Incident in Tesco today

greasepalm

Early this morning was bitterly cold and is possible he was frozen?

I can see why security guard had an issue as might have been worried ?

Right or wrong as it all happens in a blink of an eye.

If it was mid summer then he would/should not have his hoodie up.

xhomelezz

Well he had his hoodie up and been followed by security, he payed for his shopping. So everything is ok. So what's the problem.

JackTC

xhomelezz wrote: »

Well he had his hoodie up and been followed by security, he payed for his shopping. So everything is ok. So what's the problem.

The problem is should he have taken down the hood like the security guard asked or was the guard out of line repeatedly asking him to do so?

forestgirl

The man could have a serious head injury and may be keeping it covered especially with covid around

xhomelezz

JackTC wrote: »

The problem is should he have taken down the hood like the security guard asked or was the guard out of line asking him to do so?

To be honest I don't know. I wear baseball cap all the time, never ever anyone asked me to take it off apart from Stansted airport security when checking in for flight. Maybe hoodies on are some kind of sign of troubles. Not surprised by that, when I see great contributors of society wearing them. Back to your question, I don't know what's the store policy. But as I said. Guy refused to take his hoodie off, got followed by security, payed for his shopping. So all is ok.

xhomelezz

forestgirl wrote: »

The man could have a serious head injury and may be keeping it covered especially with covid around

What are the chances of this scenario?

redmgar

JohnMcm1 wrote: »

I would usually agree that it's inappropriate to walk around with your hood up, on the other hand I think it would be hypocritical to force someone to take their hood down but having no problem with a Muslim wearing a full hijab.

Not really, one is for religious reasons, the other is just being a chav.

Yester

whisky_galore wrote: »

Maybe he did it for religious reasons....

A Brother of the Hood.

kennethsmyth

dotsman wrote: »

Ideally, the scumbag should have been beaten from the store.

However, this is Ireland, where security guards are the ones who get fcuked over if the poor criminal has their feelings hurt.

How do you know he was a scumbag, op said he was mid 30's and harmless looking. If you want to make unsubstantiated comments maybe look at yourself in a mirror when you call someone that.

pgj2015

maybe he was deaf and didn't know what the mall cop was asking him?

still its always best to beat him out of the shop first and ask questions later.

forestgirl

xhomelezz wrote: »

What are the chances of this scenario?

extremely small but it just reminded me when I was in Tesco last year there was a man and I tell you a quarter of his head was missing

xhomelezz

forestgirl wrote: »

extremely small but it just reminded me when I was in Tesco last year there was a man and I tell you a quarter of his head was missing

Shìt happens for sure. And can happen to any of us. So yeah I take your point.

85603

private business, they should have told him to lose the hood or fck right off.

by rights they shouldn't have served him, but i suppose sometimes it just not worth the hassle.

sporina

aren't there lots of places where you are not allowed to wear a hood up? For security reasons I think?

85603

redmgar wrote: »

Not really, one is for religious reasons, the other is just being a chav.

killing/beating/mutiliating someone can be for religious reasons.

killing/beating/mutiliating someone can be because you're a chav.

religious reasons doesn't make something ok.

also the burqa/niqab/face veil is never mentioned in the koran. not once. its not a religious garment, its a bag which was used in ancient mesopotamia to stop rival men from getting a rod from looking at your new wife.

then it disappeared from history.

then the ottomans brought it back.

then it disappeared again.

then these wahabbi/salafist shtbags brought it back.

kennethsmyth

85603 wrote: »

private business, they should have told him to lose the hood or fck right off.

by rights they shouldn't have served him, but i suppose sometimes it just not worth the hassle.

Unless the policy is shown at entrance they will find themselves in a bit of problem once the person is inside - they can refuse entry but once in its a lot harder to take the person out without it being considered assault.

pgj2015

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Unless the policy is shown at entrance they will find themselves in a bit of problem once the person is inside - they can refuse entry but once in its a lot harder to take the person out without it being considered assault.

How do bouncers get away with it so?

85603

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Unless the policy is shown at entrance they will find themselves in a bit of problem once the person is inside - they can refuse entry but once in its a lot harder to take the person out without it being considered assault.

a purchase is a contract.

which requires offer and acceptance.

thatll be 900 euro for the can of coke.

kennethsmyth

85603 wrote: »

a purchase is a contract.

which requires offer and acceptance.

thatll be 900 euro for the can of coke.

