News Archive

Arrest Test

by msecadm4921

The trouble with bad training outfits is that when they produce rubbish it is transmitted everywhere, regular contributor Peter Whitehead writes in our March edition. He wishes to add that his story below is fictitious.

I often hear of respected people being appointed to senior positions in training organisations and I wonder if they take time to read the courses. They might be horrified! Several years ago a respected retail guarding company took a mark away from a friend’s test paper when he answered that he would not arrest a man who had stupidly-carelessly dropped a shop’s product and broken it. Carelessly breaking property would not lead to an arrest. Otherwise every time one car bumped into another the police would be dragging drivers off to the cells! So would you like to try a test’ Firstly we want you to be a security officer and later we need you to be a jury member: please read through the following brief description of an incident and make a mark at any point where you might decide that the man has certainly completed the act of criminal damage. X walked into The Toy Supercentre Limited at 1740 hours. He was a white male of about 35 years, five feet 10 in height, with knotted straggly shoulder length brown hair. He was tattooed on hands and neck with swallows, and a mark on his forehead showed ‘aim here’. He wore a torn dirty brown leather jacket, dirty blue jeans and dusty brown working boots.
<br><br>
Product testing
<br><br>
He pushed through the paypoints area (because he had come in through the wrong doors) and made his way into the store until he came to a display of toy cars in clear plastic packaging. He selected a car and broke open its packaging, which he pushed back onto the shelf. He then kneeled down and pressed the car onto the floor. A crunching sound occurred as the car collapsed, its wheels falling off. The man stood up, holding most of the car, and laughed quietly. He pushed the car back onto the display, walked forward, through the till points and out of the store. He spoke to nobody.<br>
OK’ Now it’s time to be a jury member. A defence solicitor talks to you: X is a decent honest hard working family man. He is married and has a son, six years of age and has worked at Walford Waste Management Centre for eight years as a waste disposal operative. He has an exceptional work record for reliability and responsibility. Two years ago, X and his wife saved up and brought just one big present for their son for Christmas, a giant toy construction site crane. The bought if from The Toy Supercentre Limited. On Christmas morning as their son excitedly pulled the crane from its packaging it fell apart. X could do nothing until the next day. Christmas 2002 was a non-starter for the X household. The store reluctantly gave a refund for the faulty crane the next day. X swore that he would never ever go in to that store again. But two years later his son is now at infant school and the ‘craze’ is for a toy car which is pushed down on the ground, pulled backwards and then released to race away at great speed, and little Michael wanted one. The only place where these cars are available is at The Toy Supercentre Limited.
<br><br>
Good and decent
<br><br>
Mr X did not want to go into the store. He did not trust their products, but he did want to give his son the toy. So he was determined to make sure that it was decent and fit for purpose. So after work he went into the store and found the toy. He tested it on the floor and it fell to pieces. Mr Mullins did laugh, just as described. He laughed at himself for even bothering to go to the store to test the toy in the first place. He left the store, determined never to return. He is a good decent man. He admits that he could have asked an assistant for help, and that he was bad mannered in not reporting the damage. But bad manners is not a crime in this country, or we might all get into trouble, sooner or later. Please find X ‘not guilty’. He did not test the toy recklessly, but reasonably and he did not intend to damage property …
<br><br>
Arrest difficulty
<br><br>
So that was the test. A security officer who arrests X before he has left the store is in difficulty, because the defence can later claim that anybody who had broken property had been intending to declare all. It’s just like theft … store detectives let the thief leave the store. So if you arrested X after he left the store it’s a ‘not unreasonable’ decision. But was that the best decision’ The average jury decision ‘split’ amongst trainees has been 90 per cent not guilty, 10pc guilty. So there is proven doubt, and where there’s doubt there’s a not guilty verdict, hovering. So operatives identify with these problems, and this sets a working rule, better than any shouted command. Be very careful about what is alleged as criminal damage in a retail environment: see two similar items broken consecutively; see the person leave the store without declaring the damage. Damages settlements after failed allegations could be very expensive. If you hotly and strongly feel that X is a criminal after his acts, that’s OK …10pc of all trainees feel this as well, but they see the high vote for not guilty and this makes them thin k. By the way, have you ever ‘tested’ before buying’ I have.

Related News

  • News Archive

    Retail Speak

    by msecadm4921

    Here’s the latest line-up of speakers for the Retail Fraud conference in west London on April 15, run by Retail Knowledge. Hugh…

  • News Archive

    IP Trial

    by msecadm4921

    Drinks retailer Thresher Group – whose 2,000 outlets include Threshers, Wine Rack, Victoria Wine and Bottoms Up – is trialling an IP…

Newsletter

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to stay on top of security news and events.

© 2024 Professional Security Magazine. All rights reserved.

Website by MSEC Marketing