make him look like an idiot"

and

"everytime i said 'oh i will'"

did nothing to help it from your side.

thistledome

wesleyad wrote: »

And although they may have not handled their side very well, I'm pretty sure comments like

" I was going to make him look like an idiot"

and

"everytime i said 'oh i will'"

did nothing to help it from your side.

What should she have done? Meekly apologise for not buying a dog toy and let them search her?

A lot of people would get upset/angry/frightened when accused and confronted in public like this when they've done nothing wrong.

OP, write to the store's HO as others have said and tell them. Let us know how you get on and don't worry about the few fools who've replied to your thread. Most have been helpful.

arcon5

Zandoni wrote: »

In case like this COMPENSATION should be awarded, stores have to be more careful when they accuse people. If it happened to me I would refuse to go back to the store and I would call the police. Then I'd get legal advice and try to get some COMPENSATION for being detained against my will.

Why should compensation be awarded? The answer to every problem doesn't always come down to money. It would be better if there was some kind of code of conduct for which some kind of governing body had the power to investigate and fine the store - the money doesn't necessarily go to the 'victim' but perhaps pays for the governance. This would also help prevent a compensation culture and a society where everybody is scared of doing anything in case somebody gets upset and seeks money.

paddyrg

BigLee_24 wrote: »

How is falsely imprisoning somebody acting lawfully??

Of course 'false imprisonment' by definition isn't going to be lawful. I did not suggest that you should falsely imprison someone, I referred to a 'citizens arrest' which is quite lawful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/aug/09/guide-to-citizens-arrest

Must admit I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it working in the industry!

The statutory power of any member of the public in England and Wales to detain someone they consider to be involved in criminal activity is to be found in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974. A person "other than a constable" may arrest without a warrant anyone:

Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence....


if the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds to believe that such an arrest is necessary to prevent the person being arrested from: (a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person; (b) suffering physical injury; (c) causing loss of or damage to property; or (d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.


Anyone carrying out an arrest can only use reasonable force when arresting the person in question. This is a matter of degree, obviously.

arcon5

It doesn't really sound like he did anything wrong. Of course you can be wrongly accused. Everyone makes mistakes, just like this guy did. Maybe he handled it wrong by not apologizing, but by the sounds of it he made no attempt to stop you leaving the premises (as you walked to another shop).

And perhaps op would have gone back to the store had she felt safe and confident to do so. After all the man wasn't very transparent about his identity or job role. Had he had some form of identity which also confirmed he was authorised to act on the store behalf then this may have gone a long way

Zandoni

arcon5 wrote: »

Why should compensation be awarded? The answer to every problem doesn't always come down to money. It would be better if there was some kind of code of conduct for which some kind of governing body had the power to investigate and fine the store - the money doesn't necessarily go to the 'victim' but perhaps pays for the governance. This would also help prevent a compensation culture and a society where everybody is scared of doing anything in case somebody gets upset and seeks money.

The OP was the one who was scared, embarrassed and detained, so she should get the money.

If the stores have to pay out for this sort of thing they are far more careful in the future.

Yes there should be set guidelines for these wannabe police officers but that is up to the shops to finance so they don't have to pay out compensation for wrongly accused customers.

George_Michael

arcon5 wrote: »

Why should compensation be awarded?

Even though it's an American term, I think it covers this nicely.

Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.

Maybe if it ended up hitting the store in their pocket, they might take a bit more care with training their security staff.