I never said they couldn’t refuse service, I stated removing someone already in the premises that wasn’t stopped on entry ids difficult. You’d need gardai unless the person goes willingly if you want to avoid an action for assault

kennethsmyth

pgj2015 wrote: »

How do bouncers get away with it so?

Ha ha bouncers think they are a law unto themselves, they don’t fear the assault charge “he was drunk judge”

85603

kennethsmyth wrote: »

I never said they couldn’t refuse service, I stated removing someone already in the premises that wasn’t stopped on entry ids difficult. You’d need gardai unless the person goes willingly if you want to avoid an action for assault

as difficult as picking up a phone.

a security worker can detain you for damage or theft.

pgj2015

kennethsmyth wrote: »

I never said they couldn’t refuse service, I stated removing someone already in the premises that wasn’t stopped on entry ids difficult. You’d need gardai unless the person goes willingly if you want to avoid an action for assault

There is a big difference between assault and escorting someone off the premises. also it would be all on camera if an accusation of assault is ever made.

realdanbreen

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

When I opened a thread about an 'Incident in Tesco today' I was expecting to read about an incident in Tesco today.

What day did you open it?

pgj2015

pgj2015 wrote: »

There is a big difference between assault and escorting someone off the premises. also it would be all on camera if an accusation of assault is ever made.

Its not that straightforward. An assault can be as simple as putting your hands on someone. Assault and assault causing harm are distinct things.

Detention is another tricky matter, and this one is loosely defined. Detention could be as simple as being stopped by security. If you detain someone, and it later emerges you were wrong, honestly-held and reasonably-held suspicions are no defence.

Point I'm making is that security staff have to be very careful in everything they do.

pgj2015

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Its not that straightforward. An assault can be as simple as putting your hands on someone. Assault and assault causing harm are distinct things.

Detention is another tricky matter, and this one is loosely defined. Detention could be as simple as being stopped by security. If you detain someone, and it later emerges you were wrong, honestly-held and reasonably-held suspicions are no defence.

Point I'm making is that security staff have to be very careful in everything they do.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.


Bouncers throw hundreds of people out of clubs/pubs, chippers etc every week in Ireland pre covid and I haven't come across many cases of assault against too many bouncers, im sure some of them deserve to be in court as well for assaults on customers of these premises.

pgj2015

pgj2015 wrote: »

2.—
(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.


Bouncers throw hundreds of people out of clubs/pubs, chippers etc every week in Ireland pre covid and I haven't come across many cases of assault against too many bouncers, im sure some of them deserve to be in court as well for assaults on customers of these premises.

of course, there is a defence to assault, it's detaining someone (it seems to be loosely defined) that is more troublesome.

But back to the assault, it's trickier than it looks. Think about how your above highlighted section applies during Covid, for example. Touching someone isn't considered acceptable, or even coming too close to them, in the ordinary course of life.

pgj2015

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

of course, there is a defence to assault, it's detaining someone (it seems to be loosely defined) that is more troublesome.

But back to the assault, it's trickier than it looks. Think about how your above highlighted section applies during Covid, for example. Touching someone isn't considered acceptable, or even coming too close to them, in the ordinary course of life.

The above hasn't changed the definition of assault in Irish law. it might be bad manners to get too close to someone during a pandemic but it isn't assault.

Graces7

Maybe the man was deaf? Just a thought.

Oranage2

Should ask him to leave then refuse service. Nothing much else they can do.

B.A._Baracus

JackTC wrote: »

Earlier today in Tesco a lad came in with his hoody up (Mid-Late 30's, looked harmless).

The security guard asked him to put his hood down and the customer refused and began to shop. The guard continued to follow him around the store asking him to put his hood down and the customer kept refusing.

He only bought a handful of things and left. Should he have taken down the hood or was the security guard out of line?

Can't believe this thread is 6 pages long :P
Like, the reason why security guards ask to pull the hood off is because they don't want someone robbing/shoplifting without showing that mug for the cameras. Security guard has to be seen as doing his job too.

So your man refusing to take off his hood is being a t*at. I get it, who wants to be bothered when you're out getting a few pieces in a shop - but security man is gonna justify his job. So either tell him to f-off and go else where or take off the poxy hood. Instead of this passive aggressive "well i am gonna do what i want, my rights, you have no right blah blah" bs