Security guard, 20, is arrested after Asda shoplifter he tackled was killed

[Arthurgray50@blu]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/283499...-manslaughter/

This sort of stuff leave a sour taste in my mouth. Whether Police, member of the public or Security staff.

This security guard chases a Thief/ Shoplifter, they fall over and the bottles that the thief has nicked smash and he ends up dying.
The security guard is then nicked on suspicion of Manslaughter.

Sad its sad story, but the guard was doing his job. And now he could end up in prison because of shoplifter. The law is an ass.

[pip08456]

If I were you Arthur I'd wait until further details emerge before jumping to conclusions.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/283499...-manslaughter/

This sort of stuff leave a sour taste in my mouth. Whether Police, member of the public or Security staff.

This security guard chases a Thief/ Shoplifter, they fall over and the bottles that the thief has nicked smash and he ends up dying.
The security guard is then nicked on suspicion of Manslaughter.

Sad its sad story, but the guard was doing his job. And now he could end up in prison because of shoplifter. The law is an ass.

Actually he probably wasn't "just doing his job", no matter how this turns out he's there to be a deterrent not a policeman and has no more powers of arrest than you or I, therefore it's questionable whether the crime committed was indictable and of course he now has to live with this man's death for the rest of his life.

Originally Posted by pip08456

If I were you Arthur I'd wait until further details emerge before jumping to conclusions.

Sensible advice

[Taf]

The word "tackle" is used several times in the article, once within inverted commas.

Do did he "tackle" as in "deal with", or "tackle" in the rugby sense?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Actually he probably wasn't "just doing his job", no matter how this turns out he's there to be a deterrent not a policeman and has no more powers of arrest than you or I, therefore it's questionable whether the crime committed was indictable and of course he now has to live with this man's death for the rest of his life.



Sensible advice

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/b...ecurity-guard/

So whilst he has no more powers he does in fact have some

Overzealousness on the part of security guard? Possibly

Deserving of a manslaughter charge? I'd have to say no on the basis that if the shoplifter hadn't shoplifted then of course this situation wouldn't have occurred

Reminds me of the police not chasing stolen mopeds/motorbikes due to the theives not wearing crash helmets.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/b...ecurity-guard/

So whilst he has no more powers he does in fact have some

Overzealousness on the part of security guard? Possibly

Deserving of a manslaughter charge? I'd have to say no on the basis that if the shoplifter hadn't shoplifted then of course this situation wouldn't have occurred

Reminds me of the police not chasing stolen mopeds/motorbikes due to the theives not wearing crash helmets.

You should know what a minefield citizens arrest is from your previous job and I don't think he deserves a manslaughter charge either, he's already going to be carrying this around for life.

[Stephen]

Well from this quote it does indeed sound like the guard tackled him to the ground.

He pursued him across The Shires car park near Asda in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, and “tackled” the would-be thief – causing glass bottles he was concealing to smash.

So if he hadn't caused the man to hit the deck would he still be here? But of course if he hadn't run or shoplifted none of it would have happened at all.

[tweetiepooh]

Would the police not have possibly done the same/similar? Miscreant makes off not stopping so gets tackled down and concealed item causes miscreant harm. If miscreant had tripped and fallen causing harm because we was being chased?

[blackthorn]

Reminds me of an incident when I worked at Cheshire Oaks outlet. The guards chased a shoplifter one day and he ran across the motorway M53 which runs at the rear. The guy was knocked over but he survived. After that incident the guards were told that if shoplifters were heading towards the motorway, then they were not to give chase. The shoplifters soon got wind of that policy and they all went that way.

[adzii_nufc]

A world of confusion and grey areas. No one can really make a judgement then to be fair because it's impossible to predict where this will go.

Inexperienced of course. The maximum experience he could have is 2 years.

I often speak with an Aegis trainer and we both share the same conclusion though but it's still not the right answer. It's a factor though. It's whether it was absolutely necessary to take him to the ground. Bare in mind both Aegis and the SIA themselves deem grounding someone as dangerous and an absolute last resort that shouldn't be carried out without the relevant training. That's not the law though, the law is about proving that any force used was justifiable. If he holds the DS Licence he'd have taken part in mandatory Physical Intervention training. If its a standard SG Licence then he's had no in house training. So basically the SIA themselves will go against him.

There's going to be so many factors in this for what's an accident. Doesn't work that way in a court though.

Simply don't know how this will go. I know which way it should go, we all do.

Similar story to the above. When I had my first role as an SD or theft prevention, we had a policy of never chasing thieves. Merely tag them with spray, radio the council CCTV lads and the police would take care of it. Quite a few years ago for me though.

Doors and Close protection work is an entirely different field though.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

A world of confusion and grey areas. No one can really make a judgement then to be fair because it's impossible to predict where this will go.

Inexperienced of course. The maximum experience he could have is 2 years.

I often speak with an Aegis trainer and we both share the same conclusion though but it's still not the right answer. It's a factor though. It's whether it was absolutely necessary to take him to the ground. Bare in mind both Aegis and the SIA themselves deem grounding someone as dangerous and an absolute last resort that shouldn't be carried out without the relevant training. That's not the law though, the law is about proving that any force used was justifiable. If he holds the DS Licence he'd have taken part in mandatory Physical Intervention training. If its a standard SG Licence then he's had no in house training. So basically the SIA themselves will go against him.

There's going to be so many factors in this for what's an accident. Doesn't work that way in a court though.

Simply don't know how this will go. I know which way it should go, we all do.

Similar story to the above. When I had my first role as an SD or theft prevention, we had a policy of never chasing thieves. Merely tag them with spray, radio the council CCTV lads and the police would take care of it. Quite a few years ago for me though.

Doors and Close protection work is an entirely different field though.

What a good post. I was an SIA trainer myself a while back for my sins

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What a good post. I was an SIA trainer myself a while back for my sins

Just so many differing factors here that go for or against and you pointed out another earlier, 'Deterrent'. This is what I've always considered a Security Guard to be, this is a key reason they don't do mandatory physical intervention training when earning the certificate for the licence. Now they also mentioned in the article he was a 'Doorman' so without them actually confirming it, we'll say he could possess a DS Licence which means he would've participated in Physical Intervention, during which you'd note you never deliver floor restraints or takedown maneuvers because the SIA will not approve it. The entire course for both DS and SG are identical too bar the PI stage. The common theme of the course is justifiable force and whether anything you do is reasonable. Aegis are one of a few SIA Approved training providers that cover higher levels of physical intervention which include ground restraints and takedowns and even they stress that anything ground related is an absolute no go unless you have no other choice. So it's again a question if you think a bottle of booze is worth tackling someone. Obviously from an outside perspective people just go, ''He didn't know he had a glass bottle on him'' '' He never meant it'' That's something we know anyway, the point for anyone unaware of industry policy is the same as above, a ground restraint or anything that involves taking anyone to the ground is considered the riskiest and most dangerous on the SIA's own risk scale. People might think it's stupid but it's usually for reasons like this incident, or the ones where mighty doorman stuck his knee on the back of someones neck and pinned him to the ground.

Again though, I can't even come to any conclusion from this, it's 50/50 if you ask me. Feel for the guy but my input goes as far as a security perspective and not a lawyer. Just one of those adrenaline rush moments that clouded his judgement? inexperience is a factor given he could've only held a licence for under 3 years, that's assuming he turns 21 this year. (18 to possess licence) Then again as pointed out, he's a 20 year old lad, he has this on his plate for the rest of his days. There's no winner from all of this regardless of which way it goes.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Just so many differing factors here that go for or against and you pointed out another earlier, 'Deterrent'. This is what I've always considered a Security Guard to be, this is a key reason they don't do mandatory physical intervention training when earning the certificate for the licence. Now they also mentioned in the article he was a 'Doorman' so without them actually confirming it, we'll say he could possess a DS Licence which means he would've participated in Physical Intervention, during which you'd note you never deliver floor restraints or takedown maneuvers because the SIA will not approve it. The entire course for both DS and SG are identical too bar the PI stage. The common theme of the course is justifiable force and whether anything you do is reasonable. Aegis are one of a few SIA Approved training providers that cover higher levels of physical intervention which include ground restraints and takedowns and even they stress that anything ground related is an absolute no go unless you have no other choice. So it's again a question if you think a bottle of booze is worth tackling someone. Obviously from an outside perspective people just go, ''He didn't know he had a glass bottle on him'' '' He never meant it'' That's something we know anyway, the point for anyone unaware of industry policy is the same as above, a ground restraint or anything that involves taking anyone to the ground is considered the riskiest and most dangerous on the SIA's own risk scale. People might think it's stupid but it's usually for reasons like this incident, or the ones where mighty doorman stuck his knee on the back of someones neck and pinned him to the ground.

Again though, I can't even come to any conclusion from this, it's 50/50 if you ask me. Feel for the guy but my input goes as far as a security perspective and not a lawyer. Just one of those adrenaline rush moments that clouded his judgement? inexperience is a factor given he could've only held a licence for under 3 years, that's assuming he turns 21 this year. (18 to possess licence) Then again as pointed out, he's a 20 year old lad, he has this on his plate for the rest of his days. There's no winner from all of this regardless of which way it goes.

I used to drum it into security candidates not to get carried away, no good ever comes of it, the older ones seemed to take on board that they weren't paid enough to go rolling around on the floor with herberts whereas the younger ones seemed more inclined to listen to legal ramifications and the fact that generally the client is never happy if security causes them any extra work or any inconvenience, that said it is easy to get caught up in the moment, I remember years ago I was key holding and literally bumped into the burglars coming out the front door, there was a long pause where we all just stared at each other until they bolted and stupidly I ran after them, obviously being fat and old I never caught them and when I was reflecting on just how stupid a thing it was to do I realised I would've just as easily ran the other way, them running caused me to chase them.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Would the police not have possibly done the same/similar? Miscreant makes off not stopping so gets tackled down and concealed item causes miscreant harm. If miscreant had tripped and fallen causing harm because we was being chased?

Probably but the police are allowed to chase ,catch and detain suspects the security guard is very limited in what he is allowed to do ,as TD said he is there as a deterrent not a law enforcer

[Pierre]

He just has the same powers as Jo Public. It all comes down to the term "reasonable"

Did the security guard act reasonably.

Did he have firm grounds to suspect the shoplifter.

Did he use reasonable force to detain him.

Personally, I would think that a rugby style tackle to stop and detain somebody was reasonable. If he tackled then gave him a few punches and kicks then that is unreasonable.

The police have no option but to arrest the guy, I would hope he would be ok in court.

Only sticky point is, if the security guard knew the guy had a bottle on his person, he does have a duty of care to think about the guys safety before he tackles him. That is what might be an issue, but it would be very harsh.